No abstract

In the past, there was a fairly strong alignment between what teams experienced, the topics that team researchers were studying, and the practices that organizations used to manage their teams. However, the nature of teams and the environment in which they operate has changed, and as a result, new needs have emerged. Although there have been some innovative advancements, research and practice have not always adjusted to remain aligned with emerging needs. We highlight 3 significant change themes that are affecting teams: (a) dynamic composition, (b) technology and distance, and (c) empowerment and delayering. For each theme, we share our observations, review the related science and identify future research needs, and specify challenges and recommendations for employing effective team‐based practices in applied settings. We conclude with thoughts about the future and suggest that new theories, research methods, and analyses may be needed to study the new team dynamics.

An empirical study conducted in a major midwestern hospital found that organizational commitment and perceived organizational support were significantly correlated with satisfaction with career development. Results suggested that when organizations make efforts to develop their managers, the managers become more committed to the organization and also more likely to develop their employees.

No abstract

In this study, we examine two competing perspectives regarding the relative use of high‐investment human resource (HIHR) systems for core and support employees within establishments. Using data from 420 establishments, we compare a universal perspective suggesting that the level of HIHR exposure core employees receive is always greater than the level of exposure for sup‐port employees, with a contingency perspective suggesting that the relative level of exposure for these employee groups is contingent on strategy, HR philosophy, or industry.The results did not provide support for the universal prediction that core employees always receive higher levels of exposure to HIHR systems than support employees within the same establishment. Moreover, while strategy and HR philosophy were positively related to the level of HIHR system use across establishments, they did not influence the relative level of exposure to HIHR systems for core and support employees. Interestingly, however, industry did exert a unique impact such that core em‐ployees received significantly greater exposure to HIHR systems than sup‐port employees in nonmanufacturing firms.There were no significant differ‐ences in exposure for these two groups in manufacturing industries. Implications of the findings are discussed. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Human neonates (average age, 36 hours) discriminated three facial expressions (happy, sad, and surprised) posed by a live model as evidenced by diminished visual fixation on each face over trials and renewed fixations to the presentation of a different face. The expressions posed by the model, unseeen by the observer, were guessed at greater than chance accuracy simply by observing the face of the neonate, whose facial movements in the brow, eyes, and mouth regions provided evidence for imitation of the facial expressions.

In their lead article for this forum, Rynes, Giluk, and Brown (2007) take a stab at an important topic and raise some significant questions. The article is well written and for the most part, fairly presented. Their argument that "the gap between science and practice is so pervasive that some have despaired of its ever being narrowed" (Rynes et al., 2007: 987) is compelling. However, the evidence demonstrating the gap and the discussion of the reasons for it are not as compelling. Similarly, the discussion of the need for "evidence-based management" (EBM) is persuasive, but the lack of concrete solutions for achieving the use of EBM remains challenging. The authors are correct when citing Rousseau (2006) and Rousseau and McCarthy (2007) as saying that practitioners need to know evidence-based findings about workplace issues and that managerial decisions are better when they are informed by the "best available scientific evidence" (Rousseau & McCarthy, 2007). It is agreed that practitioners need to know how to effectively use evidence to meet their ongoing and daily challenges. These challenges, however, are far more complex than just knowing the evidence itself or understanding multifaceted issues such as intelligence or personality. Organizations and workplace issues are multifaceted, and it would be inappropriate for a practitioner to consider issues such as intelligence, personality, or even goal setting in isolation. Rynes et al. state that "in order for EBM to take root, managers must be exposed to, and embrace, scientific evidence" (2007: 987). It would be impressive if this were all it really took for practitioners to use EBM. This view, however, is unrealistic. Exposure is not enough. Embracing is not enoughwithout proper application. HR professionals are business professionals, and as such, any EBM will need to demonstrate the business case for its application to them. For example, what is the return on investment (ROI) for using intelligence or personality testing? The case can certainly be made for using these tests in conjunction with other predictors. But whose role is it to make the case: academicians or practitioners? 1019 Cohen

No abstract