Showing papers in "Journal of Organizational Behavior in 2023"

Awe‐inspiring advancements in AI: The impact of ChatGPT on the field of Organizational Behavior

Abstract: Journal of Organizational BehaviorVolume 44, Issue 2 p. 177-179 EDITORIAL Awe-inspiring advancements in AI: The impact of ChatGPT on the field of Organizational Behavior Marie T. Dasborough, Corresponding Author Marie T. Dasborough m.dasborough@miami.edu orcid.org/0000-0001-5323-5119 University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, USA Correspondence Marie T. Dasborough, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124-6914, USA. Email: m.dasborough@miami.eduSearch for more papers by this author Marie T. Dasborough, Corresponding Author Marie T. Dasborough m.dasborough@miami.edu orcid.org/0000-0001-5323-5119 University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, USA Correspondence Marie T. Dasborough, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124-6914, USA. Email: m.dasborough@miami.eduSearch for more papers by this author First published: 23 February 2023 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2695Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume44, Issue2Special Issue: The Job Annual Review and Conceptual Development IssueFebruary 2023Pages 177-179 RelatedInformation

Actions are authentic, but are leaders? A reconceptualization of authenticity and leadership practice

Abstract: Since the Gallup Leadership Summit, authentic leadership has ascended as a central topic of inquiry owing to practitioners and academicians' desire for more positive types of leadership (Braun & Peus, 2018; Ilies et al., 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003; Weiss et al., 2018). Like much of the extant literature, our article centers on authentic leadership as defined and operationalized by Walumbwa et al.'s (2008) four-part framework, which views authentic leaders as individuals who possess high levels of (a) self-awareness, (b) balanced processing, (c) relational transparency, and (d) having an internalized moral perspective. This definition originated from positive psychology and gained popularity, in part, because it offers a morally grounded response for organizations seeking to rebuild confidence, hope, and optimism amid growing corporate and societal problems (e.g., Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Avolio et al., 2004). As a result, scholarly research on authentic leadership has surged (see Gardner et al., 2011, for a review), quickly gaining traction with a wide array of stakeholders who desire leaders that promote behavioral integrity (Leroy et al., 2012), encourage creativity (Semedo et al., 2017), and foster intra-team trust as well as helping behaviors (Hirst et al., 2016). 1 Despite growing interest in authentic leadership, scholars have reviewed and critiqued the construct before raising theoretical and empirical concerns (Einola & Alvesson, 2021; Gardiner, 2015; Sidani & Rowe, 2018). Prior critiques have challenged authentic leadership's contextual grounding, leader-centric ideologies, definitional ambiguity, morality emphasis, and view of a true self (Crawford et al., 2020; Ladkin & Spiller, 2013; Vendette et al., 2022). Further issues raised questions about authentic leadership's unique value over and above other more heavily researched leadership styles (Banks et al., 2016) as well as show the construct's misguided roots in positive psychology (Alvesson & Einola, 2019). With regard to this latter point, the significance of what it means to be authentic originated from the philosophical movement of existentialism, 2 including the works of Martin Heidegger and Jean-Paul Sartre. However, authenticity in a leadership context has been more predominately positioned in positive psychology, gaining popularity along with the positive movement in organizational studies. Indeed, as Iszatt-White and Kempster (2019) have remarked, the authentic leadership construct is entrenched in a “somewhat superficial” and “one-sided” interpretation of authenticity from positive psychology (p. 360). Positive psychology's hold on authenticity is the “antithesis” of existential forms of leadership as its idealized description neglects how authenticity is enacted and discounts the diversity of lived experience (Tomkins & Simpson, 2015, p. 1023). We argue that positive psychology's misinterpretation of existential authenticity not only explains why researchers continue to conflate authentic actions with authentic leaders but also calls into question authentic leadership as a theory and construct more broadly. The abovementioned issues underlie the central purpose of this point-counterpoint discussion, which is to illustrate that authenticity of action is distinct and adds value beyond that of authentic leadership. Despite preceding critiques, to date, scholarly interest in authentic leadership research appears to be accelerating, not stalling. Thus, in an effort to explain why authentic leadership studies will face continued criticism, we retrace authenticity's theoretical foundations to shed light on the conceptual, definitional, and empirical issues stemming from its positive psychology origins. While the critiques of authentic leadership are plentiful and growing, we are the first to show that the authentic leadership construct was handicapped from its inception by opening the proverbial “black box” and uncovering the root of what happened. Our interest in this regard is sparked by Suddaby's (2010) realization that when researchers “cannot agree on or communicate the basic elements of a phenomenon, the accumulation of knowledge cannot occur … and organizational knowledge becomes increasingly fragmented” (pp. 352–353). We thus scrutinize the authentic leadership construct, therein identifying meaningful misdirections in extant work so that our field may advance more useful theory development (e.g., Sandberg & Alvesson, 2021). In doing so, we contribute to the literature by hopefully (a) encouraging scholars to reconsider the blanket use of commonly accepted measures that exist within the authentic leadership arena and (b) stimulating theoretical and methodological advancements for “authentic” leadership research. Ideally speaking, theory and empirical concerns should inform the development of new constructs. This is because construct validity stems from one's ability to express concepts into variables and, in turn, variables into instruments (Suddaby, 2010). Despite 15 years of research, there remains considerable confusion regarding the theoretical meaning that underlies authentic leadership's predominant measure, the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ, see Walumbwa et al., 2008). Such confusion is unfortunate because until researchers clearly define and operationalize the authentic leadership phenomenon, published works will face continued criticism and the knowledge transfer between organizational scientists and practitioners will lose pace. We therefore begin by revisiting the theoretical beginnings of authenticity research in an effort to better understand the evolutionary development of the authentic leadership construct. During the early 20th century, the concept of authenticity and what it means to “live an authentic life” gained considerable interest among existential theorists. Existentialism is not a homogeneous theory, but the literature blossomed during the postmodern movement where two influential philosophers, Martin Heidegger and Jean-Paul Sartre, contributed their individual viewpoints (Algera & Lips-Wiersma, 2012; Ciullia, 2013). As one might expect Sartre and Heidegger's philosophies are not identical, although their characterizations of authenticity share marked similarities (Lawler & Ashman, 2012). Consequently, our work draws from Sartre and Heidegger's