Search

Although studies have verified the beneficial effects of individual mindfulness in the workplace, the knowledge of how leader mindfulness crosses over to team members' interpersonal behavior via affective-related mechanisms as well as when leader mindfulness is ineffective remains limited. Based on motivated empathy theory and the mindfulness literature, this research develops a model in which leader mindfulness enhances leader empathic concern, thereby improving team members' empathic concern and, in turn, increasing their interpersonal organizational citizenship behavior and decreasing their interpersonal counterproductive work behavior. When workplace hindrance stressors within a team are lower (vs higher), the effect of leader mindfulness on leader empathic concern becomes ineffective. We tested this model using two studies: (1) a quasi-field experiment in which 72 front-line leaders were assigned to either a mindfulness intervention condition or a waitlist control condition and (2) a three-wave, time-lagged survey using a sample of 84 leaders and 697 members. Both studies provide consistent support for our hypotheses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A large body of research has documented the ill effects of abusive supervision. However, this begs the question of why these behaviors continue to occur. To address this question, we contend that scholars need to understand how leaders—the perpetrators of these actions—make sense of abusive supervision. Specifically, drawing upon theories of appraisal and attribution, this paper examines leaders' cognitions of who is accountable for incidents of abusive supervision (i.e., the leader or the subordinate) and their future expectations (i.e., are individuals likely to engage in the same behaviors subsequently or are capable of change) and how these appraisals interact to shape emotional reactions. We conducted three complementary studies: a pilot study to identify relevant emotions, an event‐based experience sampling study (Study 1), and a retrospective recall study (Study 2). Accountability appraisals were associated with emotions, such that appraisals that oneself (vs. one's subordinate) was more responsible for the incident were linked to higher levels of guilt and shame. Although growth mindset moderated associations between accountability appraisals and emotions, it did so for different emotions across the two studies (i.e., hostility in Study 1 and shame in Study 2). Implications for theory and practice are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Why and when does team mindfulness help to reduce team relationship conflict? To answer this question, we develop and test a theoretical model that builds on Deutsch's theory of cooperation and competition. A two‐wave time‐lagged survey was conducted with 68 teams in an airline food service company located in China. The results showed that team mindfulness was negatively related to team relationship conflict via an increased cooperative conflict approach and a decreased competitive conflict approach. Further, high team job demands were shown to weaken the positive direct effect of team mindfulness on a cooperative conflict approach, as well as the indirect effect of team mindfulness on team relationship conflict via a cooperative approach. Theoretical contributions and practical implications are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are conflicting perspectives on whether subordinates will or will not aggress against an abusive supervisor. To address this paradox we develop a self-control model of retaliatory behavior, wherein subordinates' self-control capacity and motivation to self-control influence emotional and retaliatory reactions to provocations by enabling individuals to override their hostile impulses. In Study 1, we demonstrate that self-control capacity, motivation to self-control (supervisor coercive power), and abusive supervision interact in such a way that the strongest association between abusive supervision and supervisor-directed aggression occurs when subordinates are low in self-control capacity and perceive their supervisor to be low in coercive power. In Study 2, we extend this finding, testing a moderated mediation model, wherein hostility toward a supervisor represents the hostile impulse resulting in retaliatory behavior, mediating the relation between abusive supervision and supervisor-directed aggression. Results from Study 2 indicate that self-control capacity allows individuals to regulate the hostile feelings experienced following abusive supervision, while self-control capacity and supervisor coercive power jointly moderate the tendency to act on one's hostile feelings toward an abusive supervisor. We discuss implications for retaliatory behaviors at work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although a litany of theoretical accounts exists to explain why mistreated employees engage in counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs), little is known about whether these mechanisms are complementary or mutually exclusive, or the effect of context on their explanatory strength. To address these gaps, this meta-analytic investigation tests four theoretically-derived mechanisms simultaneously to explain the robust relationship between leader mistreatment and employee CWB: (1) a social exchange perspective, which argues that mistreated employees engage in negative reciprocal behaviors to counterbalance experienced mistreatment; (2) a justice perspective, whereby mistreated employees experience moral outrage and engage in retributive behaviors against the organization and its members; (3) a stressor-emotion perspective, which suggests that mistreated employees engage in CWBs to cope with their negative affect; and (4) a self-regulatory perspective, which proposes that mistreated employees are simply unable to inhibit undesirable behaviors. Moreover, we also examine whether the above model holds across cultures that vary on power distance. Our meta-analytic structural equation model demonstrated that all but the justice mechanism significantly mediated the relationship between leader mistreatment and employee CWBs, with negative affect emerging as the strongest explanatory mechanism in both high and low power distance cultures. Given these surprising results, as the stressor-emotion perspective is less frequently invoked in the literature, this paper highlights not only the importance of investigating multiple mechanisms together when examining the leader mistreatment-employee CWB relationship, but also the need to develop more nuanced theorizing about these mechanisms, particularly for negative affect., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Authors 2021.)