The Journal of applied psychology
-
The organizational justice literature has consistently documented substantial correlations between organizational justice and employee depression. Existing theoretical literature suggests this relationship occurs because perceptions of organizational (in)justice lead to subsequent psychological health problems. Building on recent research on the affective nature of justice perceptions, in the present research we broaden this perspective by arguing there are also theoretical arguments for a reverse effect whereby psychological health problems influence perceptions of organizational justice. ⋯ Analyses of 3 samples from different military contexts (N₁ = 625, N₂ = 134, N₃ = 550) revealed evidence of depressive symptoms leading to subsequent organizational justice perceptions. In contrast, the opposite effects of organizational justice perceptions on depressive symptoms were not significant for any of the justice dimensions. The findings have broad implications for theoretical perspectives on psychological health and organizational justice perceptions.
-
Using cross-cultural laboratory and field studies with samples of leaders, employees, and students from the United States and the People's Republic of China, we examined how team-level stimuli, including empowering leadership and relationship conflict, combine to influence individual members' motivational states of psychological empowerment and affective commitment. As predicted, we found that these motivational states are individually and jointly influenced by teams' level of empowering leadership and relationship conflict and that these motivational states mediate the relationships between team stimuli and team members' innovative and teamwork behaviors and turnover intentions. In addition, results held despite controlling for team members' nationality and collectivism. We discuss contributions of our study to the team motivation, conflict, and stress literatures.
-
Meta Analysis
Relationships of role stressors with organizational citizenship behavior: a meta-analysis.
Several quantitative reviews have documented the negative relationships that role stressors have with task performance. Surprisingly, much less attention has been directed at the impact of role stressors on other aspects of job performance, such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). ⋯ As expected, role conflict had a stronger negative relationship with OCB than it did with task performance. Finally, we found support for a path model in which job satisfaction mediated relationships of role stressors with OCB and for a positive direct relationship between role overload and OCB.
-
Considering the implications of social exchange theory as a context for social role behavior, we tested relations between ethical leadership and both person- and task-focused organizational citizenship behavior and examined the roles played by employee gender and politics perceptions. Although social exchange theory predicts that ethical leadership is positively associated with citizenship, social role theory predicts that the nature of this relationship may vary on the basis of gender and politics perceptions. Results from data collected from 288 supervisor-subordinate dyads indicate that the pattern of male versus female employees' citizenship associated with ethical leadership depends significantly on their perceptions of politics. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
-
New leaders face a challenging task when they take charge of their teams. They have to determine how best to guide the work process, and they must understand how their behaviors will affect the members of their team. This research examines how a newly assigned team leader's status moderates subordinates' reactions to different leadership styles to affect assessments of the leader's self-confidence and effectiveness, and how this impacts team performance. ⋯ In addition, teams whose leaders are viewed more favorably perform better on a complex group task. These findings imply that low-status individuals are able to enhance their level of personal power by drawing on whatever positional power they hold, whereas high-status individuals are better off relying solely on their personal power to influence others. This research also provides a clear demonstration that assessments of new leaders' behaviors are subject to an appraisal that is clouded by observers' status perceptions and attributions.