Resource constraints and firm innovation: When less is more?
In: Chinese journal of population, resources and environment, Band 21, Heft 3, S. 172-180
ISSN: 2325-4262
20 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Chinese journal of population, resources and environment, Band 21, Heft 3, S. 172-180
ISSN: 2325-4262
In: London Oriental Series 29
SSRN
SSRN
Working paper
SSRN
Working paper
SSRN
In: Stanford University Graduate School of Business Research Paper No. 18-15
SSRN
Working paper
In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance
SSRN
Working paper
In: Journal of Banking and Finance, Forthcoming
SSRN
In: Computers and electronics in agriculture: COMPAG online ; an international journal, Band 211, S. 108005
In: Stanford University Graduate School of Business Research Paper No. 18-46
SSRN
Working paper
In: Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis
SSRN
In: Journal of managerial psychology
ISSN: 1758-7778
PurposeCriticality 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/approachWu used multilevel polynomial regression analyses from a time-lagged, multi-source field study with 145 leader–employee dyads to test our proposed model.FindingsLeader–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/valueThis 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.
In: International journal of academic research in business and social sciences: IJ-ARBSS, Band 14, Heft 4
ISSN: 2222-6990
In: Materials and design, Band 120, S. 56-65
ISSN: 1873-4197