THE ESSENTIAL IMPACT OF CONTEXT ON...

THE ESSENTIAL IMPACT OF CONTEXT ONORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR

GARY JOHNSConcordia University

I argue that the impact of context on organizational behavior is not sufficientlyrecognized or appreciated by researchers. I define context as situational opportunitiesand constraints that affect the occurrence and meaning of organizational behavior aswell as functional relationships between variables, and I propose two levels ofanalysis for thinking about context—one grounded in journalistic practice and theother in classic social psychology. Several means of contextualizing research areconsidered.

Imagine conducting a research study in whichyou expect variable x to cause variable y butinstead discover that y causes x. Imagine doinga study in which you anticipate a strong positiverelationship between two variables but insteadfind a strong negative relationship. Imagineconducting an investigation in which the baserate of some crucial organizational behaviorvaries by a ratio of 35:1 between subsamples.Surprises of this nature should surely captureour attention, and they are frequently a productof our failure to consider contextual influencewhen doing research.

My purpose in this article is to provide anoverview of how context affects organizationalbehavior and how research can be better “con-textualized.” According to Rousseau and Fried,“Contextualization entails linking observationsto a set of relevant facts, events, or points ofview that make possible research and theorythat form part of a larger whole” (2001: 1). Theyassert that such contextualization can informhypothesis development, site selection, mea-surement choice, data analysis and interpreta-tion, and the reportage of research.

Previous treatments of the impact of contexton organizational behavior, although helpful,

have tended to be somewhat ad hoc or orientedtoward a particular aspect of context. In thepresent overview I discuss the many faces ofcontext, introduce some important dimensionsof context at two levels of analysis, provide sys-tematic examples of how context affects organi-zational behavior, and suggest some ways tobetter contextualize research.

WHAT IS CONTEXT?

Cappelli and Sherer portray context as “thesurroundings associated with phenomenawhich help to illuminate that [sic] phenomena,typically factors associated with units of analy-sis above those expressly under investigation”(1991: 56). Thus, they describe organizationalcharacteristics as providing context for individ-ual members and the external environment asproviding context for organizations. Mowdayand Sutton characterize context as “stimuli andphenomena that surround and thus exist in theenvironment external to the individual, most of-ten at a different level of analysis” (1993: 198).They go on to describe context as consisting ofconstraints versus opportunities for behavior,proximal versus distal stimuli, and similarityversus dissimilarity among organizationalmembers. In this essay I define context as situ-ational opportunities and constraints that affectthe occurrence and meaning of organizationalbehavior as well as functional relationships be-tween variables. Context can serve as a maineffect or interact with personal variables suchas disposition to affect organizational behavior.

The essential point made in this article is thatcontext can have both subtle and powerful ef-

Portions of this article were developed while I was visit-ing professor at the Australian Graduate School of Manage-ment, University of New South Wales, and Hooker Distin-guished Visiting Professor at the DeGroote School ofBusiness, McMaster University. Preparation of the articlewas supported by grant 00-ER-0506 from Quebec’s Fondspour la Formation de Chercheurs et l’Aide a la Rechercheand grants 410-2003-0630 and 410-2003-1014 from the SocialSciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Theadvice of anonymous reviewers is much appreciated.

� Academy of Management Review2006, Vol. 31, No. 2, 386–408.

386

fects on research results. Researchers often takefor granted what causes what in their research(friendly staff causes sales), the signs expectedbetween key organizational variables (extraver-sion is positively related to performance), andthe linear nature of the world they study (richerjobs are better). As I will show, there are impor-tant contextual exceptions to such generallytenable inferences.

The Many Faces of Context

The foregoing definitions are admittedlybroad and, thus, somewhat vague. Hence, it isuseful to consider some of the various manifes-tations of context so as to gain a better appreci-ation of how it affects organizational behavior. Ishould emphasize that these manifestations orfacets of context are related rather than inde-pendent.

Context as the salience of situational fea-tures. It is tempting to view context as the sa-lience of situational or environmental featuresto those being studied. Thus, research con-ducted in a particular occupational group (e.g.,Sutton’s [1991] bill collectors) or in the aftermathof a riveting event (e.g., Lieb’s [2003] post Sep-tember 11 job seekers) heightens our sensitivityto potential contextual impact. Indeed, salientsituational features are one common signal ofimpactful context effects and the first place onemight look in trying to contextualize research.However, situational salience is neither suffi-cient nor necessary to ensure contextual impacton organizational behavior. Regarding suffi-ciency, many context effects are subtle in thattheir associated stimuli are not apparent to ac-tors, as later examples concerning social den-sity and social structure will suggest. Regardingnecessity, as will be discussed next, salient sit-uational features can countervail each other,thus limiting their actual impact on organiza-tional behavior.

Context as situational strength. Mischel (1968)reminded behavioral scientists that situationsvary in their capacity to abet or constrain hu-man agency. So-called strong situations, withobvious norms and rigid roles, tend to constrainthe expression of individual differences. Weaksituations permit more latitude or opportunityfor the expression of such differences. In a morecomplex manner, context can be conceived of asa set of situational opportunities for, and coun-

tervailing constraints against, organizationalbehavior (cf. Johns, 1991; Mowday & Sutton,1993). As such, it can be represented as a tensionsystem or force field comprising such opportuni-ties and constraints (Lewin, 1951).

Ross and Nisbett (1991) submit that such aconception of context offers three important in-sights. First, the tension system concept under-lines that constraints can be as important asopportunities in determining the occurrence oforganizational behavior (Johns, 1991; Peters,O’Connor, & Eulberg, 1985). For instance, high-quality training may not transfer to the worksetting if one’s boss does not accept the changesinduced by the training (Fleishman, Harris, &Burtt, 1955). Despite this, most theories in orga-nizational behavior begin by proposing a list ofantecedents of a construct (e.g., commitment, es-calation) that tend to reflect opportunities ratherthan constraints. Second, in contradistinction tothis, the tension system concept also allows forthe fact that a situation may be precariouslyclose to change, given prevailing opportunitiesand constraints.

In combination, these two insights give rise toa third (Ross & Nisbett, 1991): apparently salientcontextual stimuli sometimes have trivial ef-fects, and apparently trivial contextual stimulisometimes have marked effects. Potentiallystrong contextual stimuli can have weak effectswhen the opportunities they presume are coun-tervailed by opposing constraints. Thus, Good-man (1979, 1986) describes how a psychologi-cally impactful conversion to self-managedmining teams had only a small impact on min-ing productivity in the face of technological andgeological (i.e., contextual) constraints. Appar-ently trivial contextual stimuli can have sub-stantial effects when small changes are made ina precariously balanced tension system, result-ing in what Gladwell (2002) refers to in conjunc-tion with social epidemics as a tipping point.Hence, in other work, Goodman (Goodman &Garber, 1988; Goodman & Leyden, 1991) showedthat ostensibly innocuous changes in miningcrew composition (thus affecting crew familiar-ity) had rather marked effects on safety and pro-ductivity, at least by the standards of socialvariables.

Context as a cross-level effect. The definitionssupplied by Cappelli and Sherer (1991) andMowday and Sutton (1993) suggest that contextoften operates as a cross-level effect in which

2006 387Johns

situational variables at one level of analysisaffect variables at another level. Although up-ward effects are certainly possible (consider thecontext that rogue trader Nick Leeson suppliedto the defunct Barings Bank), most cross-levelconceptions of context are top-down, consider-ing the impact of a higher level of analysis on alower level. As such, context can have directeffects at the lower level, as well as moderaterelationships between lower-level variables(Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). For instance, a partic-ular technology shapes the design of variousjobs nested under it. In turn, job design contex-tually moderates the connection betweenworker personality and performance.

Context as a configuration or bundle of stim-uli. As will be illustrated, it is useful to considerdiscrete dimensions of context. Nevertheless, asRousseau and Fried remind us, “A set of factors,when considered together, can sometimes yielda more interpretable and theoretically interest-ing pattern than any of the factors would showin isolation” (2001: 4). A good example is seen in“deadly combinations” of otherwise effective HRpractices (Becker, Huselid, Pickus, & Spratt,1997). For instance, Brown, Fakhfakh, and Ses-sions (1999) found that employee stock owner-ship was more effective in controlling absentee-ism than stock ownership combined with profitsharing, even though both practices were inde-pendently associated with reduced absentee-ism. Fortuitous bundles of HR practices can alsoemerge. MacDufffie (1995) showed that innova-tive HR policies particularly facilitated manu-facturing productivity when they were “bundledtogether” and when they were also combinedwith appropriate work systems and productionbuffers, a synergy that exceeded the additiveeffects of the separate practices. Benson, Fein-gold, and Mohrman (2004) found that the suc-cessful completion of a tuition reimbursementprogram can either increase or decrease subse-quent employee turnover. Completion by itselfled to increased turnover. However, completionaccompanied by a promotion resulted in re-duced turnover. Such sign reversals often signalcontext effects.

Context as an event. Sometimes, a singleevent or happening can punctuate context. Suchevents or happenings most often have beenstudied using qualitative methods, such asBarker’s (1993) study of the conversion of a cir-cuit board manufacturer to self-managed teams

or Elsbach and Kramer’s (1996) study of the re-actions of top U.S. business schools to lower-than-expected Business Week rankings. Quanti-tative research of this type is rare, but severalrecent investigations of the impact of the Sep-tember 11 terrorist attacks on work preferences,attitudes, and behavior are illustrative (Byron &Peterson, 2002; Lieb, 2003; Ryan, West, & Carr,2003).

Context as a shaper of meaning. The variousfaces of context discussed thus far imply that itoften has the potential to shape the very mean-ing underlying organizational behavior and at-titudes. For instance, consider frog pond effects(Firebaugh, 1980), in which one’s relative ratherthan absolute standing in a setting imbuesmeaning to events and processes. Thus, achiev-ing a promotion takes on considerably differentmeaning in a cohort in which the base rate ofpromotion is 90 percent as opposed to 10 percent.Similarly, being an individualist in an individ-ualistic culture might engender different atti-tudes and behavior than being an individualistin a collectivistic culture. Later, we will see howrevisions in employment context changed themeaning of absenteeism among British dock-workers and postal employees.

Context as a constant. Much organizationalbehavior research is cross-sectional and con-ducted at a single level of analysis. Conse-quently, many potential contextual influencesare constants in a particular research study.This is a fact of life in much organizational re-search—part of the “omitted variables” problem.While we cannot study every aspect of contextin a given project, producers and consumers ofresearch can sensitize themselves to how con-text affects organizational behavior, whether ornot it has been formally measured in a givenstudy.

Why Study and Report Context?

Researchers in organizational behaviorshould study and report context for a number ofreasons. Importantly, if we do not understandsituations, we will not understand person-situation interactions. The study of such interac-tions is a distinctive competence of the disci-pline of the field (House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995). Unfortunately, although well-developed taxonomies exist to describe humanabilities and personality, the same cannot be

388 AprilAcademy of Management Review

said for situational or contextual factors (Fred-eriksen, 1972; Hattrup & Jackson, 1996; Kelley etal., 2003). Discussing contemporary personalityresearch, Funder asserts that

for all the arguments that the situation is all-important . . . , little is empirically known or eventheorized about how situations influence behav-ior, or what the basic kinds of situations are (or,alternatively, what variables are useful in com-paring one situation with another) (2001: 211).

