CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 232Team Dynamics and PerformanceManagement Theory and PracticeSocial and Intergroup Psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

From causes to conditions in group research

Open access
Hackman, J. Richard·2012·Journal of Organizational Behavior
DOI 10.1002/job.1774
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Summary: It is time to move beyond standard conceptual and research paradigms in scientific work on group behavior and performance to better align our models and methods with the phenomena we are studying. Cause–effect models are of limited use in conducting research and generating useable theory about group behavior and performance. This paper proposes and illustrates an alternative conceptual approach that focuses on the conditions within which groups chart their own courses. The paper suggests three implications of a condition‐focused approach for those who create, lead, and serve in purposive groups, and closes with a discussion of the conceptual challenges that must be overcome if the potential of a condition‐focused approach is to be realized. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/job.1774

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 70 references

1 of the 70 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Arrow H., 2000, Small groups as complex systems
  2. Flight Safety Foundation, 2000, FSF ALAR briefing note 7.1—Stabilized approach, Flight Safety Digest, 133
  3. 10.2307/256496 · DOI
  4. Gigerenzer G., 1999, Simple heuristics that make us smart, 3
  5. 10.5465/amr.2005.16387885 · DOI
  6. Herbst P. G., 1974, Sociotechnical design
  7. McGrath J. E., 1962, Leadership behavior: Some requirements for leadership training
  8. 10.1287/orsc.12.5.559.10094 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 232

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hackman, J. R.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Hackman, J. Richard
Venue
Journal of Organizational Behavior
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-01-13
Volume
33
Issue
3
Pages
428-444
ISSN
  • 0894-3796 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1379
DOI
10.1002/job.1774
OpenAlex
W1593258641
Cited by
232
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
22.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Journal of Organizational Behavior (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management Theory and Practice
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
group behavior, group performance, causal models, group dynamics, group leadership, group development, conceptual model

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review