This article on the role of psychology in organizational development examines how psychological principles underpin the growth, stability, and adaptability of organizations within business psychology foundations. It explores the psychology of change as a driver of organizational growth, employee engagement as a developmental key, and culture building as a shaper of identity. Additional topics include leadership development, team cohesion, and motivation theories enhancing performance, alongside conflict resolution, learning organizations, and stress management supporting stability and well-being. The discussion extends to innovation psychology, organizational justice, and resilience training, emphasizing their roles in fostering creativity, fairness, and preparedness. By synthesizing these insights, the article highlights how psychology in organizational development optimizes human potential, ensuring organizations thrive amidst complexity and change.
Introduction
Psychology in organizational development (OD) represents a critical dimension of business psychology, leveraging human behavior and cognition to enhance organizational effectiveness, adaptability, and well-being. Organizational development, the systematic process of improving an organization’s capacity to achieve its goals, relies heavily on psychological insights to address change, culture, leadership, and employee dynamics. As businesses navigate competitive pressures, technological shifts, and global challenges, psychology provides the tools to align human processes with strategic objectives, fostering environments where both individuals and organizations flourish.
The significance of psychology in organizational development lies in its ability to decode the human elements that drive organizational success. From motivating employees to resolving conflicts, psychological principles inform strategies that enhance engagement, cohesion, and resilience. For instance, understanding motivation theories can boost performance, while stress management supports employee health, directly impacting productivity. These applications not only address immediate needs but also build long-term capacity, making psychology an indispensable lens for OD practitioners aiming to create sustainable, thriving workplaces.
The scope of this exploration extends beyond individual interventions to systemic impact. A leader trained in psychological resilience can steer a firm through crises, just as a culture rooted in justice can retain talent. By weaving these principles into OD, businesses achieve not only efficiency but also ethical alignment and human-centric growth. This article aims to serve as an authoritative resource, offering detailed insights into how psychology in organizational development transforms organizations, equipping stakeholders with strategies to navigate complexity and build enduring success.
Foundations of Psychology in Organizational Development
Psychology in organizational development begins with foundational principles that drive change, engagement, and cultural identity. This section examines these core elements, establishing their role in organizational growth.
Psychology of Change: Driving Organizational Growth
The psychology of change leverages human behavior and cognition to facilitate organizational growth, addressing resistance and fostering adaptability (Lewin, 1951). Change—whether structural, technological, or cultural—triggers psychological responses like fear or excitement, mediated by perception and past experience. Kurt Lewin’s three-stage model—unfreeze, change, refreeze—guides this process, emphasizing the need to shift mindsets before embedding new norms, a cornerstone of psychology in organizational development.
Resistance often stems from uncertainty or loss aversion, as employees fear diminished status or competence (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). Effective change management uses communication and participation to align individual goals with organizational vision, as when a firm involves staff in a digital transition, reducing anxiety through ownership (Kotter, 1996). Case studies, such as a retailer’s successful shift to e-commerce via employee training, highlight how psychology mitigates disruption, driving growth.
Change also requires sustained effort. Reinforcement—celebrating milestones—solidifies new behaviors, while feedback loops refine strategies, ensuring alignment with evolving needs (Burke, 2017). Psychology in organizational development thus transforms resistance into momentum, enabling organizations to innovate and expand by harnessing human adaptability.
Long-term success hinges on cultural integration. A firm embedding change into its identity—e.g., prioritizing agility—creates a psychological foundation for continuous growth. Regular assessments—surveys or focus groups—monitor morale, adjusting approaches to sustain engagement. This dynamic application of psychology ensures change is not a singular event but a developmental engine.
Employee Engagement: Psychological Keys to Development
Employee engagement, the emotional commitment to organizational goals, is a psychological key to development, enhancing productivity and retention (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). Engaged employees exhibit vigor, dedication, and absorption, driven by autonomy, recognition, and purpose (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Psychology in organizational development leverages these drivers to align individual and organizational aspirations.
Strategies include fostering meaningful work and supportive environments. Job crafting—allowing employees to shape roles—boosts ownership, as seen in firms where staff design workflows, increasing satisfaction (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Recognition programs, like peer awards, reinforce effort, while poor management—micromanaging—disengages, underscoring the need for psychological insight (Harter et al., 2002). Data from Gallup (2020) shows engaged teams outperform others by 21%, validating this approach.