The field of organizational behavior, the veryname of which signals the importance of orga-nizational context, may do better, but it still hasmuch to accomplish (Cappelli & Sherer, 1991;Johns, 2001a; Mowday & Sutton, 1993; Rousseau& Fried, 2001), since context effects can be bothsubtle and powerful. I will illustrate such effectslater in the article.

Context is likely responsible for one of themost vexing problems in the field: study-to-study variation in research findings. This isbased on distributional assumptions that con-text will often vary more than individual differ-ences across research sites. Context is also im-plicated in the poorly understood “missinglinkages” (Goodman, 2000) that can explain howindividual or team activity gets translated intolarger organizational outcomes. Context has al-ready been implicated in the explanation ofmany anomalous research findings (Hackman,2003; Johns, 2001a), and such understood “excep-tions to the rule” have tremendous value addedin understanding organizational behavior. Anumber of illustrations are provided in this pa-per.

Another reason for studying and reportingcontext is that it helps us to better convey theapplications of our research. Managers andother potential consumers of this research careabout context, and being sensitive to this per-mits more authentic and authoritative commu-nication with this audience (Johns, 1993). Text-book authors often find themselves facing twosolitudes, drawing theory from the scholarly lit-erature and then having to resort to the businesspress for “applications.” Much of the recurringangst concerning the relevance of managementresearch (e.g., the December 2001 issue of theBritish Journal of Management) might be asmuch a matter of acontextual packaging as oflack of relevance. The point is not that managerswill read better-contextualized research reports.Rather, it is that we as scholars will be better

able in our teaching and popular writing to de-scribe research settings with which our audi-ences can identify.

It appears that better-contextualized articles,despite their comparative rarity, have been dis-proportionately represented in Academy ofManagement Journal Best Article Awards andAcademy of Management Organizational Be-havior Division Outstanding PublicationAwards (e.g., Barker, 1993; Dutton & Dukerich,1991; Mitchell & Lee, 2001; Sutton & Rafaeli, 1988).If such awards are thought to presage impact onthe field, they surely signal the value of atten-tion to context.

Don’t We Study Context Now?

It might be argued that organizational behav-ior researchers frequently study contextual fea-tures such as job design, role relationships, andreward systems. This is true, but the assertiondeserves substantial qualification. The point be-ing made here is not that context is never stud-ied. Rather, it is that its influence is often unrec-ognized or underappreciated. Langfred (2000)studied workgroup effectiveness in a Danishmilitary regiment and an Illinois social serviceagency. Although he helpfully alerted readers tothis rather salient contrast in contexts, no spe-cific mention was made of the fact that the cor-relation between two of the study’s three keyvariables (social cohesiveness and group effec-tiveness) was .28 in the social service agencyand �.65 among the Danish soldiers. Such dra-matic sign reversals are often a symptom ofcontext effects.

The fruits of extant research on work contextare often ignored unless they are a declared,substantive aspect of a particular researchstudy. In addition, such contextual features areoften studied in a piecemeal fashion, in isola-tion from each other. When aspects of context,such as job design, are the focus of a study,other salient contextual features, such as thereward system, are often unmeasured and un-mentioned. (If they are measured, researchersoften use them as control variables, “controllingaway” context rather than assessing its impactempirically.)

This disjointed consideration of the contextualforce field is unhelpful, as the previous discus-sion of deadly and fortuitous combinations ofHR practices illustrates. Although such reduc-

2006 389Johns

tionism is warranted when examining the finepoints of context, it is also responsible for theweak and variable relationships observed inmany studies, especially when countervailingconstraints are not considered. Below, I showthat some of the more dramatic examples ofcontext effects pertain to occupational and tem-poral context, surrogates for larger configura-tions of more specific situational stimuli.

Earlier, I argued that events or happeningsmight represent important contextual influ-ences. Despite this, research in organizationalbehavior is seldom timely enough to capture theimpact of such events as the Enron meltdown orthe September 11 tragedy. Complicating mat-ters, the contextual description contained in thetypical research report in organizational behav-ior is pallid (Johns, 1993). This is ironic, becauseastute researchers often can describe organiza-tional context even in the absence of its precisemeasurement, something that cannot be said forindividual differences, cognitions, and disposi-tions, all of which are hidden from direct scru-tiny. Nevertheless, many field studies are de-scribed with the parsimony properly reservedfor experimental simulations—enterprises re-moved from time or place. This deprives au-thors, enterprising readers, and future meta-analysts of opportunities to cogitate aboutpotential contextual influences. For instance, re-search reports frequently omit details about HRpolicies concerning work schedules (e.g., flex-time), work-family initiatives, attendance con-trols, and the like. Such policies provide con-straints on and opportunities for observedresearch results.

Research on employee turnover, selection,and performance appraisal illustrates a fre-quent lack of concern with context. The occur-rence of turnover is influenced by economic con-ditions, and the mere rate of this occurrenceaffects the size of its correlates (Cappelli &Sherer, 1991). Yet both Carsten and Spector(1987) and Williams and Livingstone (1994) hadto contact authors to find out when and wheretheir turnover studies were conducted in order toconduct meta-analyses of the impact of unem-ployment rates on turnover.

Although leaving an organization frequentlyis portrayed theoretically as a process, Steel(2002) points out that in most studies of turnoverresearchers employ a static cohort design thatignores contextual influence that varies with

time. Consequently, people at different stages ofthe turnover process (e.g., the newly dissatisfiedversus those holding a written offer from an-other firm) are lumped together, despite the factthat they should be differentially conversantwith the external labor market and other contex-tual stimuli (Mitchell & Lee, 2001) that impingeupon the decision to quit.

Related to this, there are almost no studies ofwhere people go when they quit, a sure violationof the principle that context represents con-straints and opportunities. This unnatural, acon-textual bounding of time and space foregoes theconsiderable advantage of studying wholeevents and processes (see below). Finally, al-though turnover constitutes removal from a so-cial system, the role of social influence on thebehavior has barely been studied, except indi-rectly in some diversity/demography researchand a handful of social network studies (Johns,2001b).

Despite a concern for application, tool-oriented research in industrial-organizationalpsychology and human resources has not givenenough attention to context. In particular, inmuch research on selection and performanceappraisal, researchers have ignored the socialcontext in which various techniques and instru-ments are applied. Equally important, they havealso assumed a very narrow, nonsystemic con-ception of what the functions or outcomes ofthese processes should be (good hires, accurateassessment). As detailed below, this very nar-row conception of “the” appropriate dependentvariable is a recipe for context blindness. To besure, there is now research on applicant reac-tions to selection procedures, and it shows thatapplicants are quite sensitive to test type, ex-planations or lack thereof for decisions, andother contextual variables that are ignored inthe typical validity study (Ryan & Ployhart,2000). There is also a small amount of work onthe impact of liking and politics on performanceappraisals (e.g., Duarte, Goodson, & Klich, 1993).Still, in most appraisal research, scholars seemto assume that managers and other raters wantto provide conventionally accurate appraisals,desire no other outcomes, and have no othergoals in making ratings, all dubious assump-tions when accountability and social context areconsidered (cf. Tetlock, 2000). For instance, Fried,Levi, Ben-David, and Tiegs (1999) found that su-pervisors reported they would deliberately in-


flate subordinate performance appraisals to theextent that documentation of performance wassparse and the ratings would receive more scru-tiny.

IMPORTANT DIMENSIONS OF CONTEXT

Behavioral scientists have intermittently rec-ognized the dearth of effort devoted to under-standing the dimensionality of the situationalfactors that affect human behavior. Part of theproblem may be the perceived enormity of thetask. For example, Sells (1963) cites a “prelimi-nary” list of 236 elements that might describe a“total stimulus situation.” Although this numberfalls well short of Allport’s (1937) list of 17,953trait names to describe people, we should re-member that those trait names have been dis-tilled into about five basic dimensions of per-sonality that exhibit relevance for understandingorganizational behavior (e.g., Barrick & Mount,1991). Such empirical distillation has yet to occurin the domain of organizational context. Thus, Ioffer here some examples of what appear to beimportant contextual variables for organizationalbehavior—talking points to begin a discussion ofcontext. In combination, they constitute a forcefield or tension system (Lewin, 1951; Ross & Nis-bett, 1991), the net effect of which shapes organi-zational behavior.

It is useful to consider two levels of analysiswhen thinking about context. One level mightbe termed omnibus context and the other dis-crete context. The term omnibus refers to anentity that comprises many features or particu-lars. Thus, it refers to context broadly consid-ered. Discrete context, however, refers to theparticular contextual variables or levers thatshape behavior or attitudes. Discrete contextcan be viewed as nested within omnibus contextsuch that the effects of omnibus context are me-diated by discrete contextual variables or theirinteractions, thus reflecting Rousseau andFried’s (2001) configural portrayal of context.Discrete contextual variables might apply toany level of analysis, from individuals to indus-tries. Nevertheless, a mesotype relationship(House et al., 1995) is implied in which discretecontextual variables provide the explanatorylink between more descriptive and general om-nibus context and specific organizational be-havior and attitudes.

Omnibus Context

In thinking about the important dimensions ofomnibus context, I was guided by the fact thatseveral prominent scholars in the organization-al sciences have asserted that good research“tells a story” (e.g., Daft, 1983, 1995; Huff, 1999).Although Daft favors simple research designsthat have the quality of poems rather than nov-els, I think, when it comes to context, that thereis considerable merit in also thinking of re-search as a parallel to journalism. It is an axiomof good journalistic practice that a story de-scribes who, what, when, where, and why to thereader, thus putting recounted events in theirproper context. Assuming that what constitutesthe substantive content of the research, moreattention to the remaining journalistic princi-ples in both designing and reporting researchwill reap the benefits to be derived from thecareful consideration of context. As illustratedin the upper portion of Figure 1, the who heuris-tic refers to occupational and demographic con-text, the where heuristic refers to the location ofthe research site (region, culture, industry), thewhen heuristic refers to the time (absolute andrelative) at which the research was conducted orresearch events occur, and the why heuristicrefers to the rationale for the conduct of theresearch or the collection of research data.

At first, it might seem strange to consider whois being studied as a contextual variable. How-ever, use of the who heuristic alerts us to theoccupational and demographic context in whichall organizational members find themselves em-bedded. Thus, the who variable concerns bothdirect research participants and those who sur-round them. Gender provides a good example.The distribution of the sexes in the workplacecan be a potent if subtle contextual variable.Furthermore, men and women often face verydifferent work and nonwork contexts such thatseparate models may be required to adequatelydescribe their attendance patterns and their ca-reer advancement (Johns, 2001a). One suspectsthat the frequent practice of controlling for thewho variable in much organizational behaviorresearch simply washes out salient contextualinfluence.

Researchers could do a better job of reportingwhen their data were collected and reflecting onthe role of temporal factors in their research.Time represents context in at least two senses.

