The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Positive Organizational Scholarship: A Critical Theory Perspective
Abstract
Positive organizational scholarship (POS) is considered an alternative approach to studying organizations; it is argued that POS plays a critical theory role in contemporary organizational scholarship. By using essays on critical theory in organizational science to consider POS research, and drawing from the principles of Gestalt psychology, it is argued that the important distinctions between POS and traditional organizational scholarship lie in POS's emphasis on positive processes, on value transparency, and on extending the range of what constitutes a positive organizational outcome. In doing so, it is concluded that the primary contribution of POS is that it offers an alternative to the deficit model that shapes the design and conduct of organizational research.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.56.3.218 · Cited by 18,025
Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and Mental Strain: Implications for Job Redesign
Karasek, R. A. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392498 · Cited by 12,597
Positive psychology: An introduction.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.5 · Cited by 11,351
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323 · Cited by 7,678
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920630002600307 · Cited by 5,897
The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits
Hansen, M. T. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2667032 · Cited by 5,809
Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building
Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1990.4310758 · Cited by 1,426
That's Interesting!: Towards a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of Phenomenology
Davis, M. S. (1971) · Philosophy of the Social Sciences · doi:10.1177/004839317100100211 · Cited by 1,219
Explaining Compassion Organizing
Dutton, J. E., Worline, M. C., Frost, P. J., & Lilius, J. (2006) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.51.1.59 · Cited by 714
Compassion in Organizational Life
Kanov, J. M., Maitlis, S., Worline, M. C., Dutton, J. E., Frost, P. J., & Lilius, J. M. (2004) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/0002764203260211 · Cited by 671
Cited by
Developing Sustainable Leaders Through Coaching and Compassion
Boyatzis, R. E., Smith, M. L., & Blaize, N. (2006) · Academy of Management Learning & Education · doi:10.5465/amle.2006.20388381 · Cited by 389
Wright, T. A., & Goodstein, J. (2007) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206307307644 · Cited by 209
How challenging was your work today? The role of autonomous work motivation
Tadić Vujčić, M., Oerlemans, W. G. M., & Bakker, A. B. (2017) · European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1080/1359432x.2016.1208653 · Cited by 72
Metadata
- Authors
- Caza, B. B., & Caza, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Management Inquiry
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2008-03
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 21-33
- ISSN
- 1056-4926 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-6542
- OpenAlex
- W2018289448
- Cited by
- 294
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 26.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
