When leaders and their employees disagree: investigating the consequences of differences in cognitions of workplace event criticality

Purpose

Criticality cognitions regarding the same workplace event often differ between leaders and employees. Nevertheless, its consequences on employee work outcomes remain unknown. In this study, we draw on cognitive dissonance theory to examine how and why leader–employee differences in cognitions of workplace event criticality impact employee job-related outcomes.

Design/methodology/approach

Wu used multilevel polynomial regression analyses from a time-lagged, multi-source field study with 145 leader–employee dyads to test our proposed model.

Findings

Leader–employee differences in cognitions of workplace event criticality can bring both benefits and perils to employees. Specifically, such differences can cause employee rumination, which in turn leads to an increase in both employee voice and fatigue.

Originality/value

This study contributes to the event and cognitive discrepancy literature in four ways. First, prior event studies largely adopted a singular employee perspective for investigation (e.g. Chen et al., 2021; Lin et al., 2021). By examining the impacts of event criticality from the dual perspective of leaders and employees, we attain a more comprehensive understanding of the implications of workplace events in organizational life. Second, extant studies have predominantly focused on the dark side of cognitive discrepancy (e.g. Bashshur et al., 2011; Erdogan et al., 2004; Grandey et al., 2013). Our study reveals that leader–employee differences in criticality cognitions can have both a bright and a dark side on employee outcomes, offering a more balanced and dialectical view of the consequences of cognitive discrepancy. Third, drawing on cognitive dissonance theory, we introduce employee rumination as an underlying mechanism to explain the impacts of leader–employee differences in criticality cognitions on employee voice and fatigue. Finally, while prior cognitive dissonance research has primarily employed an intrapersonal perspective (e.g. Sivanathan et al., 2008; Pugh et al., 2011; Grandey et al., 2013), our study adopts an interpersonal lens and underscores that interpersonal differences in cognitions can also serve as an example of cognitive discrepancy to instigate internal dissonance processes. By doing so, we enrich our understanding of cognitive dissonance theory.