2006 391Johns

First, it is a surrogate for environmental stimulioccurring when the research is conducted(Johns, 2001a). Second, time affects the web ofsocial and economic relationships that sur-rounds any aspect of organizational behavior, apoint well recognized by researchers who dealwith product life cycles. Key contextual condi-tions underlying time effects include seculartrends, changing institutional patterns, evolvingtechnology, major organizational change, socialmaturity effects, and accrued feedback as acourse of action unfolds.

Wagner and Gooding (1987) determined thatsocietal trends over time (1950–1985) affectedboth the conduct and the results of employeeparticipation research, including questionsasked, methods employed, and effect sizes re-ported. Tansey and Hyman (1992) illustrate howa mildly deviant but mundane behavior—absence from work—was reframed as an indus-trial menace during World War II, with U.S. adcampaigns translating absenteeism into liveslost on the front. Simply thinking about suchissues (in this case, how context changes themeaning of an innocuous work behavior) cansensitize researchers to the impact of temporalmatters on their work.

Where a research study is conducted can havea marked impact on its results. Prominent medi-ators of the effects of location include economicconditions, racial and social class composition,

and national culture. Respectively, these medi-ators will later be classed as resources, socialstructure, and social influence. For instance,Brief, Butz, and Deitch (2005) explain how theracial composition of communities affects thehuman resources practices of organizations lo-cated therein.

Why information is being collected by a re-searcher or an organization can have a potentcontextual impact on organizational behaviorand associated research. A common mediator isthe extent to which the reason induces feelingsof accountability on the part of respondents (Fer-ris, Mitchell, Canavan, Frink, & Hopper, 1995;Frink & Klimoski, 1998; Tetlock, 1985, 1992, 1999).This accountability may, in turn, be tied to re-source implications. Both supply constraints onand opportunities for what is likely to be found.A clear example is provided by a meta-analysisby Jawahar and Williams (1997), showing thatperformance appraisals made for administra-tive purposes were one-third of a standard de-viation more favorable than those made for de-velopmental or research purposes. Evidently,raters faced with having to convey career-affecting news to subordinates or having theirown leadership talent assessed by superiorsadopt a mode of leniency.

Later, I illustrate the power of context withreference to several of these omnibus dimen-sions. In part, this power stems from their incor-

FIGURE 1Some Important Dimensions of Context


poration of several discrete contextual levers,the subject to which I now turn.

Discrete Context

Discrete context refers to specific situationalvariables that influence behavior directly ormoderate relationships between variables. Thelower portion of Figure 1 shows that salient di-mensions of discrete context include task con-text, social context, and physical context (cf. Hat-trup & Jackson, 1996; Mowday & Sutton, 1993). Asshown, examples of task context include auton-omy, uncertainty, accountability, and resources;examples of social context include social den-sity, social structure, and direct social influence;and examples of physical context include tem-perature, light, the built environment, and decor.

As noted earlier, the elements of these threedimensions can be seen as mediating omnibuscontext in a mesolike manner. Thus, knowingsomeone’s occupation often permits reasonableinferences about his or her task, social, andphysical environment at work, which, in turn,can be used to predict behavior and attitudes.Tellingly, Hackman (2003) specifically cites gov-ernment regulation, the culture of flying, andcockpit design as severely constraining the lat-itude of airlines to innovate in the design andmanagement of aircrews. Respectively, thesevariables correspond to task, social, and physi-cal context, all aligned so as to constrain ratherfacilitate innovation.

Also, as noted earlier, countervailing influ-ences among contextual variables are common,and this is especially well illustrated by consid-ering discrete context. For instance, direct socialinfluence has often been shown to countervailanother critical contextual variable: the avail-ability of valued resources. Thus, informal pro-ductivity norms have been shown to constrainproductivity in the face of the temptations ofpiece-rate pay (Homans, 1950), and groups havebeen shown to forego absolute profit maximiza-tion to maximize their gain (and thus assert so-cial dominance) over an outgroup (Tajfel &Turner, 1986).

The elements of physical context derive fromenvironmental psychology, and I will not con-sider them further other than to agree with Pfef-fer (1997) that their impact on organizational be-havior is understudied. The elements of taskand social context are not meant to be in any

way exhaustive, but those listed are argued tobe important contextual variables. This impor-tance is inferred from a combination of two fac-tors: (1) operation at multiple levels of analysisand theoretical pervasiveness, and (2) appear-ance in classic social psychology research ma-nipulations.

Operation at multiple levels of analysis andtheoretical pervasiveness. Some measure of theimportance of a discrete contextual variable canbe inferred from its appearance at more thanone level of analysis. Such an appearance cansignal either isomorphism or functional equiva-lence across levels (cf. House et al., 1995). In turn,important similar or identical contextual vari-ables also surface in a variety of organizationalbehavior theories. Multilevel tractability andtheoretical pervasiveness are not violations ofthe spirit of the argument that context has beendownplayed. Despite their importance, the vari-ables to be discussed generally are not consid-ered in research designs and reports unless theyare a specific object of study. Also, in compari-son to intrapsychic personal constructs, one lessoften finds reviews of the literature or meta-analyses based around contextual variables ortheoretical syntheses that map their connec-tions across levels or theories, in the spirit of theLatin root of the word context as knitting to-gether (Rousseau & Fried, 2001).

Among the task variables, consider uncer-tainty: environmental uncertainty, a constructassociated with macroorganizational theory(Duncan, 1972; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), and roleambiguity, a construct associated with micro or-ganizational behavior (Katz & Kahn, 1978), sharea set of features that render them isomorphicacross levels—difficult diagnosis, risky predic-tion, and unclear cause-effect relationships.Thus, uncertainty is a contextual variable thataffects everything from individual informationprocessing and decision making (e.g., leader-ship theory; Vroom & Jago, 1988) to how organi-zations transact with their institutional environ-ments (e.g., neoinstitutional theory; Oliver, 1991).Among the faces of context discussed earlier,uncertainty is particularly implicated as ashaper of meaning. When matters are more un-certain, a variety of meanings can be attachedto situational stimuli. One consequence is thatinterpretations of the situation can be more dis-cretionary. Hence, I previously reviewed re-search showing that uncertain contexts prompt

2006 393Johns

self-serving behavior among individuals,groups, and organizations (Johns, 1999).

The degree of autonomy, or freedom of action,that an individual, team, or organization has isone of the most omnipresent contextual factors.Thus, themes of autonomy and control resonatein many areas of organizational behavior. Thereason for this theoretical pervasiveness canagain be seen in one of the several faces ofcontext—the provision of constraints on and op-portunities for the occurrence of behavior. Lim-ited autonomy constitutes a “strong situation”(Mischel, 1968) that constrains behavior, reduc-ing the impact of individual differences. Con-versely, ample autonomy is a key opportunityfactor fostering human agency in theories of mo-tivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985), innovation (Parker,Wall, & Jackson, 1997), stress management(Karasek, 1979), and empowerment (Spreitzer,1995). This is because it permits knowledge ormotives to find expression in behavior. For in-stance, Parker et al. (1997) demonstrate that jobautonomy provides the opportunity necessaryfor knowledge of innovative work practices to beconverted into actual changes in role orienta-tion.

Accountability is the requirement to defend orjustify an action or decision to some interestedaudience (Frink & Klimoski, 1998). The theme ofaccountability pervades many topic areas atseveral levels in the organizational sciences,including those concerned with roles, ethics,agency, corporate governance, performance ap-praisal, and compensation (Ferris et al., 1995;Frink & Klimoski, 1998). Considering the faces ofcontext, changes in accountability are often im-portant events that considerably alter the mean-ing that is attached to behavior. For instance,Hammer, Landau, and Stern (1981) studied theconversion of a manufacturing plant from corpo-rate to employee ownership. Although the totalvolume of absenteeism exhibited was equiva-lent before and after the conversion, the reasonsfor absence provided to HR personnel changeddrastically, with many more “legitimate” rea-sons being invoked under employee ownership.Accountability to one’s self and one’s coworkerswas made salient by the conversion, and itchanged the meaning of absenteeism from ca-sual deviance to serious business that de-manded legitimation.

Resources constitute a fourth important di-mension of task context and variously include

money, time, information, esteem, and so on.The availability of resources and the contingen-cies by which resources are linked to behaviorhave been shown to have a profound impact onindividuals, groups, and organizations. Hence,resources figure prominently in microlevel (e.g.,equity), mesolevel (e.g., agency), and macrolevel(e.g., resource dependence) organizational theo-ries. Cappelli and Sherer (1991) assert that oneresource that is often overlooked in organization-al behavior research concerns the external labormarket—particularly, the availability of jobs.For example, the occurrence of both turnoverand absenteeism is inversely related to unem-ployment levels (Hulin, Roznowski, & Hachiya,1985; Markham, 1985). In turn, this affects thebase rates of these behaviors, a fact that in andof itself influences the size of their correlates.Furthermore, in labor markets that are more mu-nificent with employment alternatives, employ-ees are freer to act in line with their attitudestoward their current jobs. Thus, Carsten andSpector (1987) found that the relationship be-tween job satisfaction and turnover was morestrongly negative under conditions of lower un-employment, when other jobs were more readilyavailable. Notice that job availability will varywith the omnibus contextual dimensions of timeand location, and it illustrates both the cross-level and situational strength aspects of context.

Social context is a second key dimension ofdiscrete contextual influence. It can range fromthe more passive examples of social density (thelocation of others in space) and social structure(the differentiation of those others by tenure,gender, ingroup/outgroup status, and so on; Pfef-fer, 1991) to direct social influence (cf. Ferris &Mitchell, 1987), as effected by norms, communi-cation, persuasion, and other such mechanisms.Hackman (1992) would describe social densityand structure as involving ambient social stim-uli and direct social influence as involving dis-cretionary social stimuli. Kelley et al. (2003) sub-mit that the more interpersonal aspects of socialcontext are grounded in the degree of interde-pendence of outcomes, degree of informationsharing, and the serial ordering of interactionepisodes.

Many examples of social context effects areprovided in the following section. Therefore, Iforego examples here other than to illustrate themultilevel, multitheory appearance of the mostbasic aspect of social context: social density. For


instance, this variable appears in theories ofhelping (e.g., the number of people in a room),relational demography (e.g., the number ofwomen in an organization), and population ecol-ogy (e.g., the number of hotels in a city).

Appearance in classic social psychology re-search manipulations. Another signal of the im-portance of various discrete task and social con-textual variables is found in the powerfulmanipulations that have been perfected in clas-sic experiments in social psychology. Althoughsocial psychological experiments are some-times criticized for not paying enough attentionto the complexity of context as represented inthe natural world, they do serve as striking pro-totypes for examining the bald impact of iso-lated contextual levers. In fact, Ross and Nisbettclaim that “the first and most basic contribu-tion” of social psychology “concerns the powerand subtlety of situational influences on behav-ior” (1991: xiv).

