Professor Katherine Klein is the Edward H. Bowman Professor of Management at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. She received her B.A. from Yale University and her Ph.D. from the University of Texas at Austin. Prior to coming to Wharton, Katherine was on the faculty of the University of Maryland and a visiting professor at the Stanford Graduate School of Business.
An award-winning organizational psychologist, Katherine has conducted extensive field research regarding a range of topics including team leadership, climate, conflict, social networks and effectiveness; organizational change and technology implementation; employee diversity; and employee responses to stock ownership and stock options. She has taught executive education, studied, and consulted with a variety of for-profit and non-profit organizations including Charles Schwab, Rohm and Haas, North American Scientific, Medtronic, The Baltimore Shock Trauma Center, Penn Vet, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the Korean Management Association.
Her research has been published in numerous top journals including Administrative Science Quarterly, Journal of Applied Psychology, the Academy of Management Journal, and the Academy of Management Review. A former associate editor of the Journal of Applied Psychology, she is currently an associate editor of Administrative Science Quarterly. Katherine is a Fellow of the Academy of Management, the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, the American Psychological Association, and the Association for Psychological Science.
Katherine’s current research interests include race in organizations; leadership succession and social network change; and Rwanda’s reconciliation and reconstruction following the 1994 genocide.
Over the years, my research and writing have focused primarily on the following topics:
David R Lebel, Nancy Rothbard, Katherine Klein, Steffanie L. Wilk, Gina Dokko (Working), The Way You Do the Things You Do: How Extraversion and Conscientiousness Shape the Consequences of Individual Innovation.
M. Schulte, N.A. Cohen, Katherine Klein (2012), The Coevolution of Network Ties and Perceptions of Team Psychological Safety, Organization Science, 23, p. 564.
Abstract: Which comes first—team social networks or emergent team states (e.g., team climate)? We argue that team members’ social network ties and team members’ climate perceptions coevolve over time as a function of six reciprocal and co-occurring processes. We test our conceptual framework in a 10-month longitudinal study of perceptions of team psychological safety and social network ties in 69 work teams and find considerable support for our hypotheses. Our main results suggest that perceptions of psychological safety predict network ties. The more psychologically safe team members perceive their team to be, the more likely they are to ask their teammates for advice and to see them as friends, and the less likely they are to report difficult relationships with them. At the same time, network ties predict psychological safety. Team members adopt their friends’ and advisors’ perceptions of the team’s psychological safety and reject the perceptions of those with whom they report a difficult relationship. Our framework and findings suggest that conceptual models and tests of unidirectional or team-level effects are likely to substantially misrepresent the mechanisms by which network ties and emergent team states coevolve.
Katherine Klein, A.P. Knight, J.C. Ziegert, B.C. Lim, J.L. Saltz (2011), When team members’ values differ: The moderating role of team leadership, Organizatiional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114: 25-36.
Abstract: Integrating theory and research on values, diversity, situational strength, and team leadership, we proposed that team leadership moderates the effects of values diversity on team conflict. In a longitudinal survey study of national service teams, we found significant, but opposite, moderating effects of task-focused and person-focused leadership. As predicted, task-focused leadership attenuated the diversity–conflict relationship, while person-focused leadership exacerbated the diversity–conflict relationship. More specifically, task-focused leadership decreased the relationship between work ethic diversity and team conflict. Person-focused leadership increased the relationship between traditionalism diversity and team conflict. Team conflict mediated the effects of the interactions of leadership and values diversity on team effectiveness.
D. A. Harrison and Katherine Klein (2007), What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety or disparity in organizations, Academy of Management Review, 32: 1199-1228.
Abstract: Research on organizational diversity, heterogeneity, and related concepts has proliferated in the past decade, but few consistent findings have emerged. We argue that the construct of diversity requires closer examination. We describe three distinctive types of diversity: separation, variety, and disparity. Failure to recognize the meaning, maximum shape, and assumptions underlying each type has held back theory development and yielded ambiguous research conclusions. We present guidelines for conceptualization, measurement, and theory testing, highlighting the special case of demographic diversity
B. C. Lim and Katherine Klein (2006), Team mental models and team performance: A field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27: 403-418.
Abstract: We conducted a field study of 71 action teams to examine the relationship between team mental model similarity and accuracy and the performance of real-world teams. We used Pathfinder to operationalize team members’ taskwork mental models (describing team procedures, tasks, and equipment) and teamwork mental models (describing team interaction processes) and examined team performance as evaluated by expert team assessment center raters. Both taskwork mental model and teamwork mental model similarity predicted team performance. Team mental model accuracy measures were also predictive of team performance. We discuss the implications of our findings and directions for future research.
