Fabiola H. Gerpott

How do people think about interdependence? A multidimensional model of subjective outcome interdependence.

Interdependence is a fundamental characteristic of social interactions. Interdependence Theory states that 6 dimensions describe differences between social situations. Here we examine if these 6 dimensions describe how people think about their interdependence with others in a situation. We find that people (in situ and ex situ) can reliably differentiate situations according to 5, but not 6, dimensions of interdependence: (a) mutual dependence, (b) power, (c) conflict, (d) future interdependence, and (e) information certainty. This model offers a unique framework for understanding how people think about social situations compared to another recent model of situation construal (DIAMONDS). Furthermore, we examine factors that are theorized to shape perceptions of interdependence, such as situational cues (e.g., nonverbal behavior) and personality (e.g., HEXACO and Social Value Orientation). We also study the implications of subjective interdependence for emotions and cooperative behavior during social interactions. This model of subjective interdependence explains substantial variation in the emotions people experience in situations (i.e., happiness, sadness, anger, and disgust), and explains 24% of the variance in cooperation, above and beyond the DIAMONDS model. Throughout these studies, we develop and validate a multidimensional measure of subjective outcome interdependence that can be used in diverse situations and relationships—the Situational Interdependence Scale (SIS). We discuss how this model of interdependence can be used to better understand how people think about social situations encountered in close relationships, organizations, and society.

The right strategy? Examining the Business Partner Model’s functionality for resolving Human Resource Management tensions and discussing alternative directions

A large number of organizations restructured their Human Resource Management (HRM) departments according to their interpretation of Ulrichs (1997) business partner model into strategic business partners, centers of expertise and shared service centers. I argue that this approach could gain widespread acceptance in organizational practice because of its functionality in addressing tensions inherent in HRM. I relate to paradox research and categorize contradictory HRM demands into tensions of (1) identity, (2) learning, (3) performing and (4) organizing. The implementation of the business partner model resolves these tensions in the short-term by addressing the opposing forces separately. Yet, these resolution strategies are not sustainable and threaten the long-term impact of HRM. I discuss the shortcomings of the business partner model and explore how organizational actors can reframe HRM work to embrace the multifaceted nature of HRM.

Age-Diverse Training Groups: How Knowledge Sharing & Psychological Safety Promote Learning Outcomes

The increasing age diversity of the workforce that results from global demographic shifts presents a human resource development challenge for contemporary organizations. This study investigates the...

Intergenerational Learning in Organizations: A Temporal-Dynamic View on Age-Mixed Training Groups

Demographic changes result in a higher pressure on organizations to continuously qualify employees across all career stages and ensure the transfer of company-specific knowledge be-tween experienced and young workers. One possibility to address both challenges simultaneously is the implementation of intergenerational training groups, i.e., human resource development programs for mixed-age groups of employees. This longitudinal qualitative study examines intergenerational learning in an 18-month full-time qualification course with both young (16–19 years) and experienced (41–47 years) participants at a large automobile company. Data from 31 interviews over a span of three years reveal that both generations possess distinct expert, practical, social and meta-cognitive knowledge. Furthermore, I find that exchange between generations varies over time. This change is mapped in a dynamic model of intergenerational learning involving three phases: (1) Familiarization, (2) Assimilation and (3) Detachment. Based o...