philosophies, wherein they describe what it means to live authentically. To begin, both Sartre and Heidegger contend that individual choice is a critical factor to being authentic; in short, they assert that it is the actions of an individual that defines who they are and creates meaning in one's life. Sartre's (1956) concept of authenticity stems from the notion of freedom, bad (good) faith, and the look of another whereas Heidegger (1962) uses the concepts of anxiety, fallenness, being, and Das Man (Dasein) in his depiction. For Sartre, individuals possess complete freedom over their choices where they first come into existence and then continually define themself through action. Sartrean philosophy does not view individuals as pre-destined for specific paths, but rather posits that each individual is responsible for their own actions and choices (which embody how they live in this world). Thus, to paraphrase a well-cited Sartrean phrase, individuals are merely what they make of themselves. Heidegger also embraces the importance of choice by viewing authenticity as an overarching state of Being 3 that looks upon an individual's collective actions over time. Heideggerian philosophy suggests that individuals can introspectively assess whether they were authentic through moments of anxiety by reflecting on how they acted and for whom. For Heidegger, authenticity is based on a historical assessment where either an individual (a) acted for themself (the Self) or (b) submitted to and consequently acted for some external force—a concept referred to as the Other or the They-self. To illustrate the concepts of the Self and Other in a leadership context, we review how authenticity-inauthenticity tensions co-exist and inform whether a leader acted authentically. Sartre and Heidegger agree that authenticity and inauthenticity are not mutually exclusive principles as individuals will act both authentically and inauthentically during their life. A leader acts authentically when they resist the external pressure from the Other and chooses to act according to their own desires. In an organizational context, the Other might represent (a) the firm's cultural norms, (b) a team's social context and related members' expectations of the leader, and/or (c) the demands and whims from a leader's higher-level supervisor, and so on. The prevalence and pull of the Other is strong which often pushes leaders to act inauthentically. However, when leaders act of their own volition, they are making an intentional decision to behave authentically, and it is through these choices that leaders can themselves become more or less authentic. Restated, the key to understanding whether a leader acted authentically is assessing whether they made choices that aligned with the Self (authentic) or the Other (inauthentic). Having briefly reviewed the historical (and philosophical) origins of authenticity, we wish to summarize a couple of key observations. First, leaders are incapable of achieving complete authenticity because, as an idealized state of Being, it is something that they are continuously moving towards (or away from). The authenticity of a leader ebbs and flows as their actions begin to align more (or less) with the attributed value systems held by the inauthentic Other versus the authentic Self. That is why authenticity is frequently described as a relative state wherein leaders can only achieve a certain level of authenticity, never becoming wholly authentic (Erickson, 1995). It therefore follows that authenticity should not be interpreted as a binary, either-or condition (i.e., a leader is either authentic or inauthentic); authenticity resides in a leader's act or choice itself rather than the leader per se. Second, authenticity and inauthenticity are not opposing ideals, but rather co-existing opposites as leaders may act authentically or inauthentically depending on each situated context. This juxtaposition between living an authentic versus inauthentic existence is an ever-present consideration that leaders contend with on a day-to-day basis. Given the salience of social pressure and the tendency to conform, existentialists contend that a true authentic existence is much less common than an inauthentic one. In sum, how existential theorists characterize (in)authenticity resonated with organizational scholars and contributed to our understanding of leadership theory (Bradley-Cole, 2021; Heil, 2013; Tomkins & Simpson, 2015). As the pioneering researchers, Walumbwa et al. (2008) were faced with a key decision regarding which theoretical foundation they would utilize when developing the authentic leadership construct. It was imperative for Walumbwa et al. (2008) to be explicit about their selection—and they were. Walumbwa et al. (2008) selected Avolio, Gardner, and colleagues (e.g., Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner et al., 2005) along with Ilies et al.'s (2005) 4 scholarship as the theoretical foundation for authentic leadership and its survey instrument, the ALQ. They provided three reasons as to why these prior works provide the conceptual underpinnings needed to validly define and operationalize the authentic leadership construct. First, Walumbwa et al. (2008) indicated that Avolio, Gardner, Ilies and colleagues provided a perspective of authentic leadership that was “firmly rooted in the extant social psychology theory and research on authenticity” (p. 93). As they explain, social psychologists, including Kernis (2003) and Deci and Ryan (2000), had “clarified” and “refined” the construct of authenticity. For example, Ilies et al. (2005) ground their conceptualization of authentic leadership within Kernis' (2003) multicomponent perspective of authentic functioning, described as “the unobstructed operation of one's true, or core, self in one's daily enterprise” (p. 376). Following suit, Walumbwa et al. (2008) concluded that as leaders come to know themselves, they will display behaviors that are consistent with their underlying values and beliefs (i.e., authentic behavior) which, in turn, facilitates optimal levels of leader self-esteem and well-being. Second, on the basis of positive psychology principles, Walumbwa et al. (2008) advance Gardner et al.'s (2005) argument that an authentic leadership pre-requisite is to have an advanced level of internalized moral character. They note that because leading others involves ethical choices, the authentic leadership construct cannot be neutrally valenced, in the same way that Burns characterized transformational leaders as having high moral character (see Walumbwa et al., 2008, p. 94, as cited in Gardner et al., 2005). Finally, Walumbwa et al. (2008) contend that authentic leadership includes an overt focus on leader–follower development, reasoning that authentic leadership is “state-like and ultimately something one can develop in leaders” (p. 93). Instead of drawing on authenticity's existential origins when developing the authentic leadership construct, Walumbwa et al. (2008) remark that their work is firmly grounded in Kernis' (2003) social psychological concept of authentic functioning (see also Gardner et al., 2011). A review of Kernis' (2003) seminal work reveals, however, that it too leverages existential tenets—in fact, Kernis and colleagues tout authenticity's philosophical roots by suggesting that it is “firmly entrenched” in “existentialism” and “localized to specific authors like Sartre or Heidegger” (Kernis & Goldman, 2006, p. 284). Given Walumbwa et al.'s (2008) reliance on Kernis' (2003) conceptualization of authenticity, it is unclear (to us at least) why they pivoted from authenticity's existential origins and key assumptions. Moreover, a comparative review of Kernis' (2003) concept of authentic functioning and the conceptualization and operationalization of the authentic leadership construct