Person: Hackman, J
Loading...
Email Address
AA Acceptance Date
Birth Date
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Job Title
Last Name
Hackman
First Name
J
Name
Hackman, J
11 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 10 of 11
Publication Joseph E. McGrath (1927–2007).(American Psychological Association (APA), 2009) Hackman, JPublication Joseph E. McGrath (1927-2007)(American Psychological Association, 2009) Hackman, JPresents an obituary for Joseph E. McGrath (1927–2007). Joseph E. McGrath, who died on April 1, 2007, often described himself as a “conceptual carpenter.” It was an apt description: Joe conceived and built the frameworks within which a remarkable number of students and colleagues designed their studies, chose their methods, and developed their theories. He was not one to promote the flashy new concept, to generate the gasp-provoking empirical demonstration, or to concoct the unheard of new measure or manipulation. Instead, Joe created elegant conceptual and methodological platforms on which he, along with his many students and colleagues around the world, productively explored an extraordinarily diverse set of scientific and social problems.Publication Not What It Was and Not What It Will Be: The Future of Job Design Research(John Wiley and Sons, 2010) Oldham, Greg R.; Hackman, JThis summary commentary explores the likely future directions of research and theory on the design of organizational work. We give special attention to the social aspects of contemporary work, the process by which jobholders craft their own jobs, the changing contexts within which work is performed, and the increasing prominence of work that is performed by teams rather than individualsPublication Leading Teams When the Time is Right: Finding the Best Moments to Act(Elsevier, 2009) Hackman, J; Wageman, Ruth; Fisher, Colin M.Publication Repairing Pairs(Wiley-Blackwell, 2009) Hackman, JPublication A Theory of Team Coaching(Academy of Management, 2005) Hackman, J; Wageman, RuthAfter briefly reviewing the existing literature on team coaching, we propose a new model with three distinguishing features. The model (1) focuses on the functions that coaching serves for a team, rather than on either specific leader behaviors or leadership styles, (2) identifies the specific times in the task performance process when coaching interventions are most likely to have their intended effects, and (3) explicates the conditions under which team-focused coaching is and is not likely to facilitate performance.Publication Asking the Right Questions About Leadership: Discussion and Conclusions(American Psychological Association, 2007) Hackman, J; Wageman, RuthFive questions prompted by the articles in the American Psychologist special issue on leadership (January 2007, Vol. 62, No. 1) suggest some new directions for leadership research: (1) Not do leaders make a difference, but under what conditions does leadership matter? (2) Not what are the traits of leaders, but how do leaders' personal attributes interact with situational properties to shape outcomes? (3) Not do there exist common dimensions on which all leaders can be arrayed, but are good and poor leadership qualitatively different phenomena? (4) Not how do leaders and followers differ, but how can leadership models be reformulated so they treat all system members as both leaders and followers? (5) Not what should be taught in leadership courses, but how can leaders be helped to learn?Publication Learning More by Crossing Levels: Evidence from Airplanes, Hospitals, and Orchestras(John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2003) Hackman, JScholars generally conduct research at a single level of analysis (such as the individual, the group, or the organization level), although they often turn to the next-lower level for explanatory mechanisms. I suggest that robust understanding of social and organizational dynamics requires attention to higher as well as lower levels of analysis. The benefits of research and theory that 'brackets' one's focal phenomenon by attending to constructs at both higher and lower levels of analyses are illustrated with findings from research on aircraft cockpit crews, hospital patient care teams, and professional musical ensembles.Publication The Perils of Positivity(John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2009) Hackman, JThe passion and productivity that characterizes research on positive organizational behavior (POB) is impressive. Yet POB research is accumulating so rapidly that it may exceed what the field's conceptual, methodological, and ideological foundation can bear. I discuss here six concerns prompted by the articles in this special issue. These concerns are (1) the emphasis of positive organizational scholarship on individual-level phenomena, (12) the ahistorical character of POB research and writing, (3) the construct validity of key concepts, (4) over-reliance on a particular research strategy, (5) implicit acceptance of fundamental flaws in how work and organizations are designed, and (6) the seductiveness of new research paradigms.Publication Organizations in Changing Environments: The Case of East German Symphony Orchestras(Cornell University, The Johnson School, 1996) Allmendinger, Jutta; Hackman, JTwo periods of radical political-economic change in the former East Germany illuminate dynamics of organization-environment relationships that generally are hidden from view. Historical, qualitative, and survey data from a longitudinal comparative study of 78 orchestras in four nations show that the contexts of East German orchestras changed significantly when the socialist regime took power after World War II, and then again in 1990 when that regime fell. Socialist rule only modestly affected orchestras' institutional features, however; they continued to reflect centuries-old German musical traditions. The collapse of socialism in 1990, by contrast, provoked differentiation among orchestras-some adapted successfully to the new political-economic context, but others floundered. Successful adaptation was found to be a joint function of an orchestra's prior strength as an organization and the kinds of leadership initiatives taken by orchestra leaders and players. Overall, the findings suggest that the size and character of environmental effects depend on the degree to which contextual changes alter (a) the strength of the link between organizational actions and resources obtained (resource contingency) and (b) organizations' latitude to manage their own affairs (operational autonomy).