Extant scholarship on psychological ownership has primarily focused on the organizational benefits that come from fostering employees' feelings of ownership without having to relinquish ties to actual ownership. It is unclear, however, if feeling like an owner is sufficient to satisfy employees' aspirational ownership intentions. By applying self-verification theory to psychological ownership theory, we investigate how employees' psychological ownership influences their views about being a competent business owner, and the potential double-edged implications for organizations as a result of these self-views. Utilizing two separate studies, we find that psychological ownership is positively associated with entrepreneurial self-efficacy, which, in turn, is positively associated with both entrepreneurial intentions and work performance. Furthermore, results show that employees' past work performance strengthens the positive relationship between psychological ownership and entrepreneurial self-efficacy and the positive indirect relationship between psychological ownership and entrepreneurial intentions through entrepreneurial self-efficacy. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of fostering psychological ownership with current employees to glean the benefits and negate any potential drawbacks, such as high performers leaving the organization to start their own business.
In difficult times, how can we alleviate employees' distress? Lay beliefs suggest that high-quality compassionate responses come from those who have “been there” before. According to hot–cold empathy gap theory, however, firsthand experience with another's distress may activate distorted memories of past distress, leading people to underestimate the severity and difficulty of another's current distress. Grounded in a relational perspective of compassion, we examine how sufferers experience the quality of actions taken to alleviate their distress (i.e., compassion action quality; CAQ), along with the responders' perceptions of their own responses (i.e., self-efficacy). Across three studies, we find that sufferers experience lower CAQ from responders who have (vs. have not) previously endured a similar distress. We examine three mechanisms that explain the negative effect of previously endured distress on CAQ, based on responders' self-focus, validation of sufferer's distress, and self-efficacy. We also examine the boundary conditions of this effect and find that it is distress specific. Specifically, this effect does not hold when responders who previously endured distress respond to sufferers who are currently enduring a different type of distress. These findings advance organizational research on compassion and inform efforts to improve people's capacity to alleviate distress at work.
Although leaders' unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB) have been identified as one of the key drivers of employees' unethical actions in organizations, our understanding of when and why leader UPB unfolds these adverse effects is still at an early stage. By integrating social cognitive theory with the literature on ethical mindset, the present research sheds light on the cognitive processes and boundary conditions that underpin the effects of leader UPB on followers. We argue that leader UPB may undermine followers' moral efficacy, which in turn translates into heightened follower UPB and general unethical behaviors (UBs). More importantly, we propose that ethical mindset moderates the two stages of the processes, such that followers' outcome-based ethical mindset weakens the effects of leader UPB on follower moral efficacy but strengthens the link between follower moral efficacy and their UPB and UB. The results of two field studies and one experiment provide consistent support for the hypothesized model. Theoretical and practical implications as well as avenues for future research are discussed.
This research sheds light on two crucial yet overlooked aspects of work interruptions: the perspective of employees who initiate interruptions and the reasons behind those interruptions. Building on earlier research on interruptions and theories on employee motivation, we identified six key reasons for interruptions that we integrated into a typology. This typology combined three interruption topics (performance, belongingness, and hedonic well-being) and two interruption foci (benefitting the interrupter and benefitting the interruptee; i.e., self-focused and other-focused). We validated this typology using qualitative reports and a scale-development approach, thereby creating the interruption-for-a-reason scale (IFRS). We found that interruptions were typically initiated for good reasons and positively correlated with social exchange constructs. That is, initiating interruptions was linked to requesting social support and to performing prosocial behaviors to coworkers. Altogether, this research contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of interruptions by offering a new perspective on interruptions that addresses the complexities of this phenomenon. Illuminating the interrupters' perspective and the various reasons for interruptions is key to a more balanced examination of the positive and negative aspects of interruptions.
Due to the rapid development of information and communication technologies, employees increasingly feel pressure to engage in work connectivity behavior after regular working hours (WCBA), giving rise to a novel form of job demand known as WCBA demands. This research examined the upside and downside of WCBA demands. Specifically, we defined WCBA demands as stressors that can be appraised by employees as challenges and/or threats. Challenge appraisals are related to job involvement, which in turn leads to job satisfaction and job performance; threat appraisals are related to job-induced tension, which in turn leads to family dissatisfaction and family incivility. We also examine regulatory focus as a boundary condition underlying the challenge-threat paradox of WCBA demands. To test the relationships among our hypotheses, we conducted a daily diary survey study of 176 employee-supervisor-spouse triads across five consecutive workdays. The findings show that employees with higher levels of promotion focus were more likely to appraise WCBA demands as challenges, which improved their work outcomes via increased job involvement. Employees with higher levels of prevention focus appraised WCBA demands as threats, which undermined their family outcomes via job-induced tension. Since these findings assume that WCBA demands act as stressors, we conducted a supplemental qualitative study (N = 19) confirming that employees commonly perceive WCBA demands as stressors. The implications for theory and research are discussed.
While research from various disciplines shows that women continue to disproportionately face workplace injustices compared to men, OB research has not found meaningful gender differences in self-reported workplace justice perceptions. This paradox has received little attention in the otherwise well-established organizational justice literature. We applied an abductive approach to investigate this paradox by a) confirming its existence, and b) proposing and empirically evaluating seven possible explanations for its existence, using multiple methods and seven distinct datasets. We found that this paradox is unlikely to be explained by measurement invariance, different expectations for treatment, whether the context is male-dominated, differences across years, or differences in how justice perceptions are formed. We did find, however, that when using alternate measurement approaches, women recalled gender-based injustice experiences, reported them as having occurred more frequently than did men, and reported them as having been negatively impactful on their lives/careers. We conclude that the most promising explanation for this paradox is that extant organizational justice measures are deficient for the purpose of capturing variance accountable to gender-based injustice. This highlights the need for more inclusive approaches for the measurement and application of organizational justice, especially when studying the relationship between gender and organizational justice.
Previous research on employee voice endorsement has mostly focused on its antecedents. In particular, most scholars seem to consider employee voice endorsement as a factor influencing only the voicers themselves. Thus, they have ignored its interpersonal influences, such as at the team level. The present study explores the influence of underachievers' voice endorsement on team voice. Specifically, we not only examine a boundary condition in this relationship but also develop and test a new construct of supervisors' voice judgment fairness as a mediator. Data from two multi-wave, multi-source surveys show that when underachievers' voice quality is higher (versus lower), the positive relationship between underachievers' voice endorsement and supervisors' voice judgment fairness is stronger, which in turn enhances team voice. These results offer meaningful theoretical implications for the voice endorsement literature and practical implications for organizations.
Bystander intervention has been promoted across organizations to combat sexual harassment and its deleterious effects. However, the career consequences of bystander reporters (e.g., their hireability prospects inside and outside the organization)—those who report sexual harassment on behalf of coworkers—are not well understood. Based on the social identity and person perception literatures, which suggest that recruiters are motivated to hire candidates with attributes helpful to the organization (perceived moral character and agreeableness), we proposed that candidates' history of reporting sexual harassment on behalf of a victim leads to perceived high moral character but low agreeableness, which subsequently have countervailing effects on hireability of these known reporters. We found support across three experimental studies using realistic hiring decision-making tasks and various employee samples. Based on the social identity literature, we further argued that perceptions and hireability of the known reporters depend on recruiter and candidate genders. In Study 2 and Study 3, we consistently found that the positive effect of reporting on perceptions of candidate moral character was weaker when the recruiter was male (vs. female) but we found mixed results for candidate gender effects. Theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：