yields additional divergences. According to Kernis (2003), authentic functioning has four discriminable components: (a) awareness, (b) unbiased processing, (c) action, and (d) relational authenticity (pp. 13–16). In short, the awareness component involves understanding and trusting in one's own feelings, motives and desires; these include, for example, being aware of one's strengths and weaknesses, traits, and feelings. Second, the unbiased processing component involves individuals fully embracing all self-relevant information as opposed to distorting, denying, or ignoring information that represents their negative aspects or characteristics. For example, akin to an ego defense mechanism, the unbiased processing component illustrates whether individuals can accept their weaknesses, instead of rationalizing these weaknesses or demeaning their importance altogether. Third, the action component refers to whether an individual behaves according to their true self. Kernis (2003) describes behaving authentically as “acting in accord with one's values, preferences, and needs as opposed to acting merely to please others or to attain rewards or avoid punishments through acting falsely” (p. 14). The final component of relational authenticity considers the importance of allowing others to “see the real you, good and bad” and, to this end, it is about being genuine when interacting with others and not fake (Kernis, 2003, p. 16). What is not advanced in Kernis' (2003) work is the explicit notion of morality and ethics; indeed, the “most influential thinkers of authenticity tend to consider authenticity as morally neutral” (Gardner et al., 2021, Letter 4, p. 21). As we alluded above, a comparison of the authentic leadership construct (Walumbwa et al., 2008) with Kernis (2003) yields both similarities and differences (see Table 1). In terms of similarities, the component of self-awareness is a core aspect of authentic leadership's operationalization and Kernis' (2003) theory of authentic functioning. In terms of differences, the first two modifications made by Walumbwa et al. (2008) largely arose from Avolio and Gardner (2005) and were relatively minor updates to Kernis' (2003) terminology. The first modification was that they adopted the term “balanced processing” to reflect leaders' information processing capabilities instead of Kernis' (2003) term “unbiased processing” (see Avolio & Gardner, 2005, p. 317). A second modification involved Walumbwa et al. (2008) changing Kernis' (2003) term “relational authenticity” to “relational transparency” to better capture how leaders and followers are thought to openly and transparently share information (see Avolio & Gardner, 2005, p. 317). No change Terminology change (minor) Walumbwa and colleagues believed using the term “balanced processing” instead of “unbiased processing” portrayed authentic leaders and followers' information processing capabilities with greater theoretical accuracy. Rather than asserting leaders and followers are devoid of cognitive biases, Walumbwa and colleagues proposed that leaders and followers can consider various aspects of a problem as they assess information in a reasonably balanced way (Avolio & Gardner, 2005, p. 317). Terminology change (minor) Walumbwa and colleagues believed using the term “relational transparency” instead of “relational authenticity” better illustrated the information sharing process. They found it more reflective of the straightforward and candid way that leaders and followers are thought to share information (Avolio & Gardner, 2005, p. 317). Theoretical change (major) Walumbwa and colleagues renamed Kernis' action component and introduced a new component called “internalized moral perspective.” They formed internalized moral perspective by merging two components from extant authentic leadership research: (a) internalized regulation and (b) positive moral perspective (Gardner et al., 2011, p. 1123). The decision to rename the action component of Kernis' work had a profound theoretical effect because it disconnected positive authentic leadership from its existential philosophical roots. Unlike the first two modifications involving terminology, a third modification by Walumbwa et al. (2008) arguably reflects a much larger theoretical departure from Kernis' (2003) authenticity conceptualization. Specifically, Walumbwa et al. (2008) dropped Kernis' (2003) authentic action component and introduced internalized moral perspective, which was not in Kernis' initial work. Walumbwa et al. (2008) seemingly downplayed this decision, and Gardner et al. (2011) minimize the theoretical implications of the new facet as well, describing internalized moral perspective's introduction as a mere “renam[ing]” of Kernis' (2003) action component “to better reflect the leader's commitment to core ethical values” (p. 1123). And while the developers of the authentic leadership construct continue to maintain that “the four components of authentic leadership were derived from Michael Kernis' (2003) multi-component conceptualization” (Gardner et al., 2021, Letter 1, p. 3), the result from swapping Kernis' action component for internalized moral perspective has received strong criticism (e.g., Alvesson & Einola, 2019). In fact, on closer inspection, the introduction of the internalized moral perspective facet prompts two related issues of concern. The first issue is recasting the action component from Kernis' (2003) framework disconnected the authenticity aspect of the authentic leadership construct (and measure) from its existential origins. This is because the action component of authenticity, in particular, leveraged key concepts from Sartre and Heidegger's existential philosophy. Kernis and Goldman (2006) cited Sartre and Heidegger specifically when discussing the theoretical underpinnings of authentic behavior, suggesting that actions “… are freely chosen with a sense of agency” (p. 292). Further connecting their action component to existential tenets, Kernis and Goldman (2006) highlighted Sartre's belief that “people's way of ‘being’ is inextricably linked to their choices” (p. 291). A result of removing “actions” from authentic leadership's four-part framework was that Walumbwa et al. (2008), in effect, dismissed Sartre and Heidegger's contributions and thereby created an authentic leadership construct that departed from its existential origins. The inherent disconnect between existential tenets and how authentic leadership is currently conceptualized has led scholars to conclude that presenting, “authentic leadership as a (measurable) construct that builds on the thinking of these philosophers, and to portray it as some sort of modern-day advancement of their works, is misleading” (Gardner et al., 2021, Letter 2, p. 7, emphasis in original). A second and related issue arises with the addition of internalized moral perspective to authentic leadership's conceptualization and measurement. In short, by explicitly including the notion of morality and ethics, Walumbwa et al. (2008) outright rejected the long-held notion that authentic behavior is morally and ethically neutral (see Gardner et al., 2005). They assert that given the potential impact a leader's actions can have on the lives of others, an “advanced level of moral development is a requirement for the achievement of leader authenticity” (Walumbwa et al., 2008, p. 93). The underlying premise being authentic leaders invoke their positive moral perspective and high ethical standards to guide decision making and behavior. This integration of morality and ethics into the authentic leadership construct has, however, been the subject of much debate insofar as morality considerations “… are not derived directly from the concept of authenticity” (Shamir & Eilam, 2005, p. 398). Indeed, some scholars are concerned that the morality