Engagement’s developmental impact extends to resilience and innovation. Engaged employees adapt to challenges, contributing ideas that fuel growth, as in a tech firm where staff input spurred product upgrades. Regular pulse surveys sustain this, identifying disengagement early. Psychology in organizational development thus positions engagement as a catalyst, unlocking human potential for organizational advancement.
Cultural reinforcement amplifies engagement. A firm aligning values—e.g., collaboration—with daily practices fosters a sense of belonging, reducing turnover. Training managers in emotional intelligence ensures consistent support, embedding engagement into the organizational fabric. This holistic application ensures psychology drives sustained development.
Culture Building: Psychology’s Impact on Organizational Identity
Culture building shapes organizational identity through shared values, norms, and behaviors, a process deeply rooted in psychology (Schein, 2010). Social identity theory posits that employees align with cultures reflecting their self-concept, enhancing cohesion and purpose (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Psychology in organizational development uses this to craft identities that support strategic goals.
Practical steps include defining core values and modeling behaviors. A firm emphasizing innovation might celebrate risk-taking, as when a CEO showcases prototypes, embedding creativity into the culture (Hogan & Coote, 2014). Artifacts—symbols, rituals—reinforce this; a weekly “idea jam” signals openness. Misalignment—espousing trust but punishing errors—erodes identity, highlighting psychology’s role in consistency (Denison, 1990).
Culture influences development by guiding adaptation. A learning-focused identity, reinforced through training, equips firms for change, as seen in a manufacturer thriving post-restructuring via employee upskilling. Psychology in organizational development ensures culture evolves with strategy, fostering resilience and unity.
Employee voice sustains this process. Inclusive cultures—soliciting diverse input—strengthen identity, reducing silos, while regular culture audits track alignment. A firm adjusting policies after feedback exemplifies this responsiveness. By leveraging psychology, culture building becomes a developmental anchor, aligning identity with long-term success.
Psychological Strategies for Leadership and Teams
Psychology in organizational development enhances leadership and team dynamics, driving progress and cohesion. This section explores these strategies and their impact.
Leadership Development: Psychological Strategies for Progress
Leadership development harnesses psychological strategies to cultivate effective leaders, advancing organizational progress (Day, 2000). Transformational leadership— inspiring through vision—relies on emotional intelligence (EI), enabling leaders to motivate and empathize (Goleman, 1995). Psychology in organizational development uses EI training to enhance self-awareness and relationship management, critical for guiding teams.
Developmental methods include coaching and feedback. 360-degree assessments reveal strengths—e.g., strategic thinking—while addressing weaknesses like impulsivity, as in a manager improving delegation (Avolio & Hannah, 2008). Experiential learning—simulations or stretch assignments—builds adaptability, with studies showing coached leaders outperform peers by 20% in goal attainment (Peterson, 1996). Missteps—overloading novices—risk burnout, underscoring tailored approaches.
Leadership’s developmental role extends to culture and change. Psychologically adept leaders model resilience, as when a CEO navigates a merger with transparency, aligning staff with new goals. Continuous development—mentoring, workshops—ensures relevance. Psychology in organizational development thus equips leaders to drive progress, fostering organizational agility.
Succession planning integrates this further. Identifying high-potential employees via psychological profiling—e.g., motivation, adaptability—prepares future leaders, ensuring continuity. A firm grooming successors post-crisis exemplifies this foresight. By embedding psychology, leadership development becomes a strategic lever for sustained growth.
Team Cohesion: Enhancing Development Through Group Psychology
Team cohesion, the psychological bond uniting groups, enhances organizational development by improving collaboration and performance (Carron et al., 2002). Social cohesion—interpersonal trust—and task cohesion—shared goals—drive this, rooted in group dynamics (Forsyth, 2010). Psychology in organizational development strengthens these bonds to support collective success.
Interventions include team-building and role clarity. Activities like problem-solving retreats build trust, as seen in a sales team boosting output post-workshop (Salas et al., 2015). Defining roles reduces conflict—e.g., clarifying a project lead—while poor cohesion, from cliques or miscommunication, stalls progress (Hackman, 2002). Research shows cohesive teams excel by 30% in productivity (Beal et al., 2003).
Cohesion’s developmental impact includes innovation and resilience. Unified teams brainstorm effectively, as in a design group launching a product ahead of schedule, while resilience absorbs setbacks. Psychology in organizational development fosters this through regular check-ins, ensuring alignment with organizational goals.
