Suchergebnisse

Despite the generally positive consequences associated with justice, recent research suggests that supervisors cannot always enact justice, and responses to justice may not be universally positive. Thus, justice is likely to vary in both how much it is received and the employee reactions it engenders. In order to understand the range of justice responses, we develop a dynamic theory of justice by using person-environment fit to take both the value that an individual places in justice and the justice they received into account. Using this framework, we clarify the consequences of congruence versus incongruence in daily justice received and valued, which have implications for treatment discrepancies and subsequent work behavior. We also identify the differences between excess and deficient justice on cognitive and affective responses to justice. Our findings reveal that employees' experience of justice is more complicated than simply whether the justice they received was high or low on a particular day. Using experience sampling and polynomial regression methods, we observe that not all instances in which employees receive high levels of justice are equivalent. In fact, we find that, depending on justice valued, receiving high levels of justice can be just as detrimental as receiving low levels. Additionally, we find that although both forms of justice misfit (excess and deficiency) cause-negative work outcomes, they affect these outcomes through differential responses to justice — with excess causing increased rumination and deficiency causing decreased positive affect. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for extant justice theory and for supervisor-employee work interactions.

AbstractThe majority of research on voice has focused on how employee voice influences voicers and targets of voice (e.g. supervisors and organizations). We advance theory on voice by examining how third‐party observers react to expressions of voice behavior by coworkers. Drawing from affective events theory (AET), we examine the potential benefits and detriments of coworker voice behaviours. Results from an experience sampling study and an experiment revealed that coworker voice was associated with an increase in third‐party observers' inspiration, prompting third‐party observers to engage in their own voice behaviours. Although coworker voice did not have a significant main effect on third‐party observers' distress, this relation was moderated by third‐party observers' zero‐sum beliefs. Specifically, daily coworker voice behaviour was more positively related to third‐party observers' distress when third‐party observers' zero‐sum beliefs were higher (vs. lower). Third‐party observers' distress, in turn, was associated with an increase in interpersonal deviance behaviours. Overall, our theorizing and model answer why, when and for whom the bright versus dark side of coworker voice is likely to occur for third‐party observers.

How do leaders lead in a complex environment? Leaders often rely on help from others. However, not all help is necessarily beneficial to leaders, especially when it is offered without being asked (i.e., proactive helping). Unfortunately, theory to date has failed to understand the consequences associated with leaders' receipt of proactive helping at work. To address this shortcoming, we integrate theories of approach–avoidance and challenge–hindrance to unravel how leaders respond to receipt of proactive helping at work, which enabled us to capture both favorable and unfavorable responses to receipt of proactive helping. Our results demonstrated that leaders with higher levels of approach-oriented characteristics were likely to perceive the receipt of proactive helping as more challenging and less hindering. We further found that leaders' challenge and hindrance appraisals prompt them to engage in transformational and laissez-faire leadership behaviors, respectively. Our work provides an answer to the question of why and under what conditions leaders' receipt of proactive helping results in constructive leadership.