assumption is too far removed from authenticity's theoretical origins. Recall that, philosophically speaking, authenticity is divorced from ethics in that an authentic action does not necessarily mean it is an ethical one (Algera & Lips-Wiersma, 2012; Qu et al., 2019; Zander, 2013). It is believed that a leader's actions can be “true to self” without complying with normative standards. In fact, if a leader “falls” and thus decides to conform to the influence of the Other, who constructed these moral or ethical standards (e.g., societal, group, or firm expectations, and pressures), then they are acting inauthentically. Interestingly, Kernis and Goldman (2006) proposed that when a leader's core feelings and values oppose normative standards, then authenticity will manifest as short-term conflict affecting their overall functioning and well-being. For instance, when leaders act “falsely” distressing emotions typically ensue, which have been empirically linked with numerous physiological and psychological difficulties as well as poorer performance (e.g., Grandey, 2003). Perhaps, in part, it is for this reason that Shamir and Eilam (2005), among others, have theorized that “Authentic leaders do not fake their leadership … Nor do they work on developing an image or persona” because when they enact a leadership role “… authentic leaders are being themselves (as opposed to conforming to others' expectations)” (pp. 396–397). One might reasonably conclude that there is little left to debate regarding the validity of the authentic leadership construct as developed by Walumbwa et al. (2008). To do so, however, would contradict the extent to which authentic leadership is operationalized using the ALQ. Indeed, the prevalence and scope of authentic leadership research is expanding—Gardner and Karam's (non-exhaustive) review identified 128 published articles since 2010 with scholars using diverse samples (e.g., Australia, Austria, Belgium, China, Germany, Greece, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia, and Taiwan) domains (e.g., business, education, medicine, military, politics, and sports) and methodologies (e.g., laboratory, field, quasi-experiments) to expand the scholarly conversation (see Gardner et al., 2021). Given this increased interest, it is surprising that few (if any) studies have empirically explored the issues identified in the section above. Ergo, in the exploratory empirical endeavor that follows, we determine whether authenticity is, in fact, infused into the authentic leadership construct (developed by Walumbwa et al., 2008). Specifically, we sought to explore a key, unresolved theoretical issue—that is, can Sartre and Heidegger's philosophical contributions inform how researchers currently study the phenomenon of authentic leadership? Existential philosophy explicitly acknowledges the importance of authenticity's theoretical tie to a leader's action and choice. Sartre (1999) uses the example of a coward where a person is not a coward because of some physiological predisposition but becomes a coward as a result of their choices and actions. Therefore, a person is perceived as a coward because they have acted cowardly. The implication for authentic leadership is that a person simply does not come into this world as an authentic leader but rather becomes one by acting authentically. Research Question 1: Is the lack of existential development problematic for the authentic leadership construct's theoretical underpinnings? Do existential ideologies from key philosophical thinkers including Sartre and Heidegger add meaningful information over and above the current authentic leadership construct? Data were collected via Prolific Academic. When conducting research on authentic leadership, two perspectives are available to scholars: (a) the self-referential approach, wherein individuals (leaders) provide self-ascriptive information and (b) the relational approach, wherein other stakeholders' (subordinates) perceptions of a target individual's behavior are considered. Following the predominant approach in existing research, we developed our study using a relational lens. Hence, participants responded to an online survey asking them to think about their recent interactions with their immediate supervisor and answer a series of questions. Of the 250 individuals who completed the survey, we received useable data from 245 participants (98%), who were paid $2.75. Three participants were removed because they incorrectly answered a quality control item, and two participants were removed because they incorrectly answered a comprehension item related to authenticity (described below). All participants lived in the United States, were 20+ years old, employed (not self-employed), and regularly interacted with their supervisor. Participants averaged 34 years of age (SD = 9.3) and 39 h of work per week (SD = 9.4), and 51% were male. A majority of participants indicated they have been reporting to their supervisor for 2 years or more (51%) and interact with their supervisor at least once a day to many times a day (53.1%). We used Walumbwa et al.'s (2008) ALQ. 5 Participants were told to think about their immediate supervisor at work and judge the extent to which the following behaviors fit with their leadership style (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Cronbach's alpha = .93. Participants were told to continue to think about interactions with their immediate supervisor when answering this set of questions. They were told, however, to base their responses on their perceptions of their supervisor's authenticity. The survey design then provided participants with a brief definition and examples of (in)authenticity. Next, participants completed two comprehension questions: “Do you understand what authenticity is” (yes/no) and “An authentic behavior is genuine, meaning that it reflects your supervisor's core beliefs and nature” (true/false). Finally, participants judged the extent to which the behaviors comprising the ALQ, when enacted by their supervisor, were authentic in nature. To illustrate, “If/when my direct supervisor … [insert ALQ behavior here] this behavior (1 = is not at all consistent with his/her values and beliefs; 4 = accurately reflects his/her true nature and beliefs).” Cronbach's alpha = .94. We included various affective, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes to more fully explore the role of authenticity when studying the authentic leadership construct. Unless otherwise noted, a 5-point Likert response scale was used (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). To begin, we felt that affect-based trust (α = .86, three-items; McAllister, 1995) and cognition-based trust (α = .86, three-items; McAllister, 1995) were theoretically appropriate criteria to investigate. We also assessed the extent to which participants liked their supervisor (α = .94, r = .89, two-items; Brown & Keeping, 2005). In addition, we explored participants' organizational cynicism (α = .72, r = .56, two-items; Johnson & O'Leary-Kelly, 2003) and psychological contract breach (α = .79, three-items; Robinson & Morrison, 2000) beliefs, as well as their job satisfaction (α = .89, r = .80, two-items; Brayfield & Rothe, 1951). Finally, we believed task performance (α = .87, three-items; Williams & Anderson, 1991) and organizational citizenship behaviors (α = .79, three-items; Williams & Anderson, 1991), two of the most focal criteria in management and applied psychology, were important to investigate. Following Schoorman and Mayer (2008), we asked participants for their supervisor's assessment of their performance and extra-role behaviors rather than their own assessment. This “common perspective” approach corresponds more closely with supervisors' appraisals of their employees than a direct perspective (i.e., the participa

