SummaryThe current study examined the effect of employees' perceived overqualification on counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs). Building on person-job fit theory and prior research on such organizational phenomena, we conceptualized overqualification as a type of poor person-job fit. Drawing on the dual-process model, we further suggested that in processing their person-job misfit, overqualified employees might cognitively appraise themselves as less worthy organizational members and experientially feel angry toward the employment situation. We also suggested that to the extent that overqualified people are sensitive to justice, they may react more or less strongly to being overqualified. We tested our predictions using time-lagged data from a sample of 224 workers and their supervisors employed in a large manufacturing company in China. Consistent with our theoretical framework, we found that organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) and anger toward employment situation mediated the positive relationships between perceived overqualification and both self-rated and supervisor-rated CWBs. In addition, justice sensitivity moderated the relationship between perceived overqualification and the mediators (i.e., OBSE and anger) and the indirect relationship between perceived overqualification and CWB. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings as well as future research directions are discussed.

In the modern marketplace, especially when unemployment is high, more and more Americans find themselves overqualified (i.e., possessing more competencies than the job requires). Using and extending person-environment fit theory and the stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs), we examine whether overqualified employees are more likely to display CWBs than employees who feel their positions match their qualification levels. Further, we examine why overqualified employees may behave in counterproductive ways and compare the empirical viability of several theoretically derived competing mediators. Based on data from a sample of full-time employees (n = 215), we found that consistent with the theoretical frameworks, overqualified incumbents display nondesirable counterproductive work behaviors because they become cynical about the meaningfulness of their activities. We further show that although poor person-job fit or inadequate psychological contracts can motivate such misbehavior, cynicism dominates as a reason for why overqualified employees engage in counterproductive work behaviors.

Summary The research on perceived overqualification has mainly examined its negative consequences. Defined, employees who feel overqualified have surplus talent and thus can be excellent workers if managed properly; yet, empirical evidence in this domain is lacking. Building on person–environment fit theory, this research explored whether, when, and how employees who feel overqualified can engage in creative performance. The results of a multi‐source field study (N = 113 employees and 19 supervisors) supported theoretical predictions. Perceived overqualification was related positively to supervisor‐rated creative performance when these workers felt supported and appreciated and successfully negotiated developmental idiosyncratic deals. Opportunities to mentor others had an impact on the relationship between perceived overqualification and supervisor‐rated creativity, although the simple slopes were non‐significant. This study is novel in that it unpacked actionable steps that organizations can utilize to motivate this large segment of workforce to use their surplus qualifications constructively by, for example, engaging in creative performance. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Summary Building on role congruity theory, we predict that innovative work behaviors are stereotypically ascribed to men more than to women. Because of this bias, women who innovate may not receive better performance evaluations than those who do not innovate, whereas engaging in innovative work behaviors is beneficial for men. These predictions were supported across 3 complementary field and experimental studies. The results of an experiment (Study 1; N = 407) revealed that innovative work behaviors are stereotypically associated with men more than women. In Studies 2 and 3, using multisource employee evaluation data (N = 153) and by experimentally manipulating innovative work behaviors (N = 232), respectively, we found that favorable performance evaluations were associated with innovative work behaviors for men but not for women. These studies highlight a previously unidentified form of sex bias and are particularly important for those wishing to increase innovative behaviors in the workplace: We need to address this phenomenon of “think innovation‐think male.”

No abstract