As an example, consider Asch’s (1952) classicseries of studies on social conformity, in whichnaive research participants judged the relativelength of lines in the presence of deceptive ex-perimental confederates. This and subsequentresearch show the power of context in shapingconformity. Thus, allowing participants to ren-der their judgments secretly, consequently re-ducing accountability to the confederates, ap-preciably reduces conformity to a false norm.The same effect can be observed when the stim-ulus lines are made very different in length, thusreducing uncertainty. The presence of socialmodels also has a strong impact on conformityto a false norm. Up to a point, the more confed-erates who support the false norm, the morelikely the naive participant will be to comply,but a fellow dissenter will strongly reduce suchconformity. Respectively, these effects revealthe impact of social density and social structure.

Social density and social structure effects areamong the most subtle context effects, and theycan be observed under strikingly minimal cir-cumstances. For instance, as early as 1897, Trip-lett demonstrated how the mere presence of oth-ers increased the rate of simple motorresponses, such as winding fishing line. Later,Zajonc (1965) showed how this social facilitationeffect was itself contingent on another key con-textual feature: the nature of the task, particu-larly uncertainty. While the mere presence of

others stimulates the performance of simple orwell-learned tasks, it inhibits the performanceof difficult or unfamiliar tasks. As will be seenshortly, this opposition of signs is a frequentsignature of context effects. The mere presenceof others also underlies the social loafing ef-fect—the tendency to withhold effort when per-forming simple tasks in groups of increasingsize (Kidwell & Bennett, 1993; Shepperd, 1993).

As a final example, many classic social psy-chology experiments have manipulated contextvia the use of resources, such as money, time,status, esteem, and information. For instance,the whole area of insufficient justification wasprompted by the counterintuitive finding thatpeople who were paid less money to fabricate atestimony came to believe in it more than thosewho were paid more to do so (Festinger & Carl-smith, 1959). This effect is generally assumed tobe mediated by autonomy such that greater at-titude change occurs under conditions of freechoice rather than extrinsic reward. In anothersocial psychology classic, Darley and Batson(1973) showed how the contextual resource oftime affects altruism, a behavior popularly at-tributed to disposition. Seminarians experimen-tally induced to be pressed for time were muchless likely to help a distressed citizen than thosewho had ample time before an appointment.Thus, lack of time constrained an altruistic re-sponse, and ample time provided an opportunityfor such a response.

WHAT CONTEXT DOES

Thus far, I have discussed various faces ofcontext, argued that it deserves more researchattention, and presented some important dimen-sions of context. In what follows I present anumber of examples of context effects, showingwhat context does to organizational behaviorand how it affects scientific inferences aboutthis behavior. These effects are not indepen-dent, and the first, restriction of range, often setsthe stage for other effects. Most examples con-cern omnibus context. Although I occasionallycall attention to discrete contextual variablesthat presumably underlie these omnibus effects,the examples are not confined to the variablesdiscussed earlier.

2006 395Johns

Context Restricts Range

One of the most basic things that context cando is affect the observed range of organizationalvariables under consideration. Restriction ofrange is a particular problem (Johns, 1991; Rous-seau & Fried, 2001). Such restriction can promptnull findings, inconsistencies across studies,and findings that apply to only a portion of theultimate range of an independent or dependentvariable. In an earlier article (Johns, 1991), I il-lustrated that such restriction is often a jointproduct of methodology (e.g., sampling) andsubstance. I then provided copious examples,including how technology constrains work be-havior, how social class limits occupational mo-bility, and how occupations limit need struc-tures—restrictions that have had important (andoften unrecognized) effects on research out-comes.

Industries comprise, among other stimuli,variations in resources, technology, and uncer-tainty, and they are subject to the cyclic effectsof time. Finkelstein and Hambrick (1996) haveshown that industries, thus, vary reliably in theextent to which they restrict the range of ex-ecutive discretion, again illustrating the con-straints and opportunities theme. In an areathat has shown some appreciation for context,organizational culture researchers often extolthe virtues of social influence in enhancingfirm performance. Although culture-perfor-mance relationships have been observed (e.g.,Sheridan, 1992), the existence of “macrocul-tures” grounded in industrial differences(Abrahamson & Fombrun, 1994) sets clear con-straints on this connection. Chatman and Jehn(1994) found more variation in culture betweenindustries than among firms within industries.They implicated industrial differences in re-sources and technology. Similarly, Martin,Feldman, Hatch, and Sitkin (1983) found thatstories purportedly illustrating the unique-ness of organizational cultures were, in fact,strikingly similar across organizations. Morerecently, Nelson and Gopalan (2003) foundsome evidence that national culture con-strains variation in organizational cultures.The contextual imperative suggested by thesefindings stands in sharp contrast to the com-mon view that cultures are shaped essentiallythrough internal processes.

Context Affects Base Rates

As a particular consequence of range restric-tion, context can have a profound effect on thebase rates of key organizational variablesacross occupations or locations, or over time. Inturn, such variations in base rates will have amarked impact on the imputed importance ofthese variables, their meaning to actors and ob-servers, and the inferred significance of theircorrelates. For instance, both frog pond and at-tributional dynamics will suggest very differentmeanings for behavior that is enacted in a con-text in which that behavior is common versusrare. Similarly, for a given true-score relation-ship, behaviors will become less predictable astheir occurrence departs from a 50-50 base rate(i.e., they are either common or rare).

In the domain of occupational context, con-sider “presenteeism,” the tendency to show upfor work even though one is feeling unwell. In alarge stratified sample of Swedish employees,Aronsson, Gustafsson, and Dallner (2000) foundthe percentage of employees reporting presen-teeism ranged from 21 percent (civil engineers)to 65 percent (nursing home aides). In general,the behavior was most prevalent among thosein the caregiving and primary teaching sec-tors—relationship-intensive jobs (with account-ability to fragile clients) that had suffered per-sonnel cutbacks in the years preceding thestudy.

As another example, McEvoy and Cascio(1987), in a meta-analysis of the relationship be-tween performance and turnover, reported an-nual turnover base rates ranging from 3 percentto 106 percent across samples. Such extremevariance, partially a function of occupationalopportunities for and constraints on mobility,has prompted more interest in statistically con-trolling for turnover base rates than in under-standing contextual effects on turnover (Johns,2001b).

Location can also have a marked impact onthe observed occurrence of important organiza-tional behaviors. Kaiser (1998) assembled ab-senteeism rates from a number of nations. In1992 these rates ranged from 1.6 percent in Japanto 7.7 percent in the Netherlands to 11.6 percentin Sweden, a per capita extreme of 7.25:1. Suchcross-national differences are likely under-pinned by national and cultural variations insocial benefits, gender-role differentiation, la-


bor decommodification, work centrality, and theconception of time (Addae & Johns, 2002; Kaiser,1998).

Context Changes Causal Direction

The power of context can be illustrated bydescribing three studies in which the causalarrow between key variables was reversed fromwell-established trends in the literature. Undi-agnosed, such reversals are extremely problem-atic because they prompt theoretical confusionand lead to incorrect inferences for managingorganizational behavior. In each of these stud-ies, omnibus occupational context is implicated.

There is growing research evidence that pos-itive employee attitudes and behaviors canhave a positive effect on customer outcomes andorganizational performance on such dimensionsas profits (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). De-spite this, Ryan, Schmidt, and Johnson (1996)found that both customer satisfaction and a per-formance indicator (loan delinquency) appearedto have a subsequent impact on employee mo-rale, rather than the other way around. The oc-cupational context was customer service in au-tomotive credit offices. As the authors recognized,in this particular business, more occasions for“service” may signal more problematic customers,and happy customers are those with paid install-ments who make things easy for service represen-tatives.

Somewhat similar findings were reported bySutton and Rafaeli (1988), who tested the plausi-ble hypothesis that friendliness on the part ofconvenience store sales staff would boost storesales. Finding in fact that higher-selling storeshad less friendly personnel, the authors usedadditional qualitative and quantitative methodsto zero in on the insight that store pace was thecontextual variable underlying the negative as-sociation—customers demand speed from con-venience stores, and busy locations put staffunder considerable strain. Notice that the occu-pational nuances seen here are unlikely to ap-ply to sales situations that are not predicated onspeed and convenience. Also, notice how theadditional contextual factor of store location isimplicated in these results, since store pace var-ied with location. In both of these studies, it wasthe social context vis-a-vis customers (i.e., socialinfluence) that evidently produced the anoma-lous results.

A final study from another domain illustratesyet again the reversal of causality from a well-established direction. Tharenou (1993) studiedthe job satisfaction and absenteeism of appren-tice electricians. In contrast to the prevailingethos in the literature (Hackett, 1989), her two-wave longitudinal study determined that absen-teeism affected subsequent job satisfaction,rather than the reverse. The occupational con-text of new apprentices probably explains thisresult. Although it takes some time for work at-titudes to galvanize, a few early absences canlead to trouble for highly accountable proba-tionary apprentices, including supervisorywrath, missed exams, and the requirement forworking time to be made up. Thus, absencesaffect subsequent satisfaction. This examplealso highlights how context unfolds over time.

Context Reverses Signs

In addition to reversing causal arrows, contexthas been shown to be diagnostic of opposingsigns between key organizational behavior vari-ables. Tett, Jackson, Rothstein, and Reddon(1999) reviewed evidence regarding the bidirec-tionality of relationships between personalitydimensions and job performance. They con-cluded that such bidirectionality is not uncom-mon and attributed it, in part, to occupationalcontext. Thus, although the general trend is forextraverts and those high in conscientiousnessto be better performers, there are interpretablereversals of this trend grounded in occupationaldifferences. For instance, they suggest that ex-traversion is counterindicated for accountants,for whom professional accountability and lim-ited autonomy in work style are requisite. Theyassert that ignoring such contextual influencecan cancel out underlying personality-perfor-mance relationships. Tett et al. surmise that onefactor underlying the opposing signs phenome-non is that different occupations define goodperformance differently. Thus, implicitly, the cri-terion variable differs across studies. Below, Iargue that using multiple or alternative depen-dent variables is a good way to explore andhighlight the operation of context.

Historical trends often reveal the signchanges that signal decided temporal shifts incontext. In this regard, two British studies showhow contextual changes over time were accom-panied by changes in the meaning of absentee-

2006 397Johns

ism. Turnbull and Sapsford (1992) studied indus-trial relations practices on the British docks overthe years. Of particular concern was the inci-dence of strikes and absenteeism. As the indus-trial relations climate shifted and the essence ofabsenteeism shifted from idiosyncratic self-expression to an entrenched source of industrialconflict, the sign of the relationship betweenstrikes and absenteeism changed from negativeto positive. The authors implicate changes intechnology and a shift from casual to permanentlabor, which resulted in increased employee ac-countability.

Taylor and Burridge (1982) observed a similarsign reversal over the years, in the British PostOffice, in the association between absenteeismrates and medical retirement rates. This change,from strong negative to strong positive, wasthought to reflect unofficial modifications in thestrictness of applying criteria for retirement, ashift in resource availability. Evidently, absen-teeism was first viewed as counterproductivebehavior mitigating against the privilege of re-tirement, and was then viewed as a medicalsymptom justifying retirement. Here, we see ashift in the meaning of behavior over time.