Mindfulness and workplace safety: An integrative review

Abstract: Mindfulness has recently gained popularity in applied settings to enhance workplace safety, especially in safety-critical occupations such as healthcare and construction. In this review, we synthesize existing research across disciplines to establish a theoretical model of mindfulness and safety. Based on 32 empirical studies, we first summarize and critically analyze how mindfulness and safety are conceptualized and operationalized in the literature. We then consolidate empirical findings and conceptual arguments and draw upon the job demands–resources model to propose a theoretical model linking the basic benefits of mindfulness to safety-related job demands. Specifically, we propose that mindfulness (a) improves detection of and responses to workplace risks and hazards, (b) enhances concentration and self-monitoring of safety behaviors in cognitively demanding situations, and (c) facilitates more adaptive responses to emotional burdens. We further propose that the mindfulness–safety link can vary across boundary conditions, including personal and contextual characteristics. Our theoretical model serves as a foundation to integrate existing knowledge and guide future research. We conclude by highlighting specific opportunities for researchers and practitioners to advance research and applications of mindfulness and workplace safety.

Experimentation in the Face of Ambiguity: How Mindful Leaders Develop Emotional Capabilities for Change in Teams

Abstract: Strategic change in organizations prompts pervasive ambiguity. As change initiatives cascade down the hierarchy, they can be met with habitual, inertial responses that ultimately generate negatively charged emotions—or they can prompt novel, experimental behaviors that forestall them. What remains unclear, however, is which factors drive teams, and the leaders that guide them, toward or away from this negative emotional reaction to change. In this study, we integrate social cognitive theory and research on mindfulness to unpack collective responses to change through a field study on 88 teams in a mortgage industry firm undergoing strategic change. We theorize that, when faced with ambiguous goals, team leaders low on mindful attention will lack the necessary cognitive capabilities to enact experimental behaviors—as they neither have clear external goals from senior managers nor internal dispositions to drive their attention into noticing novel information and eliciting unscripted experimental responses. In contrast, the experimental behaviors of team leaders who are high on mindful attention will not be affected by ambiguous goals—and the experimental behaviors of team leaders, in turn, will prompt greater experimental behaviors within their team, thereby lowering the team's negative emotional reaction to change. Finding support for these hypotheses, our study contributes to research on dynamic managerial capabilities, collective responses to organizational change, and mindfulness.

