ABSTRACT In this research, we aim to further our understanding of supervisors' enactment of psychosocial risk management and their own psychological responses to supporting employees through stressful work situations. Informed by event system theorizing and the special case of affective events, we examined 342 employee critical events of a stressful nature through the eyes of the supervisor. Thematic analysis revealed 16 supervisor actions that were aggregated into nine supervisor action themes that supervisors evaluated for stressfulness and effectiveness. Clustering stressfulness and effectiveness scores revealed the emergence of three supervisor groups: favorable, unfavorable, and challenge. Multinomial logistic regressions demonstrated that both organizational and supervisor psychosocial risk management capabilities reduced the odds of supervisors developing unfavorable psychological responses in relation to their supervisor action, whereas supervisors with time pressure and psychological distress had increased odds. In addition, supervisors experiencing psychological distress had a twofold likelihood of experiencing their chosen action as both stressful and effective, calling into question the potential for future benefits to arise from what might be otherwise considered a challenge experience. Overall, our findings demonstrate that pre‐existing features of the supervisor's own psychosocial work environment shape their psychological responses to having enacted psychosocial risk management, irrespective of the type of supervisor action.

ABSTRACT The integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) into knowledge work is fundamentally reshaping employee performance and value creation in ways that challenge conventional wisdom. Rather than performance disparities being reduced through AI adoption, we argue that they may increase as star employees leverage superior domain expertise and strategic AI deployment to widen performance gaps—a phenomenon we term the “AI‐specific Matthew Effect.” These performance transformations coincide with dramatic shifts in value appropriation dynamics: Personal AI tools will enhance employee bargaining power by enabling portable, high‐value outputs independent of organizational resources, whereas enterprise AI systems serve as novel isolating mechanisms that strengthen firm value capture. These developments necessitate a theoretical reconceptualization of strategic human capital frameworks. Accordingly, we introduce the AI‐specific Matthew Effect to explain how AI may intensify performance stratification, modeling how AI reconfigures value creation and capture between employees and firms, and extending foundational human capital theories to account for human–AI complementarity. Our integrative theoretical framework offers critical guidance for navigating this transformation, helping organizations balance productivity gains with workforce equity in an uncertain era of interdependent human and artificial intelligence.

ABSTRACT Quiet quitting is a relatively new phenomenon that has quickly caught the attention of both practitioners and academics. With the world of work becoming increasingly interconnected, we contribute to the discourse by approaching quiet quitting from the novel perspective of understanding how others in the workplace perceive those who engage in quiet quitting. To do so, we first provide a formalized definition of quiet quitting and differentiate coworkers' perceptions of quiet quitting from similar psychological constructs (Studies 1–3). We then examine employee responses to coworkers engaging in quiet quitting with a qualitative study (Study 4) and vignette design (Study 5), finding that as an employee's perception of coworker quiet quitting increases, supportive behaviors decrease and workplace incivility behaviors towards the coworker increase. The effect on workplace incivility behaviors is moderated by self‐rated quiet quitting, such that employees who had higher self‐rated quiet quitting were more likely to engage in incivility towards a coworker regardless of whether their coworker was quiet quitting. Overall, by exploring quiet quitting observed by a coworker, we provide a different perspective on this construct and extend past research to show how employees feel about and react to a coworker's quiet quitting behaviors.

ABSTRACT Research on corporate sociopolitical activism (CSA) is in its infancy, and more research is needed to examine its effects on employees. We draw from the tenets of Signaling Theory to develop and test a model of how organizations' antiracist signaling after a racial injustice event, as a form of CSA, communicates that racial justice is valued sincerely by organizations, and in turn, motivates employee commitment to diversity—both at work and in their personal lives. We also explore boundary conditions (i.e., climate for inclusion, employee race) of this relationship. We test our model with data collected from 367 employees (37.6% Black, 62.4% White) across 4‐time waves, each 1 month apart, using a mixed‐methods (quantitative and qualitative) approach. Results suggest that organizations are viewed as most sincere when they engage in signaling that includes both words (i.e., releasing a statement) and actions (e.g., hiring a diversity officer) relative to when they don't engage in these words and/or actions. Moreover, when organizations signaled a sincere commitment to antiracism with both words and actions, employees were more committed to diversity at work and in their personal lives, though actions taken by the organization were especially important. Moreover, a strong climate for inclusion reduced the need for actions, while a weak climate for inclusion increased the need for a statement. Theoretical, research, and practical implications are discussed.

ABSTRACT With the passage of cannabis‐friendly legislation in the U.S., cannabis use is on the rise and poses increasing challenges to managing human resources in the workplace. However, the literature offers a limited understanding of its long‐term implications for career outcomes. Drawing on social selection theory, we argue that cannabis use negatively influences one's extrinsic career outcomes (i.e., income and occupational prestige) over time via lowered job complexity. Furthermore, based on social causation theory, we propose an alternative model in which higher job complexity reduces cannabis use over time to facilitate one's extrinsic career outcomes. Using 8 years of longitudinal panel data from multiple sources, we found support for the hypothesized reciprocal effect between cannabis use and job complexity and their influences on income and occupational prestige. Moreover, the impact of job complexity on extrinsic career outcomes via cannabis use was stronger than the impact of cannabis use on extrinsic career outcomes via job complexity. We discuss this study's theoretical and practical implications for cannabis use and human resource management research and practice.

ABSTRACT Our multi‐study, mixed‐methods research introduces a novel framework of quiet quitting and distinguishes it from related constructs in the human resources and organizational behavior literature. Studies 1 and 2 employ topic modeling of social and news media data and qualitative content analysis of in‐depth interviews with self‐identified quiet quitters, respectively, to examine how social media users, journalists, and quiet quitters define quiet quitting and describe its antecedents and consequences. Drawing on Kahn's framework of disengagement, we develop a bifurcated framework of quiet quitting comprising passive and deliberate types, each with distinct affective, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions. Study 3 uses a quasi‐Q‐sort methodology to compare passive and deliberate quiet quitting with existing human resources and organizational behavior constructs and reveals that quiet quitting is a novel concept, with its passive and deliberate types being distinct from nomologically related constructs. Our bifurcated framework makes valuable theoretical contributions and offers nuanced practical implications for organizations, establishing a solid foundation for future research to treat quiet quitting as a discrete phenomenon, moving the conversation beyond debating its academic relevance.

ABSTRACT Most research on family demands has been conducted at the individual level, showing that they can negatively influence employees' abilities to manage the work‐family interface. We challenge this existing paradigm by arguing that at the team level, family demands diversity (i.e., differences among members of the same team with respect to their family demands) can enable the entire team to better manage the work‐family interface. Drawing on the categorization‐elaboration model and social exchange theory, we found that family demands diversity was indirectly and positively related to team effort through team backup behavior and team work‐to‐family conflict, and these effects were stronger when team family identity was low and supervisor family support was high. We discuss the theoretical implications of our findings and the practical implications for HR policies and practices.