Search

Emotional distress is a common occurrence in ordinary workplaces. Recent reports suggest that one in four members of the workforce are suffering from psychological distress, and that one in six are suffering from clinical levels of depression or anxiety. Much of the research on workplace distress focuses on the causes and consequences of distress, as well as the stable characteristics of individual employees that impact their ability to cope with distress in the workplace. However, less attention has been paid to both organizational and interpersonal factors that can help mitigate employee suffering, as well as the behaviors that employees engage in to make sense of, and move forward from, their distress. Additionally, while there is a body of research that investigates the experience of change and resilience in the aftermath of adversity in the workplace, these have all been conducted in the context of inherently traumatic occupations, such as the military or emergency services. Unfortunately, little research investigates this process in the context of "ordinary" work. In an effort to gain greater insight into these questions relating to distress at work, we invited scholars studying this phenomenon within organizations. Together, these scholars shed light on distress in the context of ordinary work, including how suffering emerges in organizational contexts, as well as the types of behaviors that employees engage in to recognize, make sense of, and communicate about their own and others' distress in interpersonal or organizational settings. These processes are vital for both alleviating distress and creating healthy organizational cultures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Organizational justice is a topic that has been studied by numerous researchers, so much so that one might wonder whether there is anything left for future researchers to investigate. This is particularly an issue for newcomers to the literature, as they may feel overwhelmed by the amount of work already conducted. The purpose of this symposium is to alleviate this concern; indeed, each of the papers in this symposium reveals that there is still much to discover about organizational justice. The papers address novel discoveries about organizational justice such as the effect of gender, the affective state of the individual, justice enacted toward family members, and how the deliberate actions of employees can influence organizational justice. More specifically, Mu, Shen, and Bobocel study the effect of gender on the types of justice adherence expected, and the penalties supervisors receive as a result when they violate justice. Hill, Matta, and Mitchell examine the effect of the individual's affective state on their justice perceptions and the behaviors that follow. Burgess, Colquitt, and Vogel expand the scope of organizational justice by incorporating how justice at home influences justice at work. Koopman, Lee, and Stoverink investigate how individuals can intentionally engage in certain behaviors to earn justice from their supervisors. The papers in this symposium demonstrate the ways in which researchers can contribute to expanding the organizational justice literature in meaningful ways. Subordinate Gendered Reactions to Supervisor Interpersonal Justice Violations Presenter: Frank Mu; U. of Waterloo Presenter: Winny Shen; U. of Waterloo Presenter: Ramona Bobocel; U. of Waterloo Woke Up on the Right Side of the Bed? Morning Mood on Daily Justice Rule Perceptions and Performance Presenter: Edwyna Theresa Hill; U. of Georgia Presenter: Fadel Khalil Matta; U. of Georgia Presenter: Marie S. Mitchell; U. of Georgia Does Fairness Beget Fairness? A Daily Investigation of Supervisor Fairness Toward Kids and Employees Presenter: Lauren Rachel Burgess; U. of Georgia Presenter: Jason Colquitt; U. of Georgia Presenter: Ryan M. Vogel; Fox School of Business, Temple U. Striving for Justice: A Politically Motivated Investigation of Supervisor Adherence to Justice Rules Presenter: Joel Koopman; Texas A&M U. Presenter: Young Eun Lee; Texas A&M U., College Station Presenter: Adam C. Stoverink; U. of Arkansas [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several reviews have been critical of the content validity of scales used in applied psychology. Hinkin and Tracey's (1999) technique-where naive raters gauge the degree to which scale items correspond to construct definitions-offers one quantitative approach to assessing content validity when new scales are introduced. Unfortunately, there is no clear standard-no proverbial ".70"-for judging whether definitional correspondence is adequate or inadequate. To create such a standard, we gathered all new scales introduced in Journal of Applied Psychology, Academy of Management Journal, Personnel Psychology, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes from 2010 to 2015. We then subjected those 91 scales to Hinkin and Tracey's (1999) technique using 1866 undergraduates and MTurkers, with a common rating scale and expanded instructions. Our results showed that the scales averaged a 5.30 out of 7.00 for definitional correspondence. We propose dividing the former by the latter to create a coefficient in more typical units, yielding a .76 average. Additional analyses showed that scales validated using Hinkin and Tracey's (1999) technique yielded better results, as did scales with more clearly written construct definitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Organizational justice is truly all around us. Each of the papers in this symposium highlight this truth in one or more ways, including 1) considering how coworkers can undermine justice from supervisors, 2) recognizing that employees consider not only their own level of fair treatment, but also they compare this to how fairly their coworkers are treated, 3) investigating the daily consequences of justice, and 4) examining how employees are able to influence fair treatment from their supervisor. This symposium demonstrates the breadth and dynamics of the organizational justice literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Replication arguably has a role to play in advancing management scholarship. In related fields such as psychology and economics, results have been challenged because other scholars could not replicate them. The issue has attracted so much attention that a few months ago The Economist devoted its cover story to the need for replication in academic research. In this symposium, prominent management scholars and journal editors will discuss the role of replication research in a range of management fields, both today and in the future. The panelists will discuss various types of replication studies, the ways in which such studies can advance management scholarship, and criticisms that can be leveled at replication research. Then the panelists will turn to the subject of publication of replication research by management journals. Finally, the symposium will conclude with Q&A from the audience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although mentoring research acknowledges that peers can assume an informal mentoring role, those peers face an interesting puzzle when engaging in such activities. Should they mentor rising stars who are on the fast track to success in the firm, or should they mentor perceived projects who remain works in progress in terms of their capabilities? Drawing on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), we built a model that captures some of the different consequences (and antecedents) of informal mentoring of rising stars and perceived projects. We then tested that model in a field study with four sources (the peer mentor, the rising star and perceived project protégés, and the mentor's supervisor) and two time periods. Our results showed that the mentoring of perceived projects "not rising stars" predicted learning by the mentor. Working with both kinds of protégés was associated with positive sentiments toward the mentor on the part of the supervisor, however. Learning and supervisor sentiments went on to predict both the perceived effectiveness of the mentor and his or her organization-based self-esteem. In terms of antecedents, rational motives (e.g., creating a good impression, expanding one's capabilities) predicted the mentoring of both types of protégés, with physical attractiveness also predicting the mentoring of perceived projects. We discuss the implications of our results for applications of social exchange theory and for the practice of mentoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]