When time is running out: a growth curve analysis of older workers’ retirement intentions

Abstract: Using dynamic theory and methods, we investigate the phenomenon of older workers who withdraw from paid work while still healthy. We focus on intention to retire as the penultimate stage in the retirement process. We extend socio-emotional selectivity theory to explain the growth of intention to retire. Older workers have a rising perception of time running out but good health allows for an ongoing choice between remaining in work or active retirement. While, in general, older people in poor health have a greater intention to retire than those in good health, we hypothesize that the passage of time motivates the healthy to increase their intention to retire, especially when manager support is low. We examine longitudinal data consisting of three waves of survey responses (2011, 2012, and 2013) from 495 workers in their 50th year and older. We employ growth curve analysis (random coefficient modeling). The findings show that over a 2-year period, in contrast to other older workers whose retirement intention remains stable, individuals in consistently good health but with low manager support demonstrate a growth in intention to retire. That is, we identify the “queue jumpers”: those workers who speeded up their retirement process relative to other older workers.

CEO ethical leadership as a unique source of substantive and rhetorical ethical signals for attracting job seekers: The moderating role of job seekers' moral identity

Abstract: Research suggests that CSR is increasingly becoming an ambiguous signal of ethical information for external stakeholders. This is because a variety of firms—including those that are morally responsible and those that have been implicated in corporate scandals—routinely adopt CSR policies and invest in CSR initiatives. Not surprisingly, this trend has contributed to rising public skepticism of CSR. In the current research, we examine the unique role of CEO ethical leadership (i.e., relative to CSR) as an alternate source of substantive and rhetorical ethical signals for an important stakeholder group: job seekers. Integrating signaling theory, and the elaboration likelihood model, we argue that CEO ethical leadership substantively signals how fairly an organization treats its employees and its commitment to social and environmental responsibility. We further propose that ethical CEOs serve as a source of rhetorical signal that triggers moral elevation in job seekers. Using a policy capturing methodology in Study 1, we find that real job seekers place significantly greater weight on CEO ethical leadership in making job pursuit decisions compared to CSR. CEO ethical leadership also uniquely predicts job pursuit intentions relative to traditional factors such as salary, person-job fit, and person-organization fit. In a second, quasi-experimental field study (Study 2), we find support for the three hypothesized signaling mechanisms through which CEO ethical leadership influences job seekers. In a third, quasi-experimental field study (Study 3), we find that job seekers with strong (versus weak) moral identities are more likely to weigh the nuanced ethical information signaled by CEO ethical leadership compared to CSR. We discuss the implications of proactively advertising CEO ethical leadership during the recruitment process.

Issue Information

Abstract: Journal of Organizational BehaviorVolume 44, Issue 5 ISSUE INFORMATIONFree Access Issue Information First published: 05 June 2023 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2639AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Abstract No abstract is available for this article. Volume44, Issue5June 2023 RelatedInformation

Issue Information

Abstract: Journal of Organizational BehaviorVolume 44, Issue 4 ISSUE INFORMATIONFree Access Issue Information First published: 11 May 2023 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2638AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Abstract No abstract is available for this article. Volume44, Issue4May 2023 RelatedInformation

Catty, Bitchy, Queen Bee or Sister? A Review of Competition Among Women in Organizations from a Paradoxical‐Coopetition Perspective

Abstract: Women in organizations must grapple with a double-bind stemming from conflicting expectations toward them to exhibit both competition (per workplace norms) and cooperation (per societal gender-specific norms), and they often suffer a backlash for conforming to one expectation at the expense of the other. Similarly, different streams of literature offer contrasting accounts of women's competitive attitudes and behavior. This systematic review is the first attempt to integrate research on competition among women in organizations across research disciplines to gain a nuanced insight into the pervasiveness, causes, dynamics, and manifestations of this phenomenon. In doing so, we draw on the wide research pertaining to women's intra-gender competitive attitudes and behavior in structured competition within organizations, and on relevant intersectionality research that looks at diverse groups of women. We synthesize the research to suggest a paradoxical framework of coopetition (competitive-cooperation) that can guide future theoretical insights and research directions, along with practical organizational tools, to effectively deal with the tension and inequality that result from paradoxical expectations and formulate important future research directions.

Crossing the Line: The Violating Effects of Illegitimate Interruptions from Work and the Differential Impact on Work‐Family Conflict by Gender

Abstract: Despite interruptions from work being increasingly common for many employees, their inherently disruptive nature induces strain on the work–life interface; yet, it remains unclear why the experienced strain is not universal. Drawing on role identity and Stress-as-Offense-to-Self theories, illegitimate interruptions from work (IIWs) are inappropriate, avoidable, unnecessary, or unreasonable interruptions that carry an added meaning of disrespect, thereby presenting a threat to the self and potentially inducing additional unnecessary strain. Differential value placed on professional and personal roles likely shapes attributions of illegitimacy. We collected event-based data over 5 days from 182 employees (432 interruptions). Our multilevel moderated mediation model established IIW's indirect effect on work-to-family conflict (WFC) via boundary violation, above and beyond the negative effects of interruptions themselves. Thus, subjectively ascribed illegitimacy induces further but potentially unnecessary negative strain. Men were more likely to experience boundary violation in reaction to IIWs and subsequently reported more WFC as compared to women. Yet, although results suggest that IIWs may be a more salient immediate threat to men, it is possible that women's higher threshold for IIWs may present a more distal threat for gender parity. We offer guidance for developing strategies to reduce IIWs and mitigate their impact.

