Faculty
Pauline Schilpzand
Professor
Management

Pauline Schilpzand

541-737-2717

pauline.schilpzand@bus.oregonstate.edu

Faculty
Pauline Schilpzand
Overview
Overview
Publications

Overview

Credentials

Ph.D. in Management Studies, University of Florida, Warrington College of Business

Career Interests

Dr. Pauline Schilpzand is an Associate Professor of Management in the College of Business at Oregon State University, the School Head for Management, Strategy & Entrepreneurship, and Suppl Chain Management. Pauline received her Ph.D. in Management from the University of Florida.

Her primary research areas include employee proactivity, leadership, employee presenteeism, and workplace incivility. Her research has been published in the Academy of Management Journal, Organization Science, the Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, the Journal of Management, and the Journal of Organizational Behavior.

 

Honors and Awards:

  • Winner, Academy of Management Journal 2010 Best Paper Award.
  • Winner, 2011 Saroj Parasuraman Award for outstanding publication (presented by the gender and diversity in organizations division of the Academy of Management).
  • Excellence in Graduate Teaching Award 2014
  • Excellence in Scholarship (Research) Award 2015

 

Publications:

Cho, J., Schilpzand, P., Huang, L., & Paterson, T. (2021). How and When Humble Leadership Facilitates Employee Job Performance: The Roles of Feeling Trusted and Job Autonomy. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 28(2), 169-184.

Schilpzand, P. & Huang, L. (2018). When and How Experienced Incivility Dissuades Proactive Performance: An Integration of Sociometer and Self-Identity Orientation Perspectives, Journal of Applied Psychology.

Schilpzand, P., Houston, L., & Cho, J. (2018). Not Too Tired to be Proactive: Daily Empowering Leadership Spurs Next-Morning Employee Proactivity as Moderated by Nightly Sleep Quality. Academy of Management Journal.

Livingston, B. A, Schilpzand, P., & Erez, A. (2017). A. It’s not only what you say, it’s how you say it:  Accented messages and their effect on choice. Journal of Management. 43(3), 804-833.

Schilpzand, P., Leavitt, K., & Lim, S. (2016). Incivility hates company: shared victimization attenuates attribution-driven effects of rudeness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 133, 33-44.

Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I., & Erez, E. (2016). Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, S57-S88.

Erez, A., Schilpzand, P., Leavitt, K., Woolum, A., & Judge, T. A. (2015). Inherently relational: Interactions between peers’ and individuals’ personalities impact credit giving and evaluations of individual performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1761-1784.

Schilpzand, P., Hekman, D, & Mitchell, T. R. (2015). Courage: The nature of the concept and its implications for organizations. Organization Science, 26(1), 52-77.

Leavitt, K., Reynolds, S., Barnes, C. Schilpzand, P., & Hannah. S. (2012). Different hats, different obligations: Plural occupational identities and situated moral judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1316-1333.

Hekman, D., Aquino, K., Owens, B., Mitchell, T., Schilpzand, P. & Leavitt, K. (2010). An examination of whether and how racial and gender biases influence customer satisfaction ratings. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (2), 238-264.

 

Publications

Book
Management

“Dyadic Fit and the Process of Organizational Socialization”

Person-environment fit matters. Research has repeatedly shown that employees who fit with their jobs, their work groups, and their organizations are more committed and more satisfied (Kristof-Brown, Barrick, & Stevens, 2005). However, despite the demonstrated importance of person-environment fit, there has been a notable absence of research on interpersonal, dyadic fit at work (Ferris, Liden, Munyon, Summers, Basik, & Buckley, 2009). This is a surprising omission, because most people only feel like they really “fit” in a job if they have positive dyadic relationships with their co-workers and supervisor. As such, our understanding of behavior at work is incomplete if we fail to take the role of person-to-person relationships into account. There is also a practical, operational side to understanding dyadic relationships at work, because they facilitate the exchange of information and resources (e.g., Ibarra, Kilduff, & Tsai, 2005; Labianca & Brass, 2006; Nebus, 2006). Unfortunately, research on social relationships at work does not yet reflect the rich body of knowledge that has been amassed in other fields (Barry & Crant, 2000). Thus, while we know that interpersonal relationships are important, we currently do not know a great deal about these relationships in organizational contexts.
In this chapter, we outline a model of how person-environment fit develops in the course of social interactions among established organizational members and those who are new to the organization. The focus on the initial period of relationship development (i.e. organizational socialization) will help to illustrate a number of important processes that occur primarily in the initial acquaintance phase and unfold as individuals come to know one another better. Our theoretical development will proceed from a relationship science perspective (e.g., Berscheid, 1999; Kelley et al., 1983). This perspective offers insights that have been unexplored in both the person-environment fit and organizational socialization literatures, including an increased understanding of how people come to have close affective bonds with one another, a better set of tools for discussing the processes of social acceptance (and rejection), and a useful typology for differentiating types of relationships. To date, there has been only limited transfer of this material into the organizational behavior literature (for exceptions, see Ferris et al., 2009; Poteat, Shockley, & Allen, 2009; or Ragins & Dutton, 2007).
Details

50-74 pages 2013 Organizational Fit: Key Issues and New Directions John Kammeyer-Mueller Pauline Schilpzand Alex Rubenstein

Academic Journal
Management

“Different hats, different obligations: Plural occupational identities and situated moral judgments.”

It is well understood that moral identity substantially influences moral judgments. However, occupational identities are also replete with moral content, and individuals may have multiple occupational identities within a given work role (e.g., engineer-manager). Consequently, we apply the lenses of moral universalism and moral particularism to categorize occupational identities and explore their moral prescriptions. We present and test a model of occupational identities as implicitly-held and dynamically-activated knowledge structures, cued by context and containing associated content about the absolute and/or relationship-dependent moral obligations owed by the actor to stakeholders. Results from one field study and two situated experiments with dual-occupation individuals indicate that moral obligations embedded in occupational identities influence actors’ work-role moral judgments in a predictable and meaningful manner.
Details

1316-1333 pages 2012 Keith Leavitt Scott Reynolds Christopher Barnes Pauline Schilpzand Sean Hannah View on: Google Scholar

Academic Journal
Management

“Disrupting the Chain of Displaced Aggression: A Review and Agenda for Future Research”

Displaced aggression refers to instances in which a person redirects their harm-doing behavior from a primary to a substitute, secondary target. Since the publication of the first empirical article in 1948, there has been a noticeable surge in research referencing this theory in both management and psychology journals. This trend highlights the continuing relevance of displaced aggression research and its applicability to other disciplinary fields (e.g., criminology, hospitality management, information systems, tourism). Despite the ubiquity of displaced aggression theory, however, there persists a notable lack of clarity and consensus regarding its fundamental principles, triggering factors, and underlying mechanisms. In light of these limitations, we provide a systematic and interdisciplinary review of displaced aggression theory with three key aims. First, our review offers foundational knowledge that helps unify the diverse ways in which scholars from varied disciplinary backgrounds have applied, interpreted, and operationalized displaced aggression. Second, inspired by the I3 Model, we introduce an overarching theoretical framework to coherently and parsimoniously organize the displaced aggression literature. Lastly, to move the field forward, we propose a promising agenda for future research that focuses on important issues emerging from our review.
Details

Lagios Restubog Pauline Schilpzand Kiazad Aquino