Organizational Psychology Review

This paper examines the relation of individual perceptual, conscious, and self-regulatory processes to the generation of requisite complexity in formal and informal leaders. Requisite complexity is a complex adaptive systems concept that pertains to the ability of a system to adjust to the requirements of a changing environment by achieving equivalent levels of complexity. We maintain that requisite complexity has both static and dynamic aspects that involve four domains (general, social, self, and affective complexity), with each being more or less important for leaders depending upon the task requirements they face. Dynamic complexity draws on these static components and also creates new aspects of complexity through the interaction of mental processes. The implications of these issues for understanding leader adaptation and development are also discussed.

Personnel selection procedures such as assessment centers, structured interviews, and personality inventories are useful predictors of candidates' job performance. In addition to existing explanations for their criterion-related validity, we suggest that candidates' ability to identify the criteria used to evaluate their performance during a selection procedure contributes to the criterion-related validity of these procedures. Conceptually, the ability to identify criteria can be framed in the broader literature on peoples' ability to read situational cues. We draw on both theory and empirical research to outline the potential this ability has to account for selection results and job performance outcomes. Finally, implications for future research are presented.

While research on affect in organizations has flourished, affect has tended to be approached in a piecemeal or asymmetrical fashion. Traditionally, researchers have focused on potential benefits of positive affect or potential downsides of negative affect. This paper suggests that both positive and negative affect are functional and adaptive and should be considered in tandem or from a dual-tuning perspective (George & Zhou, 2007). Positive and negative emotions are automatically and adaptively triggered in response to stimuli that have implications for well-being. Evolutionary psychology, the social-functionalist perspective, the nature of organizing, antecedents of emotions, emotional ambivalence, and the positivity offset and negativity bias all suggest that positive and negative emotions should be considered from a dual-tuning perspective. The effects of positive and negative mood on cognitive processes, motivation, and effort support a dual-tuning approach to mood. Implications of a dual-tuning approach for understanding affect in organizations are discussed.

Despite the public’s growing dissatisfaction with unethical behavior in modern organizations, research suggests that individuals who blow the whistle in an attempt to stop illicit activity often suffer retaliation at the hands of those who stand to benefit from the wrongdoing. To date, relatively little work has been undertaken exploring the boundary conditions and mechanisms for when and why retaliation occurs, with perceived differences in power and resource dependence between the whistleblower and retaliator being offered as the primary explanations. In this article, we attempt to build upon this theoretical foundation by introducing cognitive (i.e., moral disengagement) and affective (i.e., moral emotions) mechanisms as underlying drivers of the whistleblowing–retaliation relationship. Additionally, we use the theoretical lens of system justification theory to explore how perceived threats to an individual’s ego, group, and/or system heighten cognitive and affective responses that drive an individual to retaliate in seemingly paradoxical ways. Implications for practice and future research directions are discussed.