Transmitting affective job insecurity (AJI) within teams: Layoff effects of AJI convergence on intrateam power struggles and team outcomes

Abstract: Extant research on job insecurity (JI) largely focuses on the individual level, rather than considering the process of JI at collective, team levels. But employees' worries and anxiety about potential job losses create affective job insecurity (AJI), which can converge over time in teams, especially following dramatic changes such as layoffs. Drawing on a multilevel theory of emergence in teams and uncertainty reduction theory, this study offers theoretical predictions of AJI convergence, as well as its potential influences on team functioning and outcomes. A four-wave, post-layoff survey of 468 employees and 91 supervisors confirms two major predictions. First, AJI convergence exists within teams over time, as established by a consensus emergence model. Second, teams with members who converge at a high level of AJI experience intrateam power struggles that impair both team performance and team proactivity. By theorizing about the phenomenon of AJI convergence, this study not only expands the notion of JI from the individual to the team level, noting its harmful effects on teams, but also highlights the need for both team members and team leaders to pay close attention to such convergence and its potentially detrimental effects following layoffs.

The more the merrier or too many cooks spoil the pot? A meta‐analytic examination of team size and team effectiveness

Abstract: Scholars often implicitly assume that team size is associated with team effectiveness, but there is evidence of meaningful variability in this relationship that may correspond with competing theoretical perspectives. In particular, positive effect sizes between team size and team effectiveness correspond with a human capital perspective; negative effect sizes correspond with a process loss perspective. This study tests a series of contextual moderators aimed at evaluating these competing theories. Our team-level meta-analysis (k = 208, N = 21 435) confirmed a null, yet extremely variable, relationship ( ρ ̂ $$ \hat{\uprho} $$ = .00) between team size and team task performance. Importantly, we find support for both theoretical perspectives through our moderator analyses, with team size being more strongly associated with performance when tasks are complex, consistent with a human capital perspective, but less strongly associated with performance when high coordination requirements are coupled with low task complexity, consistent with a process loss perspective. Contrary to our expectations, the relationship between team size and team task performance did not vary as a function of national culture. Meta-analyses of associations between team size and other team-level effectiveness indicators revealed connections with deviant behaviors ( ρ ̂ $$ \hat{\uprho} $$ = .17) and passive withdrawal behaviors ( ρ ̂ $$ \hat{\uprho} $$ = .13) and a small negative relationship ( ρ ̂ $$ \hat{\uprho} $$ = −.04) with team attitudes. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.

Ethnic Minority CEO Turnover: Resource‐Based and Leadership Categorization Perspectives

Abstract: We use the resource-based theory and leadership categorization theory to develop hypotheses about ethnic minority CEO turnover. Using survival analysis, we test the hypotheses and find that, as a group, ethnic minority CEOs at US firms experience only about half of the risk of turnover at any time as do nonethnic minority CEOs. However, the risk is not spread evenly across ethnic minority subgroups. Asian and Hispanic CEOs experience lower risk of turnover than nonethnic minority CEOs. Black CEOs of US firms do not share this reduced risk of turnover. We find that the resource-based theory is consistent with the turnover experience of Asian and Hispanic ethnic minority CEOs, but that it is not useful for explaining Black CEO turnover. Some implications of our findings are the following: (1) In research, all minorities should not be treated as a single homogenous group, and (2) in practice, it may be useful to increase CEO social capital to lengthen tenure.

The upsides and downsides of thought experiments in I‐O/OB

Abstract: Conducting thought experiments prior to conducting a pilot study followed by a field experiment or correlational study have proven invaluable to the author for selecting an issue worthy of study, generating testable hypotheses, ways of manipulating the independent variable, selecting/developing a reliable dependent variable, thinking through a doable procedure, and coming up with ways to persuade senior managers to approve the proposed studies/experiments. Nevertheless, arguments are presented as to why thought experiments are at best the beginning rather than the endpoint in the research process.

Issue Information

Abstract: Journal of Organizational BehaviorVolume 44, Issue 1 ISSUE INFORMATIONFree Access Issue Information First published: 06 January 2023 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2635AboutRelatedInformationPDFPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessClose modalShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abstract No abstract is available for this article. Volume44, Issue1January 2023 RelatedInformation

Persuading managers to enact ideas in organizations: The role of voice message quality, peer endorsement, and peer opposition

Abstract: We extend research on employee voice by examining what persuades managers to enact voice messages communicated on organizations' idea management platforms (i.e., software systems designed to gather, vet, and enact employee voice). Applying the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion, we propose that voice message quality affects managerial voice enactment via peer endorsement and that peer opposition qualifies the latter effect. Specifically, we argue that peers are more likely to endorse higher- versus lower-quality voice messages because they are attentive recipients who are motivated to support higher-quality voice. In turn, we argue that managers are influenced by image concerns and legitimacy inferred by social proof, and thus, they will enact voice messages with higher levels of peer endorsement, especially when combined with lower opposition. Results of our archival analysis of over 5000 voice messages communicated on five organizations' idea management platforms support our predictions, such that peer endorsement mediates the relationship between voice message quality and managerial voice enactment, and that this relationship is stronger under conditions of lower versus higher peer opposition. Altogether, our research illuminates how voice messages on idea management platforms are endorsed and ultimately enacted by organizational leaders.