Context Prompts Curvilinear Effects

The presence of curvilinear relationships isfrequently a sign of context effects, with theopposed signs phenomenon appearing in a sin-gle data set. Thus, a quadratic function can re-flect both a positive and a negative relationshipbetween x and y, depending on the range of xunder consideration. If different levels of x con-stitute different work contexts, various restric-tions of range on x may produce substantiallydifferent research results (cf. Johns, 1991; Rous-seau & Fried, 2001), prompting confusion in theliterature.

Xie and Johns (1995) sampled 143 different jobs(classified with the Dictionary of OccupationalTitles), with a good representation of profes-sional, managerial, clerical, and blue collar em-ployees. Results revealed U-shaped relation-ships between emotional exhaustion, a measureof chronic stress, and several self-reported jobcharacteristics. Independent measures of jobcomplexity and occupational prestige revealedsimilar curvilinear relationships with stress.Therefore, the prescriptions for good job designdiffer according to occupational context. In blue

collar and clerical settings, stress appears to bea function of understimulation and boredom. Inprofessional and managerial settings, stress ap-pears to be a function of overstimulation andelevated responsibility. Consequently, at leastin terms of stress, the “blue collar blues” and the“white collar woes” reflect opposing processesdictated by organizational context and medi-ated by job complexity.

Another example in which occupational con-text is signaled by curvilinearity concerns therelationship between employee performanceand turnover. Although the relationship be-tween these two variables is predominantlynegative, a curvilinear relationship has occa-sionally been observed, with higher turnover be-ing exhibited among better and poorer perform-ers (Williams & Livingstone, 1994). There aresome indications that occupational dynamicsunderlie this curvilinearity, with the clarity andvisibility of employment credentials being im-portant moderators (Allen & Griffeth, 2000, 2001).That is, positive relationships between perfor-mance and turnover have been observed insamples that comprise scientists, engineers, ac-ademics, and the like (e.g., Schwab, 1991), pro-fessions in which it is relatively easy to docu-ment superior performance according touniversally recognized criteria, such as patentsand publications.

An important way that time constitutes con-text is via maturity effects in social systems (cf.Campbell & Stanley, 1966). That is, the contextfor group processes changes as time passes.Katz (1982) found that the length of time R&Dteams worked together strongly influenced theirinternal and external communication levels andconsequent project performance. Among“younger” R&D groups, increased time workingas a team was associated with increased per-formance. Among more mature project teams,increased time together was associated with de-creased performance. The proximal discretecontextual variable that provoked this curvilin-earity was team communication patterns (e.g.,intrateam and external professional communi-cation), which closely mirrored the performancedata.

Context Tips Precarious Relationships

As noted earlier, the mechanics of context canbe quite subtle, and small changes in context


often matter greatly. In one version of this, x hasno impact on y over a wide range of x and thenshows a marked impact—a nonlinear effecteasy to miss, given restriction of range and baserate factors. As Gladwell puts it in describingsuch tipping points, “We are more than just sen-sitive to changes in context. We’re exquisitelysensitive to them” (2002: 140).

Research has particularly highlighted thesubtle contextual role of the distribution of thesexes, a joint example of what I earlier termedsocial density and social structure. In general,men and women tend to receive equally favor-able performance appraisals (Latham, Skarlicki,Irvine, & Siegel, 1993). However, this generalitymasks substantial differences in rated perfor-mance depending on the proportion of malesand females in the organizational unit understudy. When women represent a very small pro-portion of a workforce and, thus, assume tokenstatus, their performance appraisals suffer incomparison to men (Pazy & Oron, 2001; Sackett,DuBois, & Noe, 1991). However, as the proportionof women increases, women actually exhibithigher performance than men. The critical pro-portion for the emergence of the token effect isabout 20 percent or fewer women (Pazy & Oron,2001; Sackett et al., 1991), a clear illustration ofGladwell’s (2002) tipping point. This exampleillustrates the interplay between contextual ef-fects. Occupational context affects the base rateof women and men in various organizationalunits. In turn, this base rate conditions the signbetween gender and performance.

Allmendinger and Hackman (1995) observed aconceptually similar tipping point in their studyof professional symphony orchestras. As Hack-man notes:

Life in a homogeneously male orchestra surely isnot much affected by the presence of one or twowomen, especially if they play a gendered instru-ment such as the harp. Larger numbers of women,however, can become a worrisome presence onhigh-status turf that previously had been an ex-clusively male province, engendering intergroupconflicts that stress all players and disrupt thesocial dynamics of the orchestra (2003: 908).

Context Threatens Validity

Cook, Campbell, and Stanley’s much-taughtcompendium of threats to validity (Campbell &Stanley, 1966; Cook & Campbell, 1979) is actu-ally, in part, a caution about how unappreciated

context can taint research results or damage thegeneralizability of those results. Appreciatingthe essential contextual underpinning of manyof these negative outcomes can sensitize re-searchers to how a design that “looks good onpaper” can turn bad in execution.

The operation of time features prominently inthe compendium. This is because Cook et al.recognized that the conduct of an experiment isa process and that processes covary with a se-ries of contextual events that can impinge onone’s research (cf. Rousseau & Fried, 2001). Thus,repeated testing and changes in instrumenta-tion during the research cycle constitute poten-tial contextual impact. For example, Lam andSchaubroeck (2000) studied the reactions of bankemployees to being promoted or passed over forpromotion. In this pre-post design, the perfor-mance of promoted employees was measuredby different supervisors after the promotion,suggesting the potential for an instrumentationartifact. The authors recognized the issue andbrought to bear some additional contextual in-formation to address it.

The distribution of resources and reward con-tingencies also figures strongly among the Cooket al. threats to validity. That is, the basic ideabehind several threats is that outside partiesintervene to distribute resources in a way thatruns counter to the research design, or that re-search participants themselves appropriate re-sources in a way that intrudes on the design. Forinstance, under the diffusion or imitation oftreatment, the control condition somehow be-comes exposed to resources reserved for the ex-perimental group. Thus, Schweiger and DeNisi(1991) reported the need to terminate their fieldexperiment on a realistic merger preview whenelements of the preview were copied by themanager of the control plant. In some settings,research participants may take things into theirown hands, exhibiting compensatory rivalry tosecure resources such as attention or prestige.For instance, one hears anecdotes of workers“competing” with new technology (such as ro-botics) to reinforce their own worth and deni-grate that of the technical innovation.

Matters of social density, structure, and influ-ence figure implicitly in several of the Cook etal. threats to validity. For example, the standardprescription to prevent imitation of the experi-mental treatment, compensatory rivalry, or re-sentful demoralization on the part of a control

2006 399Johns

group is to isolate it physically and information-ally from the experimental group, manipulatingcontext to avoid confound.

Finally, Cook et al. treat threats to externalvalidity as interactions between an experimen-tal treatment and some other factor. Those deal-ing with context include setting � treatment in-teractions (e.g., involving location or occupation)and history � treatment interactions (those in-volving situational changes over time). To takethe most straightforward external validity ex-ample, relationships theorized or found in West-ern cultures might not hold up in non-Westerncultures such that the validity of Western theo-ries is said to be culturally biased.

Based in an experimental paradigm, Cook etal. portray these matters as threats because theyconstitute experimental confounds or unrecog-nized interaction effects. However, in the natu-rally confounded world of correlational field re-search, they also represent opportunities forunderstanding which omnibus and discrete di-mensions of context are likely to be important.

CONTEXTUALIZING OUR RESEARCH

Intersecting the important dimensions of con-text with its effects suggests a number of waysto explore and exploit contextual impact. I sam-ple a few of these here (see also Cappelli &Sherer, 1991; Hackman, 2003; Johns, 2001a; Rous-seau & Fried, 2001) in the domains of researchdesign, measurement, analysis, and reportage.It goes without saying that good theory and fa-miliarity with one’s research site(s) (Daft, 1983)are prerequisites for the success of these contex-tualization tactics.

Research Design

Various research designs can be employed tobetter illuminate context.

Do cross-level/comparative research. Cross-level designs are those that explicitly demon-strate how higher-level situational factors affectlower-level (e.g., individual) behavior and atti-tudes. Such designs are “comparative” whenthey intentionally contrast situations that varyin strength, meaning, or important contextualdimensions such as autonomy or accountability.

Harrison and Price (2003) examined self-reported absenteeism across eleven mundanesocial settings in which there were varied ex-

pectations for attendance (e.g., work, appoint-ments, classes, parties, religious services). Theresulting context � context matrix revealed rea-sonable internal consistency, providing somesupport for the existence of absence proneness.In this study, contextual variation was exploitedto reveal the limits of its own influence. Al-though these situations appear to vary consid-erably in terms of situational strength and ac-countability for attendance, individual differencesstill exerted some consistent influence across set-tings.

Kristensen (1991) examined the use of absen-teeism as a means of coping with stress amongslaughterhouse workers, with an emphasis oncontrasts among fifteen occupational groups.Employees engaged in bucolic “work in stable”averaged only three days of absence a year,whereas those engaged in “slaughtering of pigs,work with knife” averaged nineteen days. Suchdifferences were attributed to variations in jobdesign and pay scheme, with high work pace,low autonomy, and piece-rate pay characteriz-ing the most stressful jobs. Here, differences inoccupational context were exploited to betterunderstand the coping functions of absentee-ism.

Telling examples of cross-level research illus-trate how nonwork context affects workplace be-havior. Virtanen, Nakari, Ahonen, Vahtera, andPentii (2000) discovered that municipal employ-ees in three Finnish towns exhibited decidedlydifferent absence rates and patterns despite do-ing the same work for the same pay. They con-cluded that this was because the towns differedin social class composition (an example of so-cial structure), ranging from lower to middleclass domination. Thus, class-determined socialinfluence led to differences in the perceived le-gitimacy of absenteeism that transcended theactual social class of the employees themselves.

Incidents of workplace aggression are oftenportrayed as stemming from dispositional badapples. However, Dietz, Robinson, Folger, Baron,and Schulz (2003) illustrate that it mattersgreatly where such bad apples live. Specifi-cally, they determined that community violentcrime rates were predictive of plant-level work-place aggression incidents, citing social learn-ing mechanisms as a possible cause. Interest-ingly, perceived plant procedural justice climatewas not correlated with aggression. In a similarvein, Dietz and Nolan (2001) found that U.S. state-


level nonworkplace homicide rates werestrongly correlated with corresponding work-place homicide rates and shared similar re-source-related correlates (e.g., poverty level, di-vorce rates).

Cross-level research and comparative re-search are most likely to elucidate context whenthe discrete contextual levers that are thought tobe responsible for context effects are explicitlytheorized and measured. This has been a partic-ular weakness in much cross-cultural research,in which the mesolevel variables thought to in-tervene between nationality and organizationalbehavior often go unmeasured (Brockner, 2003).Brief et al. (2005) surmise that community envi-ronments affect the racial composition of orga-nizations by socially influencing the prejudicesand stereotypes of organizational decision mak-ers.

Researchers develop psychological and socio-logical constructs to help us understand orga-nizational behavior, but these constructs some-times become ends in and of themselves asobjects of study (cf. Heath & Sitkin, 2001). Thisproblem can be rectified not by abandoning con-structs but by devoting more attention to orga-nizational processes, events, and happenings,which can illuminate context (Rousseau & Fried,2001).