Katherine Klein, J. C. Ziegert, A. P. Knight, Y. Xiao (2006), Dynamic delegation: Shared, hierarchical and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams, Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 590-621.
Abstract: This paper examines the leadership of extreme action teams—teams whose highly skilled members cooperate to perform urgent, unpredictable, interdependent, and highly consequential tasks while simultaneously coping with frequent changes in team composition and training their teams’ novice members. Our qualitative investigation of the leadership of extreme action medical teams in an emergency trauma center revealed a hierarchical, deindividualized system of shared leadership. At the heart of this system is dynamic delegation: senior leaders’ rapid and repeated delegation of the active leadership role to and withdrawal of the active leadership role from more junior leaders of the team. Our findings suggest that dynamic delegation enhances extreme action teams’ ability to perform reliably while also building their novice team members’ skills. We highlight the contingencies that guide senior leaders’ delegation and withdrawal of the active leadership role, as well as the values and structures that motivate and enable the shared, ongoing practice of dynamic delegation. Further, we suggest that extreme action teams and other “improvisational” organizational units may achieve swift coordination and reliable performance by melding hierarchical and bureaucratic role-based structures with flexibility-enhancing processes. The insights emerging from our findings at once extend and challenge prior leadership theory and research, paving the way for further theory development and research on team leadership in dynamic settings.
Katherine Klein and A. P. Knight (2005), Innovation implementation: Overcoming the challenge, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14: 243-246.
Abstract: In changing work environments, innovation is imperative. Yet, many teams and organizations fail to realize the expected benefits of innovations that they adopt. A key reason is not innovation failure but implementation failure—the failure to gain targeted employees’ skilled, consistent, and committed use of the innovation in question. We review research on the implementation process, outlining the reasons why implementation is so challenging for many teams and organizations. We then describe the organizational characteristics that together enhance the likelihood of successful implementation, including a strong, positive climate for implementation; management support for innovation implementation; financial resource availability; and a learning orientation.
Recent technological changes have raised awareness of the magnitude and devastating long-term effects of poverty, food insecurity, limited and unequal access to education, and other social issues. Coupled with growing awareness of these issues is the emerging sense that traditional government programs and charities may be unable to solve these problems - at least, not alone. What may be needed are new strategies - strategies borne of (a) a deep understanding of the issues; (b) interdisciplinary collaboration; and (c) access to business knowledge, frameworks, and resources. This course is designed to provide the information, strategies, examples, and analytical mindset to make students more rigorous, insightful, and effective in analyzing social ills and crafting potential solutions. Together, a cross-disciplinary group of undergraduate students, including students in Wharton, the College, and other Penn Schools, will examine the nature and extent of two pressing social problems - food insecurity and barriers to post-secondary education - and current approaches to solving these problems. After an introduction to the social impact landscape and review of frameworks and tools for social impact, we will meet with researchers, business leaders, and non-profit leaders to learn what's not working, what is working, and what might work even better.
Business success is increasingly driven by a firm's ability to create and capture value through innovation. Thus, the processes used by firms to develop innovations, the choices they make regarding how to commercialize their innovations, the changes they make to their business models to adapt to the dynamic environment, and the strategies they use to position and build a dominate competitive position are important issues facing firms. In MGMT. 892, you will learn to address these issues through an action learning approach. MGMT. 892 is a 1.0-credit course conducted in the spirit of an independent study. By working on consulting projects for leading global companies, you will develop and then apply your knowledge about innovation management and help these firms better understand the challenges and opportunities posed by emerging technologies and markets.
removing WH 898 as erroneous crosslist.
This is an introductory doctoral seminar on research methods in management. The course is designed to help you define your research interests, to strengthen your grasp of research design choices and standards, and to move you further along on the path to becoming a skilled, accomplished, engaged, and independent research scholar. We will read about, discuss, and in some cases practice: framing of research questions, writing for publication, defining and meeting research standards, and conducting experimental, archival, survey-based, and qualitative research suitable for publication in top-tier management journals.
For: Harrison, D. A. & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1198-1228.
For: Klein, K. J., Ziegert, J. C., Knight, A. P., Xiao, Y. (2006). Dynamic delegation: Shared, hierarchical, and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 590-621
Wharton’s Katherine Klein talks with B Lab co-founder Bart Houlahan about the soaring interest in companies seeking “Certified B Corporation” status and what that means for the social impact movement.Knowledge @ Wharton - 9/27/2021