CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 120

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Is perfect good? A meta-analysis of perfectionism in the workplace.

Harari, Dana, Swider, Brian W., Steed, Laurens Bujold, Breidenthal, Amy P.·2018·Journal of Applied Psychology
DOI 10.1037/apl0000324
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Although the concept of perfectionism is familiar to most people, its relationships with organizationally relevant variables remain unclear because of the dispersed and multidisciplinary nature of extant research. The state of the literature is particularly concerning given the likely widespread influence perfectionism has on individuals' workplace attitudes and behaviors. Moreover, research in multiple disciplines of psychology has revealed the phenomenon of perfectionism to be multidimensional. In addition, the totality of effects surrounding perfectionism remains unclear as perfectionism carries both benefits as well as consequences for employees and organizations. To cogently synthesize and empirically disentangle the possible differential effects associated with perfectionism at work, the authors conducted a meta-analysis of perfectionism and work-related antecedents and outcomes. The resulting qualitative and quantitative review reveals perfectionism to have sizable and consistent relationships with several organizationally relevant factors but an equivocal overall relationship with job performance. The authors provide a theoretical and empirical overview of the state of the literature and suggest avenues for future research that may facilitate better integration of perfectionism into organizational research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/apl0000324

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 120

Metadata

Authors
Harari, D., Swider, B. W., Steed, L. B., & Breidenthal, A. P.
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2018-10
Volume
103
Issue
10
Pages
1121-1144
ISSN
  • 1939-1854
  • 0021-9010
DOI
10.1037/apl0000324
Cited by
120
References
30
Language
en

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