Study processes. Research designs that exam-ine how behavior unfolds over time or how or-ganizations configure themselves to deal withrecurrent problems especially reveal context.Hackett, Bycio, and Guion (1989) had nursescomplete a daily attendance diary and rate po-tential causes of absence each day. Aggregatedcross-sectionally, the results revealed familiarcauses of absence: sickness and problems athome. Analyzed within-person over time, how-ever, Gladwell’s (2002) “exquisite sensitivity” tocontext was apparent. For instance, a singlenurse exhibited a single absence due to thedeath of a friend. Other such unique patterns ofcontextual sensitivity were observed.

One of the most interesting questions in theorganizational sciences is how organizationsmanage to adapt, innovate, and prosper despitethe rather thick catalog of cognitive and socialfoibles documented by behavioral scientists.Gradually, research focused on organizationalprocesses, in addition to cognitive and institu-tional constructs, is showing how context is of-ten manipulated to countervail these foibles.

Heath, Larrick, and Klayman (1998) have re-viewed the cognitive shortcomings that individ-ual decision makers often exhibit, includingfaulty information sampling, self-serving infor-mation processing, overconfidence, and givingundue weight to salient cues. They then providemany examples of “cognitive repairs”—pro-cesses that organizations put in place to dealwith these shortcomings. Many of these repairsare manipulations of constraints designed toforce organizational members to come closer toapproximating idealized rational decision mod-els, often by increasing the salience of account-ability. Examples include strict patient exami-nation protocols for trauma physicians, forcedbuffer time for project schedules, lab meetingsto critique ongoing projects, and a variety ofmore exotic mechanisms. This research revealshow examining constructs in situ, as part oforganizational processes, can clarify how orga-nizations work.

Study events. As noted earlier, one face ofcontext is the occurrence of particular events. Asa mundane example, Smith (1977) shows thatdepartmental job satisfaction levels were corre-lated with departmental absence rates whenconstraints against absence were removed (i.e.,accountability was reduced) because of the oc-currence of a severe snow storm in Chicago.Such a relationship was not observed in snow-free New York. More dramatically, Kushnir,Fried, and Malkinson (2001) studied absentee-ism in the context of a traumatic nationalevent—the assassination of Prime MinisterRabin of Israel. Using a telephone survey shortlyafter the event, they concluded that emotionalreaction to the event was predictive of absentee-ism, especially among women and those pessi-mistic about the future. Again, the study revealshow nonwork context can affect work behavior.

Three timely studies about the impact of theSeptember 11 terrorist attacks on work-relatedmatters illustrate the subtlety of such nonworkcontextual influence. Contrary to speculation inthe popular press and among some recruitersand mental health professionals, the events ap-peared to have had little impact on students’ jobattribute preferences (Lieb, 2003) or on variousemployee work attitudes (Ryan et al., 2003). How-ever, Byron and Peterson (2002) observed amarked increase in absenteeism following theattacks. This suggests an acute, rather thanchronic, reaction among those who were not

2006 401Johns

touched directly by the attacks. It also illustratesthe crucial role of dependent variable choicewhen studying context effects, a topic discussedbelow.

Collect qualitative data. Well-conductedqualitative research has great potential to illu-minate context effects, for at least two reasonshaving to do with circumventing the omittedvariables problem. First, alert qualitative re-searchers can be sensitive to the full range ofdiscrete contextual levers (and their interac-tions) that might affect behavior in a studiedsetting. Second, they can be sensitive to the fullrange of behaviors and attitudes that contextmight affect, often “working backwards” tomake inferences about the situation. As I illus-trate in the next section, an open view aboutwhat constitutes relevant dependent variablesfacilitates contextual sensitivity.

A particular word needs to be offered aboutthe collection and reporting of qualitative datain otherwise quantitative studies. In short, weshould welcome this. Among other reasons, thecapacity of meta-analysis for theory building inthe organizational sciences has been blunted bythe lack of codable qualitative data concerningcontext. Instead, many meta-analysts must oftenconcentrate on potential moderators inherent inthe research design (e.g., whose measure ofcommitment was used?), since they are unableto form contextual links across studies that ex-hibit markedly different results.

Measurement and Analysis

One way to both detect and appreciate con-text effects is to measure multiple dependentvariables or to measure dependent variablesdifferent from the norm in a particular researcharea. The exact logic for doing this would varyfrom study to study but should be grounded ingood theory. In general, however, some vari-ables are less susceptible to constraint than oth-ers (e.g., attitudes less than associated behav-ior) and, thus, can paint a picture of situationalstrength when used in conjunction with one an-other. Also, multiple dependent variables areoften necessary to home in on the differentialmeaning that variations in context can occasion.

In the face of theory to the contrary, Johns andXie (1998) predicted and found that both Cana-dians and Chinese were self-serving regardingtheir own absenteeism behavior. Thus, respon-

dents from both countries underreported theirown absence levels and saw their absencerecords as superior to those of their coworkers.How did the more modest and collective Chi-nese reconcile these self-serving perceptions?The inclusion of an additional dependent vari-able captured the contextual difference betweenthe two locations. When asked to estimate thedays missed by their occupational peers, as op-posed to their coworkers, the Chinese offeredextremely high values. Thus, seeing themselvesas princes among princes enabled the Chineseto reconcile self-serving behavior with work-group solidarity. The more individualistic Cana-dians exhibited little such group-serving behav-ior, simply seeing themselves as princes. Here,the inclusion of several dependent variableshighlighted a demarcation between cognitionand context. Up to a point, the Chinese andCanadians thought alike, suggesting that cul-tural context was unimportant. The inclusion ofa more culturally sensitive dependent variablerevealed contextual differences underpinned bysocial influence.

Similarly, Bagozzi, Verbeke, and Gavino (2003)found that Dutch and Filipino employees expe-rienced shame in the face of customer difficul-ties in similar ways but attached differentmeaning to this shame and, consequently, be-haved differently. The Dutch viewed shame as athreat to their self-esteem and lowered their per-formance, whereas the Filipinos viewed shameas a threat to their social esteem and increasedtheir performance to repair their social status.Thus, the shame reaction was similar acrosscultures, but the inclusion of the performancevariable revealed the sign reversal that can sig-nify strong context effects.

A graphic example of how changing depen-dent variables clarifies context can be seen inSutton and Hargadon’s (1996) qualitative studyof the use of group brainstorming at IDEO, one ofthe world’s premier industrial design firms. Psy-chological research has clearly established thatindividual brainstorming is superior to groupbrainstorming in terms of the number of ideasgenerated in a given time period. Yet Sutton andHargadon identified six other business-relatedcriteria (e.g., impressing clients) by which groupbrainstorming was considered to be a success atIDEO. Hence, in context, the company’s use ofthe practice makes good sense. Interestingly, itis difficult to conceive of many real-world tasks


in which the traditional brainstorming criterionvariable (gross volume of ideas generated) isgermane. This lack of ecological validity is asign that context has been ignored in the do-main of brainstorming research.

Being alert to context as situational strengthsuggests using analytic strategies that are sen-sitive to the distributional properties of data,rather than simply exploring means (Johns, 1991;Rousseau & Fried, 2001). Thus, variances, distri-bution shapes, and degree of within-unit agree-ment can all speak to the impact of context.Also, certain research problems suggest analy-ses that allow for curvilinearity or reversed cau-sality (the extreme example of changing depen-dent variables!). Perhaps the most strikingexample of entertaining reversed causality canbe seen in the studies described earlier thatrevealed causality that departed in directionfrom well-established research patterns. In thiswork, appropriate two-wave data collection re-vealed that what was thought to be independentwas dependent, and vice versa. Thus, in somecontexts, customer satisfaction can affect em-ployee morale, absence can cause job dissatis-faction, and store sales can condition employeefriendliness.

Finally, I alluded earlier to the cavalier use ofcontextual control variables in much organiza-tional research. Such variables often account formore variance in the criterion than the disposi-tional or intrapsychic variables under study.More important, however, the casual use of acontrol variable assumes that the relationshipbetween substantive variables x and y is equiv-alent for all levels of the control, an assumptionthat needs to be tested. Interactions involvingsituational variables signal archetypical con-text effects, and the many examples of sign re-versals noted above suggest that ignoring theseinteractions will simply wash out predictedmain effects.

Reportage

Authors need to become more adept at report-ing contextual information that has theoreticalbearing on their results or that might be usefulto others (e.g., meta-analysts) in the future. Agood place to begin is to ensure that the ele-ments of omnibus context are addressed in ad-equate detail: who was studied, where were

they studied, when were they studied, and whywere they studied?

This all might sound obvious, but I have seenwhere the editor of an international journal hashad to ask authors preparing a revised manu-script to specify in which country their researchwas conducted. I have also seen fifteen-year-oldquestionnaire data appear in a manuscriptwithout mention of any potential effects of tem-poral context. I (Johns, 1993, 2001a) have advo-cated trying to name studied organizations, ex-plaining how research access was achieved andincluding site details in the introduction of arti-cles when those details had an impact on thedevelopment of hypotheses. If unmeasured,speculation concerning discrete contextual vari-ables is warranted, as is the inclusion of detailsof extant policies or procedures that might haveshaped one’s results. Gratuitous context, ofcourse, is to be avoided. However, intelligentspeculation about contextual impact seems lit-tle different from the intelligent application oftheory.

CONCLUSION

The many examples of context effects pro-vided here raise the question of why context hasbeen underappreciated. The repeatedly la-mented absence of a good taxonomy of situa-tions is in part to blame, since we lack a refined,systematic language for expressing context. Inaddition, some authors (Gladwell, 2002; Johns,1991) implicate the fundamental attribution er-ror—the tendency to overemphasize disposi-tional causes of behavior at the expense of sit-uational causes (Ross, 1977).

However, more may be at work here. The ten-dency for organizational culture researchers toignore industrial macrocultures suggests a gen-eral tendency to seek causal explanations atlower rather than higher levels of analysis, atactic referred to unflatteringly by Hackman(2003) as explanatory reductionism. Indeed, Cap-pelli and Sherer (1991) indicted the cognitiverevolution in the discipline of organizational be-havior for preempting appreciation of context.Although insights have accrued from this revo-lution, a disquieting trend can be seen in liter-ature reviews summarizing such work in theareas of the employment interview (Schmitt,1976), performance appraisal (Ilgen, Barnes-Farrell, & McKellin, 1993), and employee turn-

2006 403Johns

over (Johns, 2001b). In each case, disappointmentis apparent, as contextual omissions that dam-age progress are observed.

