This manifesto presents 10 recommendations for a sustainable future for the field of Work and Organizational Psychology. The manifesto is the result of an emerging movement around the Future of WOP (see www.futureofwop.com), which aims to bring together WOP-scholars committed to actively contribute to building a better future for our field. Our recommendations are intended to support both individuals and collectives to become actively engaged in co-creating the future of WOP together with us. Therefore, this manifesto is open and never “finished.” It should continuously evolve, based on an ongoing debate around our professional values and behavior. This manifesto is meant, first of all, for ourselves as an academic community. Furthermore, it is also important for managers, decision makers, and other stakeholders and interested parties, such as students, governments and organizations, as we envision what the future of WOP could look like, and it is only through our collective efforts that we will be able to realize a sustainable future for all of us.

Scholarly research faces threats to its sustainability on multiple domains (access, incentives, reproducibility, inclusivity). We argue that “after-the-fact” research papers do not help and actually cause some of these threats because the chronology of the research cycle is lost in a research paper. We propose to give up the academic paper and propose a digitally native “as-you-go” alternative. In this design, modules of research outputs are communicated along the way and are directly linked to each other to form a network of outputs that can facilitate research evaluation. This embeds chronology in the design of scholarly communication and facilitates the recognition of more diverse outputs that go beyond the paper (e.g., code, materials). Moreover, using network analysis to investigate the relations between linked outputs could help align evaluation tools with evaluation questions. We illustrate how such a modular “as-you-go” design of scholarly communication could be structured and how network indicators could be computed to assist in the evaluation process, with specific use cases for funders, universities, and individual researchers.

Organizational performance feedback theory has gained prominence in behavioral strategy research over the last three decades, however a meta-analysis of its empirical findings is still absent. This paper offers a meta-analysis of empirical organizational performance feedback research (259 effect sizes extracted from 154 studies) from the last three decades, while building on several narrative reviews of this literature. Despite the fact that the large majority of this body of literature follow one baseline prediction - i.e. negative performance feedback induces higher likelihood of organizational responses, than positive performance feedback does - our findings reveal a wide variety of performance feedback - response relations. Our meta-analysis shows that organizational performance feedback theory offers relatively stronger empirical evidence for organizational search responses as compared to organizational change responses. Furthermore, a series of moderation analyses reveals that both model and organiz...

In this preregistered study we evaluate current attitudes towards, and experiences with, publishing research and propose an alternative system of publishing. Our main hypothesis is that researchers tend to become institutionalized, such that they are generally discontent with the current publication system, but that this dissatisfaction fades over time as they become tenured. A survey was distributed to the first authors of papers published in four recent issues of top-15 Work and Organizational Psychology (WOP) journals. Even among this positively biased sample, we found that the time it takes to publish a manuscript is negatively associated with whether authors perceive this time to be justifiable and worthwhile relative to the amount their manuscript has changed. Review quality and tenure buffer the negative relationship with perceived justifiability, but not for perceived worth. The findings suggest that untenured (WOP) researchers are dissatisfied with the publishing times of academic journals, which adds to the pile of criticisms of the journal-based publication system. Since publishing times are inherent to the journal-based publication system, we suggest that incremental improvements may not sufficiently address the problems associated with publishing times. We therefore propose the adoption of a modular publication system to improve (WOP) publishing experiences.

Organizational performance feedback theory (PFT), which is derived from the Behavioral Theory of the Firm, has emerged as a key perspective guiding studies investigating how performance relative to aspiration levels (i.e., performance feedback) influences organizational responsiveness. While the PFT literature refers to a core prediction - performance below aspirations induces more responsiveness than performance above aspirations does - empirical evidence reveals considerable conflicting findings. In line with contested issues in the current PFT literature, we propose a series of research questions and more refined predictions, which we elated to specific dimensions of performance feedback (valence, type of aspiration level and performance indicator), type of responsiveness (search versus change), and organizational characteristics (age, form of ownership, and industry). We test these refinements with various meta-analytic approaches, based on 263 effect sizes extracted from 156 studies. Our results demonstrate that the way in which performance feedback influences organizational responsiveness is sensitive to the factors we based our predictions on, with meta-analyzed effect sizes ranging from -0.106 to 0.055. Our findings help to systematically distinguish patterns in the heterogeneity associated with the performance feedback-responsiveness relationship. These results support our contention that more refined explanations, measures, and models of organizational performance feedback are needed.

Scholarly research faces threats to its sustainability on multiple domains (access, incentives, reproducibility, inclusivity). We argue that "after-the-fact" research papers do not help and actually cause some of these threats because the chronology of the research cycle is lost in a research paper. We propose to give up the academic paper and propose a digitally native "as-you-go" alternative. In this design, modules of research outputs are communicated along the way and are directly linked to each other to form a network of outputs that can facilitate research evaluation. This embeds chronology in the design of scholarly communication and facilitates recognition of more diverse outputs that go beyond the paper (e.g., code, materials). Moreover, using network analysis to investigate the relations between linked outputs could help align evaluation tools with evaluation questions. We illustrate how such a modular "as-you-go" design of scholarly communication could be structured and how network indicators could be computed to assist in the evaluation process, with specific use cases for funders, universities, and individual researchers.