Professor Michael Parke is an Assistant Professor of Management at the Wharton School. Previously, he served as an Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior at London Business School.
Michael studies how organizations can create engaging work environments so that employees willingly and consistently take initiative to contribute above and beyond the core requirements of their jobs. He investigates the environmental and emotional factors that motivate employees to speak up when problems arise and offer their creative insights and solutions in order to improve the overall effectiveness of their teams and organizations. His work has been published in the Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, and Journal of Applied Psychology.
At Wharton, Michael teaches Teamwork and Interpersonal Influence (MGMT301) for the undergraduate core. Prior to Wharton, Michael designed and taught Leading Teams and Organizations at London Business School. In 2019, he was voted the Best Teacher by the graduating MBA class at London Business School.
Michael received his Ph.D. in Organizational Behavior from the Robert H. Smith School of Business at University of Maryland, and he earned his BBA from the Stephen M. Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan. Prior to academia, he worked as a management consultant and held leadership roles in several start-up companies.
Michael Parke, Subra Tangirala, Insiya Hussain (2020), Creating organizational citizens: How and when supervisor- versus peer-led role interventions change organizational citizenship behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, in press.
Abstract: We generate and test new theory on how organizations can use role interventions to increase employees’ organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) such as helping and voice. In particular, we examine how interventions that employ supervisors and peers as change agents can independently and jointly motivate employees to engage in OCB by encouraging them to view their work roles more broadly. We propose that the effects of these interventions become apparent over two distinct temporal phases of change. In the early phase of the change process, when there is higher flux and uncertainty, supervisor-led interventions have relatively stronger positive influences on OCB change and peer-led interventions have limited effects. By contrast, during the later phase of the change process, as greater clarity about behavioral expectations emerges, peer-led interventions have a positive impact and work synergistically with supervisor-led interventions to increase OCB. Using a mixed methods approach, we found support for our theory in a longitudinal quasifield experiment—which tested when supervisor- and peer-led interventions induced changes in OCB—and we explored the processes and challenges underlying such changes in a qualitative follow-up investigation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Elad N. Sherf, Michael Parke, Sofya Isaakyan (2020), Distinguishing Voice and Silence at Work: Unique Relationships with Perceived Impact, Psychological Safety, and Burnout, Academy of Management Journal, in press.
Abstract: Scholars continue to debate whether voice and silence are opposites or distinct constructs. This ambiguity has prevented meaningful theoretical advancements about employees’ voice and silence at work. We draw on the behavioral activation and behavioral inhibition systems perspective to provide a conceptual framework for the independence of voice and silence and explicate how two key antecedents—perceived impact and psychological safety—more strongly relate to voice and silence, respectively. We further differentiate voice and silence by identifying their unique effects on employee burnout. In Study 1, a meta-analysis, we demonstrate that voice and silence are independent (Mρ = -.15) and that perceived impact (psychological safety) relates more strongly to voice (silence) than to silence (voice). We also find that silence has a significantly stronger association with burnout compared to voice. In Study 2, we constructively replicate these findings in an interval-contingent panel study across six months. Taken together, this article shifts the conversation of whether voice and silence are distinct constructs to how they differ and why such differences matter.
Michael Parke, Justin M Weinhardt, Andrew Brodsky, Subrahmaniam Tangirala, Sanford E DeVoe (2018), When daily planning improves employee performance: The importance of planning type, engagement, and interruptions, Journal of Applied Psychology.
Abstract: Does planning for a particular workday help employees perform better than on other days they fail to plan? We investigate this question by identifying 2 distinct types of daily work planning to explain why and when planning improves employees’ daily performance. The first type is time management planning (TMP)—creating task lists, prioritizing tasks, and determining how and when to perform them. We propose that TMP enhances employees’ performance by increasing their work engagement, but that these positive effects are weakened when employees face many interruptions in their day. The second type is contingent planning (CP) in which employees anticipate possible interruptions in their work and plan for them. We propose that CP helps employees stay engaged and perform well despite frequent interruptions. We investigate these hypotheses using a 2-week experience-sampling study. Our findings indicate that TMP’s positive effects are conditioned upon the amount of interruptions, but CP has positive effects that are not influenced by the level of interruptions. Through this study, we help inform workers of the different planning methods they can use to increase their daily motivation and performance in dynamic work environments. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
Michael Parke and Myeong-Gu Seo (2017), The role of affect climate in organizational effectiveness, Academy of Management Review, 42 (2), pp. 334-360.
