Search

According to transactional stress theory (TST), the extent to which entrepreneurs cope with errors by engaging in error damage control or ruminating about disengaging from their business goals depends on whether they interpret action errors as predominantly challenging or threatening. Using latent profile analysis (LPA), the current study investigates the existence of latent profiles of challenge and threat appraisal of entrepreneurial errors and their relationship with error damage control and rumination about business goal disengagement in a sample of 649 entrepreneurs. The results identify five appraisal profiles characterized by different challenge and threat appraisal intensities. The levels of error damage control and rumination about business goal disengagement differed between the profiles. Specifically, entrepreneurs high in challenge and threat appraisal showed higher levels of both forms of coping than those low in appraisal. Entrepreneurs falling into a high challenge and low threat appraisal profile exhibited the lowest level of business goal disengagement. Still, they showed similar levels of error damage control to those high on challenge and threat appraisal. Implications for the further development of TST and the development of effective error management interventions are discussed., Author(s): Anne-Kathrin Kleine [sup.1] [sup.2] , Antje Schmitt [sup.1] , Barbara M. Wisse [sup.1] Author Affiliations: (1) https://ror.org/012p63287, grid.4830.f, 0000 0004 0407 1981, Department of Psychology, Organizational Psychology, University of [...]

While research on abusive supervision is thriving, we still know very little about the sustained nature of the phenomenon. The scant papers focusing on the prolonged character of the detrimental relational dynamic have taken a within-dyad perspective, largely ignoring within-person, group, or other external influences. Addressing these gaps in the literature, we introduce the barriers model of abusive supervision. This model posits a hierarchically organized set of obstacles that make it difficult for followers to escape the abusive supervisor, explaining why abuse can continue over long periods of time. Specifically, we present an onion-type model, in which the follower has a central position and each subsequent layer represents a more external cluster of barriers to leaving the abusive supervisor. Ranging from external to internal, these layers are: barriers in the larger societal context (Layer 1; e.g., ambiguous laws), barriers in the organizational context (Layer 2; e.g., unclear policies), barriers due to the abusive supervisor (Layer 3; e.g., isolating followers), and barriers within the abused follower (Layer 4; e.g., implicit leadership theories). We hope that our model inspires future research on the sustained nature of abusive supervision and provides practitioners with the necessary background information to help abused followers escape their supervisors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research suggests that the effects of leader narcissism can be complex and context dependent, causing a lack of clarity about the conditions under which leader narcissism affects follower perceptions. We posit that the organizational climate plays an important moderating role in the relationships between leader narcissism, leader self‐serving behaviour and follower trust. Based on trait activation theory, we argue that organizational‐level cues can spark or smother narcissistic leaders' self‐serving behaviour with downstream consequences for followers' trust. Our focus lies on motivational climates in organizations, encompassing both performance climate and mastery climate, as providers of trait‐relevant cues. A multilevel and multisource survey of 546 leaders and 1718 followers supports the hypothesized relationships. We find a negative effect of leader narcissism on trust in the leader via leader self‐serving behaviour when the performance climate is high (vs. low). We also find a negative effect of leader narcissism on trust in the leader via leader self‐serving behaviour when the mastery climate is low (vs. high). We discuss how leader self‐serving behaviour as a quintessential behavioural expression of leader narcissism is sensitive to specific cues from the organizational context, how motivational climates help to inform the understanding of leader narcissism, and the practical implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]