Diversity challenges and enhances cohesion. Inclusive practices—valuing varied perspectives—prevent exclusion, strengthening bonds, while unchecked biases fracture teams. A firm integrating multicultural staff via facilitated dialogue exemplifies success. By leveraging group psychology, cohesion becomes a developmental cornerstone, amplifying organizational capacity.
Motivation Theories: Boosting Organizational Performance
Motivation theories provide psychological frameworks to boost organizational performance, aligning employee effort with goals (Latham & Pinder, 2005). Maslow’s hierarchy (1943) prioritizes needs—safety, belonging, esteem—while self-determination theory (SDT) emphasizes autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Psychology in organizational development applies these to enhance drive.
Practical applications include incentives and empowerment. Goal-setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1990) boosts output—e.g., specific sales targets increase effort by 15%—while autonomy in SDT fosters initiative, as in a firm granting flexible schedules (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Over-reliance on extrinsic rewards risks disengagement, necessitating intrinsic focus (Kohn, 1993).
Motivation drives developmental outcomes like retention and innovation. A motivated workforce stays committed, reducing turnover, while creative tasks—e.g., R&D—thrive under intrinsic drive. Psychology in organizational development sustains this through recognition and growth opportunities, aligning individual and organizational success.
Cultural fit enhances efficacy. A firm aligning rewards with values—e.g., teamwork bonuses in collaborative cultures—maximizes impact, while regular motivation audits adapt strategies. By integrating these theories, psychology ensures performance fuels long-term development, creating a motivated, productive workforce.
Psychological Approaches to Stability and Adaptation
Psychology in organizational development supports stability and adaptability through conflict resolution, learning, and stress management. This section examines these approaches.
Conflict Resolution: Psychology in Organizational Stability
Conflict resolution applies psychological principles to maintain organizational stability, addressing disputes constructively (Deutsch, 1994). Conflict—interpersonal, role-based, or strategic—disrupts cohesion, but resolution via negotiation or mediation restores harmony. Psychology in organizational development uses empathy and communication to transform tension into collaboration.
Techniques include active listening and reframing. A manager mediating a team dispute over resources listens to concerns, reframing it as a shared challenge, fostering solutions (Thomas, 1992). Unresolved conflict—e.g., ignored grievances—escalates, as in a firm losing talent over unchecked rivalry (Jehn, 1997). Training in conflict styles—e.g., collaboration over avoidance—enhances outcomes, stabilizing teams.
Stability benefits development by preserving focus. Resolved conflicts maintain productivity, as seen in a project team meeting deadlines post-mediation, while psychological safety encourages input. Psychology in organizational development ensures conflict becomes a growth opportunity, not a barrier.
Long-term strategies involve culture and policy. A firm embedding respect via norms—e.g., open forums—reduces conflict frequency, while escalation protocols manage outliers. Regular workshops reinforce skills, ensuring stability supports sustained development through psychological insight.
Learning Organizations: Psychological Foundations of Adaptation
Learning organizations leverage psychology to foster adaptation, creating systems that evolve through knowledge (Senge, 1990). Organizational learning theory highlights shared mental models and experimentation, enabling firms to pivot—e.g., adopting new tech (Argyris & Schön, 1996). Psychology in organizational development drives this through cognitive and behavioral shifts.
Implementation includes training and feedback. Continuous learning—workshops, debriefs—builds adaptability, as in a retailer thriving post-market shift via staff upskilling (Garvin, 1993). Resistance—fear of failure—requires psychological safety, encouraging risk-taking (Edmondson, 1999). Firms stagnating without learning, like outdated manufacturers, underscore its necessity.
Adaptation fuels development by enhancing agility and innovation. Learning organizations anticipate trends, as in a firm launching eco-friendly products ahead of peers, while employee growth aligns with goals. Psychology in organizational development sustains this through knowledge-sharing platforms, embedding adaptability into the core.
Cultural reinforcement ensures longevity. A learning ethos—celebrating inquiry—overcomes inertia, while metrics track progress—e.g., skill adoption rates. A firm integrating lessons from past failures exemplifies this resilience. By rooting adaptation in psychology, learning organizations secure developmental success.
