In the 1980 inaugural issue of the Journal of Operations Management, Powell and Johnson stressed the need to introduce behavioral factors into research models of operational processes and performance. While some progress has been made since then, contemporary authors argue that limited dialogue between operations management and behavioral researchers continues to restrict the interpretability of such studies. Drawing on expertise from both operations and behavioral research, and motivated by a case example, we intend to further this dialogue. In doing so we outline interdisciplinary commonalities and several methodological pitfalls that those studying the links between resource constraints and operational performance should take into account when developing new research. These issues range from appropriate model conceptualization to operationalization for empirical studies. Recommendations for appropriately confronting methodological concerns related to these issues are provided.

We sought to examine the concept of authentic leadership and discuss the influences of authenticity and authentic leadership on leader and follower eudaemonic well-being, as well as examine the processes through which these influences are realized. This was accomplished in four ways. First, we provide an ontological definition of authentic leadership, rooted in two distinct yet related philosophical approaches to human well-being: hedonism and eudaemonia. Second, we develop a multi-component model of authentic leadership based on recent theoretical developments in the area of authenticity. The resulting model consists of self-awareness, unbiased processing, authentic behavior/acting and authentic relational orientation. Third, we discuss the personal antecedents (leader characteristics) of authentic leadership as well as the outcomes of authentic leadership for both leaders and followers and examine the processes linking authentic leadership to its antecedents and outcomes. Fourth, we discuss the implications of this work for authentic leadership theory and then provide some practical implications for developing authentic leaders.

This study developed and tested a theory-based measure of authentic leadership using five

Measurement in software production is essential for understanding, controlling, and improving the development process. Past research has emphasized the importance of a disciplined data collection process as a prerequisite for a sound, solid, and useful analysis. This article presents motivations and impediments of non-invasive measurement techniques, also using the theory of self-determination. Special attention is given to the consequences of noninvasive measurement on measured individuals in terms of participation to the measurement process and of the overall the work motivation. 1.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

The increasing emphasis on team-based knowledge work, or work that involves a significant investment of intellectual capital by a group of skilled professionals, is forcing us to expand our traditional models of leadership, as vested in one individual, to encompass more complex models of leadership. Although teams are an increasingly prevalent aspect of organizations, they often fail to live up to their potential. These disappointing outcomes may be attributed in part to an inability to smoothly coordinate team members ’ actions and a lack of effective leadership to guide this process. Recently, both self-leadership and shared leadership have garnered an increasing amount of attention from researchers and practitioners interested in how to foster more effective teams. These two theories, albeit from different levels of analysis, explicitly focus on the need for novel approaches to leadership that address the new challenges that organizations face as they flatten, diversify, and confront increasingly complex problems. However, there has been little theoretical or empirical attention devoted to the relationship between these two theories. Accordingly, we develop a meso-level theoretical model that outlines the relationship between self- and shared leadership, focusing on the

This paper discusses psychological safety and distinguishes it from the related construct of interpersonal trust. Trust is the expectation that others ' future actions will be favorable to one's interests; psychological safety refers to a climate in which people are comfortable being (and expressing) themselves. Although both constructs involve a willingness to be vulnerable to others ' actions, they are conceptually and theoretically distinct. In particular, psychological safety is centrally tied to learning behavior, while trust lowers transactions costs and reduces the need to monitor behavior. This paper proposes a model of antecedents and consequences of psychological safety in work teams and emphasizes the centrality of psychological safety for learning behavior. Drawing from field research in a variety of organizational settings, I describe different approaches to studying and measuring psychological safety in teams. I conclude with implications of this work including limitations of psychological safety in practice and suggestions areas for future research. 1 There's much greater openness on this team—it's intangible.- Marketing member, new product development team, manufacturing company [In this team] people are put down for being different...- Accountant, publications team, manufacturing company Mistakes [in this unit] are serious, because of the toxicity of the drugs—so you’re never afraid to tell the nurse manager.- Nurse, Team A, Memorial Hospital [The team leader] treats you as guilty if you make a mistake... I was called into her office and made to feel like a two-year old... You get put on trial...- Nurse, Team B, Memorial Hospital

The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of the Intercollegiate Center for Management

Using a critical review and empirical reanalysis of the published data on the relationship between psychological empowerment and employee performance, our study reports tha t compelling evidence in support of direct, positive and significant effects of employee empowerment programs is lacking. In order to understand this weak relationship and to identify possible conditions that are likely to enhance the relationship between empowerment and performance, three potential ideas are suggested including (1) an alternative modeling of empowerment, (2) attending to a source of misspecification in conceptualizing empowerment itself, and (3) considering alternative dependent variables that may contribute to organizational effectiveness.

Organizational initiatives to strengthen customer orientation among front-line service workers abound, and have led many commentators to speak of the re-constitution of service work. These interventions rest on managers ’ assumptions about what engenders the desired customer-oriented behaviours among employees. We evaluate those assumptions in the context of a major change initiative in a supermarket firm. The logic of the programme mirrors key precepts in the contemporary management literature. These are that management behaviour, job design and values-based training can produce a sense of empowerment among employees, and that empowerment will generate prosocial customer-oriented behaviour. Using data from a large scale employee survey, we test the validity of those assumptions. Employees who perceived management behaviour in a positive light and who had participated in values-based training were more likely to feel empowered (ie to have internalized prosocial service values and to feel a sense of competence and autonomy on the job). Psychological empowerment was, in turn, positively related to the customer-oriented behaviour of workers. This study, therefore, provides support for key assumptions underlying HRM theory and