Knowledge that Transforms

The current study draws on the transactional theory of stress to propose that employees cope with hostile work environments by engaging in emotion-based coping in the forms of organization-directed deviance and psychological withdrawal. Specifically, we propose that supervisors' hostile organizational climate perceptions act as distal environmental stressors that are partially transmitted through supervisors' abusive actions and that conscientiousness moderates the proposed effects. First, we hypothesize that supervisor conscientiousness has a buffering effect by decreasing the likelihood of abusive supervision. Second, we hypothesize that highly conscientious employees cope differently from less conscientious employees. Among a sample of employees and their immediate supervisors, results indicated that while hostile climate perceptions provide a breeding ground for destructive behaviors, conscientious individuals are less likely to respond to perceived hostility with hostile acts. As supervisor conscientious levels increased, supervisors were less likely to engage in abusive supervision, which buffered employees from the negative effects of hostile climate perceptions. However, when working for less conscientious supervisors, employees experienced the effects of perceived hostile climates indirectly through abusive supervision. In turn, less conscientious employees tended to cope with the stress of hostile environments transmitted through abusive supervision by engaging in acts of organization-directed deviance. At the same time, all employees, regardless of their levels of conscientiousness, tended to cope with their hostile environments by psychologically withdrawing. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Bootstrapping is an analytical tool commonly used in psychology to test the statistical significance of the indirect effect in mediation models. Bootstrapping proponents have particularly advocated for its use for samples of 20-80 cases. This advocacy has been heeded, especially in the Journal of Applied Psychology, as researchers are increasingly utilizing bootstrapping to test mediation with samples in this range. We discuss reasons to be concerned with this escalation, and in a simulation study focused specifically on this range of sample sizes, we demonstrate not only that bootstrapping has insufficient statistical power to provide a rigorous hypothesis test in most conditions but also that bootstrapping has a tendency to exhibit an inflated Type I error rate. We then extend our simulations to investigate an alternative empirical resampling method as well as a Bayesian approach and demonstrate that they exhibit comparable statistical power to bootstrapping in small samples without the associated inflated Type I error. Implications for researchers testing mediation hypotheses in small samples are presented. For researchers wishing to use these methods in their own research, we have provided R syntax in the online supplemental materials.

In the present study, we examine competing predictions of stress reaction models and adaptation theories regarding the longitudinal relationship between work-family conflict and subjective well-being. Based on data from 432 participants over 3 time points with 2 lags of varying lengths (i.e., 1 month, 6 months), our findings suggest that in the short term, consistent with prior theory and research, work-family conflict is associated with poorer subjective well-being. Counter to traditional work-family predictions but consistent with adaptation theories, after accounting for concurrent levels of work-family conflict as well as past levels of subjective well-being, past exposure to work-family conflict was associated with higher levels of subjective well-being over time. Moreover, evidence was found for reverse causation in that greater subjective well-being at 1 point in time was associated with reduced work-family conflict at a subsequent point in time. Finally, the pattern of results did not vary as a function of using different temporal lags. We discuss the theoretical, research, and practical implications of our findings. (PsycINFO Database Record

Our article develops a conceptual framework based primarily on national culture perspectives but also incorporating the role of managerial discretion (cultural tightness-looseness, institutional flexibility), which is aimed at achieving a better understanding of how the effectiveness of high-performance work systems (HPWSs) may vary across countries. Based on a meta-analysis of 156 HPWS-business performance effect sizes from 35,767 firms and establishments in 29 countries, we found that the mean HPWS-business performance effect size was positive overall (corrected r = .28) and positive in each country, regardless of its national culture or degree of institutional flexibility. In the case of national culture, the HPWS-business performance relationship was, on average, actually more strongly positive in countries where the degree of a priori hypothesized consistency or fit between an HPWS and national culture (according to national culture perspectives) was lower, except in the case of tight national cultures, where greater a priori fit of an HPWS with national culture was associated with a more positive HPWS-business performance effect size. However, in loose cultures (and in cultures that were neither tight nor loose), less a priori hypothesized consistency between an HPWS and national culture was associated with higher HPWS effectiveness. As such, our findings suggest the importance of not only national culture but also managerial discretion in understanding the HPWS-business performance relationship. (PsycINFO Database Record

Research has uncovered mixed results regarding the influence of overqualification on employee performance outcomes, suggesting the existence of boundary conditions for such an influence. Using relative deprivation theory (Crosby, 1976) as the primary theoretical basis, in the current research, we examine the moderating role of peer overqualification and provide insights to the questions regarding whether, when, and how overqualification relates to employee performance. We tested the theoretical model with data gathered across three phases over 6 months from 351 individuals and their supervisors in 72 groups. Results showed that when working with peers whose average overqualification level was high, as opposed to low, employees who felt overqualified for their jobs perceived greater task significance and person-group fit, and demonstrated higher levels of in-role and extra-role performance. We discuss theoretical and managerial implications for overqualification at the individual level and within the larger group context.