Stress Management: Supporting Development with Well-Being
Stress management supports organizational development by promoting well-being, mitigating burnout’s impact on performance (Maslach et al., 2001). Stress— deadlines, uncertainty—triggers cortisol, impairing focus, but psychological strategies like mindfulness reduce its toll (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Psychology in organizational development prioritizes health as a developmental asset.
Interventions include wellness programs and workload balance. Mindfulness training lowers stress by 20%, enhancing decision-making, as in a firm offering meditation (Kabat-Zinn, 1990). Poor management—overloading staff—exacerbates burnout, with data showing 75% of employees cite stress as a productivity barrier (APA, 2020). Balanced schedules restore capacity, supporting growth.
Well-being drives developmental outcomes like retention and creativity. Healthy employees stay engaged, reducing costs, while reduced stress sparks innovation—e.g., a rested team devising efficiencies. Psychology in organizational development integrates this through regular stress audits, ensuring support aligns with needs.
Systemic support sustains this. A culture valuing rest—e.g., mandatory breaks—prevents chronic stress, while leadership modeling well-being sets norms. A firm thriving post-restructuring via wellness exemplifies success. By embedding stress management, psychology ensures development rests on a foundation of employee health.
Enhancing Creativity, Fairness, and Resilience
Psychology in organizational development fosters creativity, fairness, and resilience, enhancing long-term capacity. This section explores these dimensions.
Innovation Psychology: Fostering Creativity in Organizations
Innovation psychology fosters creativity, a driver of organizational development, by unlocking cognitive and emotional potential (Amabile, 1996). Intrinsic motivation—curiosity, mastery—sparks ideas, while supportive environments—freedom, resources—nurture them (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). Psychology in organizational development harnesses this to fuel progress.
Strategies include autonomy and collaboration. Granting time for experimentation—e.g., Google’s 20% rule—yields breakthroughs, while diverse teams amplify creativity, as in a firm launching a novel app (West, 2002). Constraints—rigid hierarchies—stifle it, with research showing autonomy boosts innovation by 30% (Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Psychology ensures conditions optimize creative output.
Creativity drives developmental gains like competitiveness and adaptability. Innovative firms lead markets, as seen in tech giants outpacing rivals, while adaptive solutions—e.g., pivoting during downturns—sustain growth. Psychology in organizational development sustains this through idea incubators, embedding creativity into strategy.
Cultural alignment reinforces this. A firm celebrating failure as learning—e.g., post-mortem reviews—reduces fear, while metrics track innovation—patents, suggestions. A retailer thriving via staff-driven redesigns exemplifies success. By leveraging psychology, innovation becomes a developmental engine, ensuring organizational vitality.
Organizational Justice: Psychology of Fairness in Development
Organizational justice, rooted in perceptions of fairness, enhances development by fostering trust and equity (Greenberg, 1990). Distributive justice (resource allocation), procedural justice (fair processes), and interactional justice (respectful treatment) shape morale (Colquitt et al., 2001). Psychology in organizational development uses this to align practices with employee expectations.
Applications include transparent policies and voice. Equitable pay—reflecting effort—boosts satisfaction, as in a firm revising salaries post-audit, while inclusive decision-making—e.g., staff input on cuts—enhances procedural fairness (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Injustice—favoritism—erodes trust, with data showing 40% of turnover ties to perceived unfairness (Adams, 1965).
Justice drives developmental outcomes like engagement and stability. Fair firms retain talent, as employees reciprocate equity with loyalty, while stable cultures attract investment. Psychology in organizational development sustains this through regular fairness audits, ensuring alignment with growth goals.
Leadership modeling reinforces this. A CEO addressing bias openly sets norms, while grievance systems resolve disputes, as in a firm retaining staff post-reform. By embedding justice, psychology ensures development rests on ethical foundations, enhancing organizational integrity.
Resilience Training: Preparing Organizations for Challenges
Resilience training builds psychological capacity to withstand challenges, supporting organizational development (Robertson et al., 2015). Cognitive-behavioral techniques—reframing setbacks—enhance coping, while social support buffers stress (Luthans et al., 2007). Psychology in organizational development prepares firms for adversity.
Programs include workshops and simulations. Resilience training—e.g., stress inoculation—cuts absenteeism by 15%, as in a firm rebounding post-crisis (Masten, 2001). Unpreparedness—ignoring mental health—prolongs recovery, with research showing resilient teams adapt faster (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003). Psychology ensures proactive readiness.