Investigating the Curvilinear Relationship Between Temporal Leadership and Team Creativity: The Moderation of Knowledge Complexity and the Mediation of Team Creative Process Engagement

Abstract: Modern organizations increasingly rely on teams to provide creative solutions in a timely manner. Temporal leadership has thus gained substantial interest, based on the assumption that it is conducive to team effectiveness. However, we advance a different view of temporal leadership's influence on team creativity. Building on temporal leadership literature and the paradox model of creativity, we propose that temporal leadership has a curvilinear (i.e., inverted U-shaped) relationship with team creativity. Moreover, team knowledge complexity moderates this relationship, while team creative process engagement conditionally mediates it. We conducted two field studies to test our hypotheses. In Study 1, our analyses of multisource data from 68 research and development teams found that temporal leadership has an inverted U-shaped relationship with team creativity, especially for teams with high knowledge complexity. In Study 2, analyses of multiwave, multisource data from 100 work teams further revealed that team creative process engagement conditionally mediates the curvilinear relationship. Specifically, temporal leadership has a stronger indirect curvilinear relationship with team creativity through team creative process engagement in teams with high (vs. low) levels of knowledge complexity. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.

Sick and working: Current challenges and emerging directions for future presenteeism research

Abstract: Presenteeism refers to working despite ill health that might otherwise warrant sickness absence. Estimated to cost tens of millions of dollars in lost productivity, the concept has attracted the attention of different academic disciplines, policymakers, and practitioners interested in mitigating the problem. Although a topic of significant interest, the current understanding of presenteeism is compromised by a number of conceptual and methodological factors that follow from one another. We begin this introductory article by providing a brief overview on three specific challenges, namely, (1) presenteeism ill-defined as a unitary construct, (2) narrowness of approaches to measure and study presenteeism, and (3) insufficient research on the social and relational dynamism that characterizes presenteeism. We then provide an overview of the eight articles that comprise this issue and analyze how they address the aforementioned three challenges by adopting alternative theoretical frameworks, utilizing new measurement approaches, and/or by shedding light on the dynamic nature of presenteeism. Finally, we discuss fresh perspectives and promising directions for future research endeavors on this topic, with the hope that this issue will inspire further research on the practical implications of presenteeism for promoting positive health and well-being at the workplace.

Getting to the root of authentic leadership: Where does the field go from here?

Abstract: The authors have no conflict of interest to report. There was no data used for this research.

Do job crafting opportunities help to win talent? Disentangling and contextualizing the effects of job crafting opportunities on applicant attraction

Abstract: We argue that job crafting opportunities are not only helpful to motivate and enable the existing workforce but that they can also function as a signal to attract talent. With the help of two empirical studies (Study 1 – a conjoint experiment and Study 2 – a vignette study), we show that (a) a signaled opportunity for job crafting helps to attract job seekers; (b) job crafting signals can trigger positive as well as negative expectations of central job demands and resources that inform job acceptance intentions, and; (c) a proactive personality strengthens most of the positive expectations of job crafting signals while buffering adverse effects.

Breaking rules yet helpful for all: Beneficial effects of pro‐customer rule breaking on employee outcomes

Abstract: Pro-customer rule breaking refers to employees' breaking of organizational rules with the primary intention of helping customers or providing better customer service. In spite of its prosocial nature, it is unclear whether and how pro-customer rule breaking also benefits employees who engage in this behavior. Drawing on self-determination theory, we examine employees' well-being and voice at work as outcomes of pro-customer rule breaking. Across a simulation study and a critical incident-based survey study, we found that pro-customer rule breaking was positively related to employee psychological need fulfillment, which, in turn, was associated with lower emotional exhaustion, higher job satisfaction, and increased voice. Furthermore, normative conflict with organizational rule moderated the positive relationship between pro-customer rule breaking and psychological need fulfillment such that employees with high normative conflict with organizational rule (i.e., employee perception that their existing organizational rule results in inefficiency and that their organization could be much better if it changed its practices) benefited more from their pro-customer rule breaking. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings and offer directions for future research.

Issue Information

Abstract: Journal of Organizational BehaviorVolume 44, Issue 3 ISSUE INFORMATIONFree Access Issue Information First published: 21 March 2023 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2637AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Abstract No abstract is available for this article. Volume44, Issue3March 2023 RelatedInformation

A multilevel study of social networks and collective reactions to organizational change

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to examine the micro-level dynamics underlying macro-level associations between organizational change and its outcomes, focusing in particular on the role of networks in shaping individual reactions to change. Drawing upon multilevel research on situational and individual antecedents of change, we first argue that the magnitude of change at the unit level has a nonlinear effect on change recipients' tendency to resist change, which in turn influences their adaptive behaviors. We argue, further, that the attitudinal and structural composition of the professional networks in which change recipients are embedded account for differences in their adaptive behaviors. Finally, we argue that individual adaptivity coalesces at the collective, that is, unit level, and predicts the attainment of desired change goals. We find general support for our arguments in a longitudinal study using multi-source data on 170 physicians in 29 units of a large hospital that experienced a major restructuring intervention. Results confirm that multilevel mechanisms involving individuals and their social context fundamentally undergird macro-level outcomes of change. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of bringing a network perspective to bear on issues of individual and collective reactions to organizational change.