We selectively review the literature from the fields of organizational behavior and sport science with the overarching purpose of identifying and summarizing key themes and contributions. The literature is used to provide insights into the fundamental issues of competition (getting ahead) and cooperation (getting along) in organizations. Studies from the organization sciences that have incorporated individual and team data from the various fields of sport are reviewed and organized by topic into succession effects, motivation and performance, and studies of individual and team performance changes over time. In addition, selected studies from the sport science literature are reviewed from the topic areas of the “hot-hand” effect, choking under pressure, passion for life activities, and difficult career transitions. The evidence presents a clear argument that greater integration across the fields of organization and sport science is needed. Areas of future research consideration with regard to embodied cognition and emotions as well as networked approaches to team processes are proposed.

In the context of management and organization studies, the potential of action research for generating robust actionable knowledge has not been yet realized. While there are historical reasons for this with roots in different philosophies of social science, there are areas of common ground that may be explored fruitfully. This paper works from the insight that there are two key perspectives on action research: one from inside the action research community and one from outside. It explores how action research is a form of science in the realm of practical knowing and that this perspective provides an insight into how the views of action research from inside and from outside may be engaged. It proposes a general empirical method and the notion of interiority, based on the operations of human knowing, with a focus on how we know, rather than on what we know, as a synthesis, whereby the two perspectives on action research may be engaged.

Organizations invest millions of dollars in workplace learning programs to develop human capital for competitive advantage. The effectiveness of workplace learning programs is directly linked to learner motivation. However, we contend that our current understanding of learner motivation and workplace learning is limited by the tendency to conduct research based on the traditional instructional system design model and the limited adoption of organizational behavior theories to guide such research. We propose that studying workforce learning from a psychological engagement perspective is necessary to gain a better understanding of learner motivation and subsequent knowledge and skill acquisition. We review studies of learning methods and contextual factors that likely influence learner engagement. We propose a research agenda focusing on six directions for future research.

Jim March's framework of exploration and exploitation has drawn substantial interest from scholars studying phenomena such as organizational learning, knowledge management, innovation, organizational design, and strategic alliances. This framework has become an essential lens for interpreting various behaviors and outcomes within and across organizations. Despite its straightforwardness, this framework has generated debates concerning the definition of exploration and exploitation, and their measurement, antecedents, and consequences. We critically review the growing literature on exploration and exploitation, discuss various perspectives, raise conceptual and empirical concerns, underscore challenges for further development of this literature, and provide directions for future research.

Process fairness refers to people’s perceptions of how fairly they are treated in the course of interacting with another party. Conceptually distinct from outcome fairness, it subsumes procedural fairness, interpersonal fairness, and the like. As recipients of decisions, we generally want to be treated with more rather than with less process fairness. As agents of decisions, we often would rather plan and implement them with more rather than with less process fairness. Whereas the organizational justice literature generally extols the virtues of high process fairness, recent theory and research suggest that when it comes to process fairness, more is not always better than less. We discuss why, when, and how people’s general tendency to desire higher process fairness over lower process fairness may be attenuated, eliminated, or even reversed. Our analysis is organized by the notion that under some conditions, receiving or acting with high process fairness prevents people from satisfying some of their basic psychological motives, such as their needs to feel good about themselves or to maintain a sense of control. Future research directions also are considered.

This chapter advocates the good scientific practice of systematic research syntheses in Management and Organizational Science (MOS). A research synthesis is the systematic accumulation, analysis and reflective interpretation of the full body of relevant empirical evidence related to a question. It is the critical first step in effective use of scientific evidence. Synthesis is not a conventional literature review. Literature reviews are often position papers, cherry‐picking studies to advocate a point of view. Instead, syntheses systematically identify where research findings are clear (and where they aren’t), a key first step to establishing the conclusions science supports. Syntheses are also important for identifying contested findings and productive lines for future research. Uses of MOS evidence, that is, the motives for undertaking a research synthesis include scientific discovery and explanation, improved management practice guidelines, and formulating public policy. We identify six criteria for establishing the evidentiary value of a body of primary studies in MOS. We then pinpoint the stumbling blocks currently keeping the field from making effective use of its ever‐expanding base of empirical studies. Finally, this chapter outlines (a) an approach to research synthesis suitable to the domain of MOS; and (b) supporting practices to make synthesis a collective MOS project.

Hierarchy is such a defining and pervasive feature of organizations that its forms and basic functions are often taken for granted in organizational research. In this review, we revisit some basic psychological and sociological elements of hierarchy and argue that status and power are two important yet distinct bases of hierarchical differentiation. We first define power and status and distinguish our definitions from previous conceptualizations. We then integrate a number of different literatures to explain why status and power hierarchies tend to be self‐reinforcing. Power, related to one’s control over valued resources, transforms individual psychology such that the powerful think and act in ways that lead to the retention and acquisition of power. Status, related to the respect one has in the eyes of others, generates expectations for behavior and opportunities for advancement that favor those with a prior status advantage. We also explore the role that hierarchy‐enhancing belief systems play in stabilizing hierarchy, both from the bottom up and from the top down. Finally, we address a number of factors that we think are instrumental in explaining the conditions under which hierarchies change. Our framework suggests a number of avenues for future research on the bases, causes, and consequences of hierarchy in groups and organizations.