In the field of organizational behavior, a di-chotomy has developed in which qualitative re-searchers immerse themselves in context andquantitative researchers purportedly study ge-neric phenomena and constructs. It is not clearthat this division of labor has had positive re-sults. For their part, some qualitative research-ers get so immersed in context that they fail torecognize universal phenomena, with the conse-quence that concepts such as social norms arerediscovered monthly in the pages of doctoraldissertations and journal articles. Conversely,some quantitative researchers seem almost des-perate to ensure that reviewers and readers seetheir results as generalizable. To facilitate this,they describe research sites as blandly as pos-sible—dislocated from time, place, and space—and omit details of how access was negotiated.Potential critics of a study’s generalizability arefrequently disarmed with boilerplate in the dis-cussion section, which states that the researchshould be replicated in other contexts. A re-viewer of this paper opined that part of thisstems from institutional practices in psychologythat are grounded in laboratory research and itsrelated, dominant APA publication style. Theremay be merit to this view. Early research inorganizational behavior was contextually richbut later became “scientized,” I believe, to earnindustrial-organizational psychologists per-ceived legitimacy among other domains in psy-chology. In support of this, Blair and Hunt (1986)contend that context-free research is viewed bysome as being more scientific than that featur-ing context.

The past thirty years have proven to be a timeof great advancement for the development andperfection of intrapsychic constructs and dispo-sitional variables in the field of organizationalbehavior. Constructs such as organizationalcommitment, justice perceptions, self-efficacy,psychological empowerment, psychologicalcontracts, and many others have improved ourunderstanding of life at work. Likewise, the roleof personality in the workplace, viewed formany years as a disreputable subject, has beenprofitably rehabilitated. What has been lacking,I submit, is comparable progress in understand-ing how context affects organizational behavior.Such attention to the shining figure at the ex-

pense of the murky ground is perhaps under-standable, but it is also dysfunctional. It is prob-able that the proffered examples of opposingsigns, reversed causality, curvilinear relation-ships, and extreme base rate differences are justthe tip of a contextual iceberg that deservesmore systematic examination and reportage.

There may be light on the horizon. The Journalof Organizational Behavior has made apprecia-tion of context one of its mission features andhas devoted space to Contextual Sidebars thatallow authors to expand on situational factorssurrounding their studies. Also, the Academy ofManagement Journal has endeavored to attractmore contextualized qualitative research. To myeye, the Journal of Applied Psychology, once abastion of scientization, has been publishingmore articles that feature good contextualiza-tion. We can hope that this trend signals a moresophisticated treatment of context in organiza-tional research.

REFERENCES

Abrahamson, E., & Fombrun, C. J. 1994. Macrocultures: De-terminants and consequences. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 19: 728–755.

Addae, H. M., & Johns, G. 2002. National culture and percep-tions of absence legitimacy. In M. Koslowsky &M. Krausz (Eds.), Voluntary employee withdrawal andinattendance—a current perspective: 21–51. New York:Plenum Press.

Allen, D. G., & Griffeth, R. W. 2000. Job performance andturnover: A review and integrative multi-route model.Human Resource Management Review, 9: 525–548.

Allen, D. G., & Griffeth, R. W. 2001. Test of a mediated per-formance-turnover relationship highlighting the moder-ating roles of visibility and reward contingency. Journalof Applied Psychology, 86: 1014–1021.

Allmendinger, J., & Hackman, J. R. 1995. The more the better?A four-nation study of the inclusion of women in sym-phony orchestras. Social Forces, 74: 423–460.

Allport, G. W. 1937. Personality: A psychological interpreta-tion. New York: Holt.

Aronsson, G., Gustafsson, K., & Dallner, M. 2000. Sick but yetat work: An empirical study of sickness presenteeism.Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 54: 502–509.

Asch, S. E. 1952. Social psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Bagozzi, R. P., Verbeke, W., & Gavino, J. C., Jr. 2003. Culturemoderates the self-regulation of shame and its effectson performance: The case of salespersons in the Neth-erlands and the Philippines. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 88: 219–233.


Barker, J. R. 1993. Tightening the iron cage: Concertive con-trol in self-managing teams. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 38: 408–437.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. 1991. The big five personalitydimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Per-sonnel Psychology, 44: 1–26.

Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., Pickus, P. S., & Spratt, M. F. 1997.HR as a source of shareholder value: Research and rec-ommendations. Human Resource Management, 36: 39–47.

Benson, G. S., Feingold, D., & Mohrman, S. A. 2004. You paidfor the skills, now keep them: Tuition reimbursementand voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 47: 315–331.

Blair, J. D., & Hunt, J. G. 1986. Getting inside the head of themanagement researcher one more time: Context-freeand context-specific orientations in research. Journal ofManagement, 12: 147–166.

Brief, A. P., Butz, R. M., & Deitch, E. A. 2005. Organizations asreflections of their environments: The case of race com-position. In R. L. Dipboye & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimi-nation at work: The psychological and organizationalbases: 119–148. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-ates.

Brockner, J. 2003. Unpacking country effects: On the need tooperationalize the psychological determinants of cross-national differences. Research in Organizational Behav-ior, 25: 333–367.

Brown, S., Fakhfakh, F., & Sessions, J. G. 1999. Absenteeismand employee sharing: An empirical analysis based onFrench panel data, 1981–1991. Industrial and Labor Re-lations Review, 52: 234–251.

Byron, K., & Peterson, S. 2002. The impact of a large scaletraumatic event on individual and organizational out-comes: Exploring employee and company reactions toSeptember 11, 2001. Journal of Organizational Behavior,23: 895–910.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. 1966. Experimental andquasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: RandMcNally.

Cappelli, P., & Sherer, P. D. 1991. The missing role of contextin OB: The need for a meso-level approach. Research inOrganizational Behavior, 13: 55–110.

Carsten, J. M., & Spector, P. E. 1987. Unemployment, job sat-isfaction, and employee turnover: A meta-analytic testof the Muchinsky model. Journal of Applied Psychology,72: 374–381.

Chatman, J. A., & Jehn, K. A. 1994. Assessing the relationshipbetween industry characteristics and organizationalculture: How different can you be? Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 37: 522–553.

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. 1979. Quasi-experimentation:Design & analysis issues for field settings. Boston:Houghton Mifflin.

Daft, R. L. 1983. Learning the craft of organizational research.Academy of Management Review, 8: 539–546.

Daft, R. L. 1995. Why I recommended that your manuscript be

rejected and what you can do about it. In L. L. Cummings& P. J. Frost (Eds.), Publishing in the organizational sci-ences: 164–182. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Darley, J. M., & Batson, C. D. 1973. From Jerusalem to Jericho:A study of situational and dispositional variables inhelping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 27: 100–119.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1985. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: PlenumPress.

Dietz, J., & Nolan, N. N. 2001. Workplace homicides: A state-level analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe Academy of Management, Washington, DC.

Dietz, J., Robinson, S. L., Folger, R., Baron, R. A., & Schulz, M.2003. The impact of community violence and an organi-zation’s procedural justice climate on workplace aggres-sion. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 317–326.

Duarte, N. T., Goodson, J. R., & Klich, N. R. 1993. How do I likethee? Let me appraise the ways. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 14: 239–249.

Duncan, R. B. 1972. Characteristics of organizational envi-ronments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Ad-ministrative Science Quarterly, 17: 313–327.

Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. 1991. Keeping an eye on themirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation.Academy of Management Journal, 34: 517–554.

Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. 1996. Members’ responses toorganizational identity threats: Encountering and coun-tering the Business Week rankings. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 41: 442–476.

Ferris, G. R., & Mitchell, T. R. 1987. The components of socialinfluence and their importance for human resources re-search. Research in Personnel and Human ResourcesManagement, 5: 103–128.

Ferris, G. R., Mitchell, T. R., Canavan, P. J., Frink, D. D., &Hopper, H. 1995. Accountability in human resources sys-tems. In G. R. Ferris, S. D. Rosen, & D. T. Barnum (Eds.),Handbook of human resource management: 175–196.Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. 1959. Cognitive conse-quences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal andSocial Psychology, 58: 203–211.

Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. 1996. Strategic leadership:Top executives and their effects on organizations. St.Paul: West Educational Publishing.

Firebaugh, G. 1980. Groups as context and frog ponds. InK. H. Roberts & L. Burstein (Eds.), Issues in aggregation:43–52. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fleishman, E. A., Harris, E. F., & Burtt, H. E. 1955. Leadershipand supervision in industry. Columbus: Ohio State Uni-versity Bureau of Educational Research.

Frederiksen, N. 1972. Toward a taxonomy of situations.American Psychologist, 27: 114–123.

Fried, Y., Levi, A. S., Ben-David, H. A., & Tiegs, R. B. 1999.Inflation of subordinates’ performance ratings: Mainand interactive effects of rater negative affectivity, doc-

2006 405Johns

umentation of work behavior, and appraisal visibility.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20: 431–444.

Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. 1998. Toward a theory of ac-countability in organizations and human resource man-agement. Research in Personnel and Human ResourcesManagement, 17: 1–51.

Funder, D. C. 2001. Personality. Annual Review of Psychol-ogy, 52: 197–221.

Gladwell, M. 2002. The tipping point: How little things canmake a big difference. Boston: Little, Brown.

Goodman, P. S. 1979. Assessing organizational change: TheRushton quality of work experiment. New York: Wiley.

Goodman, P. S. 1986. Impact of task and technology on groupperformance. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Designing effectivework groups: 120–167. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Goodman, P. S. 2000. Missing organizational linkages: Toolsfor cross-level research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Goodman, P. S., & Garber, S. 1988. Absenteeism and acci-dents in a dangerous environment: Empirical analysisof underground coal mines. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 73: 81–86.

Goodman, P. S., & Leyden, D. P. 1991. Familiarity and groupproductivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 578–586.

Hackett, R. D. 1989. Work attitudes and employee absentee-ism: A synthesis of the literature. Journal of Occupa-tional Psychology, 62: 235–248.

Hackett, R. D., Bycio, P., & Guion, R. M. 1989. Absenteeismamong hospital nurses: An idiographic-longitudinalanalysis. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 424–453.

Hackman, J. R. 1992. Group influences on individuals inorganizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.),Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology(2nd ed.), vol. 3: 199–267. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psy-chologists Press.

Hackman, J. R. 2003. Learning more by crossing levels: Evi-dence from airplanes, hospitals, and orchestras. Journalof Organizational Behavior, 24: 905–922.

Hammer, T. H., Landau, J. C., & Stern, R. N. 1981. Absenteeismwhen workers have a voice: The case of employee own-ership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66: 561–573.

Harrison, D. A., & Price, K. H. 2003. Context and consistencyin absenteeism: Studying social and dispositional influ-ences across multiple settings. Human Resource Man-agement Review, 13: 203–225.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. 2002. Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, em-ployee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 268–279.

Hattrup, K., & Jackson, S. E. 1996. Learning about individualdifferences by taking situations seriously. In K. R. Mur-phy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in orga-nizations: 507–547. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Heath, C., Larrick, R. P., & Klayman, J. 1998. Cognitive re-pairs: How organizational practices can compensate forindividual shortcomings. Research in OrganizationalBehavior, 20: 1–37.

Heath, C., & Sitkin, S. B. 2001. Big-B versus Big-O: What isorganizational about organizational behavior? Journalof Organizational Behavior, 22: 43–58.

Homans, G. C. 1950. The human group. New York: HarcourtBrace.

House, R., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. 1995. Themeso paradigm: A framework for the integration of mi-cro and macro organizational behavior. Research in Or-ganizational Behavior, 17: 71–114.