Grounded in a social functional perspective, this article examines the conditions under which group affect influences group functioning. Using meta-analysis, the authors leverage heterogeneity across 39 independent studies of 2,799 groups to understand how contextual factors-group affect source (exogenous or endogenous to the group) and group life span (one-shot or ongoing)-moderate the influence of shared feelings on social integration and task performance. As predicted, results indicate that group positive affect has consistent positive effects on social integration and task performance regardless of contextual idiosyncrasies. The effects of group negative affect, on the other hand, are context-dependent. Shared negative feelings promote social integration and task performance when stemming from an exogenous source or experienced in a 1-shot group, but undermine social integration and task performance when stemming from an endogenous source or experienced in an ongoing group. The authors discuss implications of their findings and highlight directions for future theory and research on group affect.

To deliver high-quality, reliable, and consistent services safely, organizations develop professional standards. Despite the communication and reinforcement of these standards, they are often not followed consistently. Although previous research suggests that high job demands are associated with declines in compliance over lengthy intervals, we hypothesized-drawing on theoretical arguments focused on fatigue and depletion-that the impact of job demands on routine compliance with professional standards might accumulate much more quickly. To test this hypothesis, we studied a problem that represents one of the most significant compliance challenges in health care today: hand hygiene. Using longitudinal field observations of over 4,157 caregivers working in 35 different hospitals and experiencing more than 13.7 million hand hygiene opportunities, we found that hand hygiene compliance rates dropped by a regression-estimated 8.7 percentage points on average from the beginning to the end of a typical 12-hr work shift. This decline in compliance was magnified by increased work intensity. Further, longer breaks between work shifts increased subsequent compliance rates, and such benefits were greater for individuals when they had ended their preceding shift with a lower compliance rate. In addition, (a) the decline in compliance over the course of a work shift and (b) the improvement in compliance following a longer break increased as individuals accumulated more total work hours the preceding week. The implications of these findings for patient safety and job design are discussed.

Interpersonal mistreatment at work often occurs in the presence of others; however, these "others" are rarely examined in empirical research despite their importance to the context of the negative interaction. We conducted 2 experiments to examine how witnessing incivility affects observer reactions toward instigators and targets. In Study 1, participants (N = 60) worked virtually with an ostensible instigator and target. In Study 2, participants (N = 48) worked in vivo with confederates (hired actors) on a job task. Across these 2 studies, we found that observers of incivility tend to punish instigators while their reactions to targets were generally unaffected. Further, the effect of witnessing incivility was mediated by observers' negative emotional reaction toward the instigator.

We conceptualize a multilevel framework that examines the manifestation of abusive supervision in team settings and its implications for the team and individual members. Drawing on Hackman's (1992) typology of ambient and discretionary team stimuli, our model features team-level abusive supervision (the average level of abuse reported by team members) and individual-level abusive supervision as simultaneous and interacting forces. We further draw on team-relevant theories of social influence to delineate two proximal outcomes of abuse-members' organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) at the individual level and relationship conflict at the team level-that channel the independent and interactive effects of individual- and team-level abuse onto team members' voice, team-role performance, and turnover intentions. Results from a field study and a scenario study provided support for these multilevel pathways. We conclude that abusive supervision in team settings holds toxic consequences for the team and individual, and offer practical implications as well as suggestions for future research on abusive supervision as a multilevel phenomenon. (PsycINFO Database Record

[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 100(2) of Journal of Applied Psychology (see record 2015-08139-001). Table 3 contained formatting errors. Minus signs used to indicate negative statistical estimates within the table were inadvertently changed to m-dashes. All versions of this article have been corrected.] The purpose of this meta-analysis was to address unanswered questions regarding the associations between personality and workplace safety by (a) clarifying the magnitude and meaning of these associations with both broad and facet-level personality traits, (b) delineating how personality is associated with workplace safety, and (c) testing the relative importance of personality in comparison to perceptions of the social context of safety (i.e., safety climate) in predicting safety-related behavior. Our results revealed that whereas agreeableness and conscientiousness were negatively associated with unsafe behaviors, extraversion and neuroticism were positively associated with them. Of these traits, agreeableness accounted for the largest proportion of explained variance in safety-related behavior and openness to experience was unrelated. At the facet level, sensation seeking, altruism, anger, and impulsiveness were all meaningfully associated with safety-related behavior, though sensation seeking was the only facet that demonstrated a stronger relationship than its parent trait (i.e., extraversion). In addition, meta-analytic path modeling supported the theoretical expectation that personality's associations with accidents are mediated by safety-related behavior. Finally, although safety climate perceptions accounted for the majority of explained variance in safety-related behavior, personality traits (i.e., agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism) still accounted for a unique and substantive proportion of the explained variance. Taken together, these results substantiate the value of considering personality traits as key correlates of workplace safety.