Abstract: Past research widely demonstrates the importance of employee emotional experiences and processes for individual and small group outcomes. However, theory is lacking on how organizations systematically differ in their affective processes and how these impact important organizational outcomes. To address this problem, we use organizational climate theory to advance the construct of affect climate and provide a conceptual foundation for understanding its processes and effects in organizations. We propose that through various sources of climate, such as company practices, leaders, and routines, organizations can create environments that promote, among employees, (1) certain types of affective experiences or expressions, (2) specific uses of desirable affect for functional goals, and (3) particular ways to manage undesirable emotions and moods. We suggest that these three interrelated processes work together to form one of six unique organizational affect climate types. Further, we develop theory to explain how each affect climate type differentially impacts four strategic outcomes of organizational units: relationship, productivity, creativity, and reliability performance. Ultimately, our theory positions affect climate as another key performance differentiator for organizations, and it provides knowledge of the specific affect climate types that enable or inhibit distinct strategic priorities.
Michael Parke, Myeong-Gu Seo, Elad N. Sherf (2015), Regulating and facilitating: The role of emotional intelligence in maintaining and using positive affect for creativity, Journal of Applied Psychology, 100 (3), pp. 917-934.
Abstract: Although past research has identified the effects of emotional intelligence on numerous employee outcomes, the relationship between emotional intelligence and creativity has not been well established. We draw upon affective information processing theory to explain how two facets of emotional intelligence—emotion regulation and emotion facilitation—shape employee creativity. Specifically, we propose that emotion regulation ability enables employees to maintain higher positive affect (PA) when faced with unique knowledge processing requirements, while emotion facilitation ability enables employees to use their PA to enhance their creativity. We find support for our hypotheses using a multimethod (ability test, experience sampling, survey) and multisource (archival, self-reported, supervisor-reported) research design of early career managers across a wide range of jobs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).
Subrahmaniam Tangirala, Dishan Kamdar, Vijaya Venkataramani, Michael Parke (2013), Doing right versus getting ahead: The effects of duty and achievement orientations on employees’ voice, Journal of Applied Psychology, 98 (6), pp. 1040-1050.
Abstract: Using role theory as the overarching framework, we propose that employees’ voice has contrasting relationships with the traits of duty orientation, or employees’ dispositional sense of moral and ethical obligation at the workplace, and achievement orientation, or the extent of their ingrained personal ambition to get ahead professionally. Using data from 262 employees and their managers, we demonstrate that duty and achievement orientations are, respectively, positively and negatively related to voice through their impact on voice role conceptualization or the extent to which employees consider voice as part of their personal responsibility at work. Further, we delineate how employees’ beliefs about their efficacy to engage in voice and judgments about psychological safety in the organization can moderate these relationships. We discuss the implications of these findings for theory and practice.
Organizations emerge because individuals cannot (or do not want to) accomplish their goals alone. Therefore, an organization is most often defined as a collective oriented toward a common goal. Collaboration --in relationships and in teams -- is the building block of organizational effectiveness. That is, much of your work each day will occur in a social context, and will require you to wield influence (and be influenced). Moreover, over 80% of Fortune 1,000 companies now use teams. The ability to work effectively in teams is thus a critical skill. In this course we will use the latest evidence from the science of organizations to understand an array of tactics that can help you work with others (and manage them) as you strive to attain shared goals, especially in the context of teams. You will develop a portable toolkit of ideas related to managing team decision making, team conflict, team diversity, interpersonal influence and emotional intelligence. This is a cross-listed course. Students may enroll in either MGMT 301 or WH 301.