Resilience fuels developmental resilience and innovation. Trained employees navigate disruptions—e.g., supply chain breaks—while resilient cultures pivot creatively. Psychology in organizational development sustains this through peer networks, embedding strength into operations.
Systemic integration ensures longevity. A firm embedding resilience via policy—e.g., crisis drills—outlasts peers, while metrics—e.g., recovery time—track efficacy. A retailer thriving post-pandemic via trained staff exemplifies success. By leveraging psychology, resilience training fortifies development, ensuring organizations endure and grow.
Conclusion
Psychology in organizational development serves as a transformative force within business psychology foundations, integrating human behavior and cognition to drive growth, stability, and resilience. This article has demonstrated how the psychology of change, employee engagement, and culture building lay developmental foundations, while leadership development, team cohesion, and motivation theories propel progress. Conflict resolution, learning organizations, and stress management ensure stability and adaptation, complemented by innovation psychology, organizational justice, and resilience training fostering creativity, fairness, and preparedness.
These principles yield profound impacts. By addressing change and engagement, organizations unlock potential; by enhancing leadership and teams, they achieve strategic progress. Stability and adaptability, supported by psychological approaches, sustain operations, while creativity, justice, and resilience secure long-term competitiveness. Psychology in organizational development thus aligns human dynamics with organizational goals, creating workplaces that excel ethically and operationally.
As organizations face evolving challenges—globalization, technological disruption, workforce diversity—psychology remains a timeless tool, aligning with trends toward agility and well-being. This comprehensive exploration offers a definitive guide, empowering stakeholders to leverage psychology in organizational development for sustained success, ensuring organizations not only survive but thrive in complexity.
References
[1] Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267-299.
[2] Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context. Westview Press.
[3] American Psychological Association (APA). (2020). Stress in America 2020: A National Mental Health Crisis. APA.
[4] Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. Addison-Wesley.
[5] Avolio, B. J., & Hannah, S. T. (2008). Developmental readiness: Accelerating leader development. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(4), 331-347.
[6] Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13(3), 209-223.
[7] Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 989-1004.
[8] Burke, W. W. (2017). Organization Change: Theory and Practice (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
[9] Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (2002). The measurement of cohesiveness in sport groups. Advances in Sport Psychology, 2, 123-145.
[10] Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445.
[11] Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. HarperCollins.
[12] Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 581-613.
[13] Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
[14] Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness. Wiley.
[15] Deutsch, M. (1994). Constructive conflict resolution: Principles, training, and research. Journal of Social Issues, 50(1), 13-32.
[16] Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
[17] Forsyth, D. R. (2010). Group Dynamics (5th ed.). Wadsworth.
[18] Gallup. (2020). State of the Global Workplace: 2020 Report. Gallup Press.
[19] Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 78-91.
[20] Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Bantam Books.
[21] Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399-432.
[22] Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances. Harvard Business Review Press.
[23] Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279.
[24] Hogan, S. J., & Coote, L. V. (2014). Organizational culture, innovation, and performance: A test of Schein’s model. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1609-1621.
[25] Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530-557.
[26] Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness. Delacorte Press.
[27] Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
[28] Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and Other Bribes. Houghton Mifflin.
[29] Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business Review Press.
[30] Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485-516.
[31] Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. Springer.
[32] Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science. Harper & Row.
[33] Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance. Prentice Hall.
[34] Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological Capital: Developing the Human Competitive Edge. Oxford University Press.
[35] Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397-422.
[36] Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.
[37] Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227-238.
[38] Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607-634.
[39] Peterson, D. B. (1996). Executive coaching at work: The art of one-on-one change. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48(2), 78-86.
[40] Robertson, I. T., Cooper, C. L., Sarkar, M., & Curran, T. (2015). Resilience training in the workplace from 2003 to 2014: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(3), 533-562.
[41] Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. Guilford Press.
[42] Salas, E., Reyes, D. L., & McDaniel, S. H. (2015). The science of teamwork: Progress, reflections, and the road ahead. American Psychologist, 70(8), 599-617.
[43] Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71-92.
[44] Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
[45] Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday.
[46] Sutcliffe, K. M., & Vogus, T. J. (2003). Organizing for resilience. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive Organizational Scholarship (pp. 94-110). Berrett-Koehler.
[47] Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33-47). Brooks/Cole.
[48] Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[49] Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3), 265-274.
[50] West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology, 51(3), 355-387.
[51] Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201.