Huff, A. S. 1999. Writing for scholarly publication. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Hulin, C. L., Roznowski, M., & Hachiya, D. 1985. Alternativeopportunities and withdrawal decisions: Empirical andtheoretical discrepancies and an integration. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 97: 233–250.

Ilgen, D. R., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & McKellin, D. B. 1993. Per-formance appraisal process research in the 1980s: Whathas it contributed to appraisals in use? OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 54: 321–368.

Jawahar, I. M., & Williams, C. R. 1997. Where all the childrenare above average: The performance appraisal purposeeffect. Personnel Psychology, 50: 905–925.

Johns, G. 1991. Substantive and methodological constraintson behavior and attitudes in organizational research.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-cesses, 49: 80–104.

Johns, G. 1993. Constraints on the adoption of psychology-based personnel practices: Lessons from organizationalinnovation. Personnel Psychology, 46: 569–592.

Johns, G. 1999. A multi-level theory of self-serving behaviorin and by organizations. Research in OrganizationalBehavior, 21: 1–38.

Johns, G. 2001a. In praise of context. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 22: 31–42.

Johns, G. 2001b. The psychology of lateness, absenteeism,and turnover. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil,& C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, workand organizational psychology: 232–252. London: Sage.

Johns, G., & Xie, J. L. 1998. Perceptions of absence from work:People’s Republic of China versus Canada. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 83: 515–530.

Kaiser, C. P. 1998. Dimensions of culture, distributive princi-ples, and decommodification: Implications for employeeabsence behavior. Journal of Socio-Economics, 27:551–564.

Karasek, R. A., Jr. 1979. Job demands, decision latitude, andstrain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 24: 285–308.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The social psychology of organi-zations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Katz, R. 1982. The effects of group longevity on project com-munication and performance. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 27: 81–104.

Kelley, H. H., Holmes J. G., Kerr, N. L., Reis, H. T., Rusbelt,C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. 2003. An atlas of interper-


sonal situations. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Kidwell, R. E., III, & Bennett, N. 1993. Employee propensity towithhold effort: A conceptual model to intersect threeavenues of research. Academy of Management Review,18: 429–456.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. 2000. A multilevel approachto theory and research in organizations: Contextual,temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein &S. W. J. Koslowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, andmethods in organizations: 3–90. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kristensen, T. S. 1991. Sickness absence and work strainamong Danish slaughterhouse workers: An analysis ofabsence from work regarded as coping behavior. SocialScience & Medicine, 32: 15–27.

Kushnir, T., Fried, Y., & Malkinson, R. 2001. Work absence asa function of a national traumatic event: The case ofPrime Minister Rabin’s assassination. Work & Stress, 15:265–273.

Lam, S. S. K., & Schaubroeck, J. 2000. The role of locus ofcontrol in reactions to being promoted and being passedover: A quasi experiment. Academy of ManagementJournal, 43: 66–78.

Langfred, C. W. 2000. The paradox of self-management: In-dividual and group autonomy in work groups. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 21: 563–585.

Latham, G. P., Skarlicki, D., Irvine, D., & Siegel, J. P. 1993. Theincreasing importance of performance appraisals to em-ployee effectiveness in organizational settings in NorthAmerica. International Review of Industrial and Orga-nizational Psychology, 8: 87–132.

Lewin, K. 1951. Field theory in social science: Selected theo-retical papers. (Edited by D. Cartwright.) New York:Harper & Row.

Lieb, P. S. 2003. The effects of September 11th on job attributepreferences and recruitment. Journal of Business andPsychology, 18: 175–190.

MacDuffie, J. P. 1995. Human resource bundles and manufac-turing performance: Organizational logic and flexibleproduction systems in the world auto industry. Indus-trial and Labor Relations Review, 48: 197–221.

Markham, S. E. 1985. An investigation of the relationshipbetween unemployment and absenteeism: A multi-levelapproach. Academy of Management Journal, 28: 228–234.

Martin, J., Feldman, M. S., Hatch, M. J., & Sitkin, S. B. 1983. Theuniqueness paradox in organizational stories. Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, 28: 438–453.

McEvoy, G. M., & Cascio, W. F. 1987. Do good or poor per-formers leave? A meta-analysis of the relationship be-tween performance and turnover. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 30: 744–762.

Mischel, W. 1968. Personality and assessment. New York:Wiley.

Mitchell, T. R., & Lee, T. W. 2001. The unfolding model ofvoluntary turnover and job embeddedness: Foundations

for a comprehensive theory of attachment. Research inOrganizational Behavior, 23: 189–246.

Mowday, R. T., & Sutton, R. I. 1993. Organizational behavior:Linking individuals and groups to organizational con-texts. Annual Review of Psychology, 44: 195–229.

Nelson, R. E., & Gopalan, S. 2003. Do organizational culturesreplicate national cultures? Isomorphism, rejection andreciprocal opposition in the corporate values of threecountries. Organization Studies, 24: 1115–1151.

Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional pro-cesses. Academy of Management Review, 16: 145–179.

Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. 1997. “That’s not myjob”: Developing flexible employee work orientations.Academy of Management Journal, 40: 899–929.

Pazy, A., & Oron, I. 2001. Sex proportion and performanceevaluation among high-ranking military officers. Jour-nal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 689–702.

Peters, L. H., O’Connor, E. J., & Eulberg, J. R. 1985. Situationalconstraints: Sources, consequences, and future consid-erations. Research in Personnel and Human ResourcesManagement, 3: 79–113.

Pfeffer, J. 1991. Organizational theory and structural perspec-tives on management. Journal of Management, 17: 789–803.

Pfeffer, J. 1997. New directions for organization theory: Prob-lems and prospects. New York: Oxford University Press.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. 1978. The external control oforganizations: A resource dependence perspective, NewYork: Harper & Row.

Ross, L. 1977. The intuitive psychologist and his shortcom-ings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances inExperimental Social Psychology, 10: 173–220.

Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. 1991. The person and the situation:Perspectives of social psychology. Philadelphia: TempleUniversity Press.

Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. 2001. Location, location, location:Contextualizing organizational research. Journal of Or-ganizational Behavior, 22: 1–13.

Ryan, A. M., & Ployhart, R. E. 2000. Applicants’ perceptions ofselection procedures and decisions: A critical reviewand agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 26:565–606.

Ryan, A. M., Schmit, M. J., & Johnson, R. 1996. Attitudes andeffectiveness: Examining relations at an organizationallevel. Personnel Psychology, 49: 853–882.

Ryan, A. M., West, B. J., & Carr, J. Z. 2003. Effects of theterrorist attacks of 9/11/01 on employee attitudes. Journalof Applied Psychology, 88: 647–659.

Sackett, P. R., DuBois, C. L. Z., & Noe, A. W. 1991. Tokenism inperformance evaluation: The effects of work group rep-resentation on male-female and black-white differencesin performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology,76: 263–267.

Schmitt, N. 1976. Social and situational determinants of in-terview decisions: Implications for the employment in-terview. Personnel Psychology, 29: 79–101.

2006 407Johns

Schwab, D. P. 1991. Contextual variables in employee per-formance-turnover relationships. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 34: 966–975.

Schweiger, D. M., & DeNisi, A. S. 1991. Communication withemployees following a merger: A longitudinal field ex-periment. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 110–135.

Sells, S. B. 1963. Dimensions of stimulus situations whichaccount for behavior variance. In S. B. Sells (Ed.), Stim-ulus determinants of behavior: 3–15. New York: Ronald.

Shepperd, J. A. 1993. Productivity loss in small groups: Amotivation analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113: 67–81.

Sheridan, J. E. 1992. Organizational culture and employeeretention. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 1036–1056.

Smith, F. J. 1977. Work attitudes as a predictor of absence ona specific day. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62: 16–19.

Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment in theworkplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation.Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1442–1465.

Steel, R. P. 2002. Turnover theory at the empirical interface:Problems of fit and function. Academy of ManagementReview, 27: 346–360.

Sutton, R. I. 1991. Maintaining norms about emotional ex-pression: The case of bill collectors. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 36: 245–268.

Sutton, R. I., & Hargadon, A. 1996. Brainstorming groups incontext: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Admin-istrative Science Quarterly, 41: 685–718.

Sutton, R. I., & Rafaeli, A. 1988. Untangling the relationshipbetween displayed emotions and organizational sales:The case of convenience stores. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 31: 461–487.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. 1986. The social identity theory ofgroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. C. Austin (Eds.),Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed.): 7–24. Chi-cago: Nelson-Hall.

Tansey, R. R., & Hyman, M. R. 1992. Public relations, advo-cacy ads, and the campaign against absenteeism dur-ing World War II. Business & Professional Ethics Journal,11: 129–164.

Taylor, P. J., & Burridge, J. 1982. Trends in death, disablement,and sickness absence in the British Post Office since1891. British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 39: 1–10.

Tetlock, P. E. 1985. Accountability: The neglected social con-text of judgment and choice. Research in OrganizationalBehavior, 7: 297–332.

Tetlock, P. E. 1992. The impact of accountability on judgmentand choice: Toward a social contingency model. Ad-vances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25: 331–376.

Tetlock, P. E. 1999. Accountability theory: Mixing propertiesof human agents with properties of social systems: InL. L. Thompson, J. M. Levine, & D. M. Messick (Eds.),Shared cognition in organizations: The management ofknowledge: 117–137. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum As-sociates.

Tetlock, P. E. 2000. Cognitive biases and organizational cor-rectives: Do both disease and cure depend on the poli-tics of the beholder? Administrative Science Quarterly,45: 293–326.

Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., Rothstein, M., & Reddon, J. R. 1999.Meta-analysis of bi-directional relations in personality-job performance research. Human Performance, 12: 1–29.

Tharenou, P. 1993. A test of reciprocal causality for absen-teeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14: 269–290.

Triplett, N. 1897. The dynamogenic factors in pacemakingand competition. American Journal of Psychology, 9: 507–533.

Turnbull, P., & Sapsford, D. 1992. A sea of discontent: Thetides of organised and “unorganised” conflict on thedocks. Sociology, 26: 291–309.

Virtanen, P., Nakari, R., Ahonen, H., Vahtera, J., & Pentii, J.2000. Locality and habitus: The origins of sickness ab-sence practices. Social Science & Medicine, 50: 27–39.

Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. 1988. The new leadership: Man-aging participation in organizations. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Wagner, J. A., III, & Gooding, R. Z. 1987. Effects of societaltrends on participation research. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 32: 241–262.

Williams, C. R., & Livingstone, L. P. 1994. Another look at therelationship between performance and voluntary turn-over. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 269–298.

Xie, J. L., & Johns, G. 1995. Job scope and stress: Can job scopebe too high? Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1288–1309.

Zajonc, R. B. 1965. Social facilitation. Science, 149: 269–274.

Gary Johns ([email protected]) holds the Concordia University ResearchChair in Management at the John Molson School of Business, Concordia University,Montreal. He received his Ph.D. in industrial-organizational psychology from WayneState University. His research interests include absenteeism, job design, self-servingbehavior, research methodology, and the impact of context on organizational behav-ior.


THE ESSENTIAL IMPACT OF CONTEXT ON...

Documents

Transcript of THE ESSENTIAL IMPACT OF CONTEXT ON...