The research to date has largely been unclear about whether a single perpetrator is sufficient to instigate the well-documented negative consequences of workplace incivility. In the current research, we examine the extent to which perceived belongingness and embarrassment mediate the relationship between incivility from a single perpetrator and two important outcomes (job insecurity and somatic symptoms), and the extent to which the perpetrator's power moderates these relationships. Across two studies using different methods, we find that incidents of single perpetrator incivility are associated with target feelings of isolation and embarrassment, which in turn relate to targets' perceived job insecurity and somatic symptoms (Studies 1 and 2) both the same day and three days later (Study 2). Moreover, we find that perpetrator power moderates the relationship between incivility and embarrassment, such that targets are more embarrassed when the perpetrator is powerful. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

ABSTRACT. We develop and test a model of pseudotransformational leadership. Pseudo-transformational leadership (i.e., the unethical facet of transformational leadership) is manifested by a particular combination of transformational leadership behaviors (i.e., low idealized influence and high inspirational motivation), and is differentiated from both transformational leadership (i.e., high idealized influence and high inspirational motivation) and laissez-faire (non)-leadership (i.e., low idealized influence and low inspirational motivation). Survey data from senior managers (N = 611) show differential outcomes of transformational, pseudo-transformational, and laissez-faire leadership. Possible extensions of the theoretical model and directions for future research are offered.KEY WORDS: ethical leadership, pseudo-transformational leadership, senior managers, transformational leadership Leadership in general, and transformational leadership theory in particular, has attracted a great deal of scholarly attention over the past two decades. As a result, it is now possible to conclude that transformational leadership theory (Bass, 1998;Bass and Riggio, 2006) has come of age. Evidence for the maturity of a theory can be discerned from a variety of sources. From an empirical perspective, this conclusion is justified by the appearance of numerous meta-analyses (e.g., Bono and Judge, 2004;Eagly et al., 2003;Judge and Bono, 2000;Judge and Piccolo, 2004) published recently on the nature, antecedents, and outcomes of transformational leadership, collectively indicating the amount of research now available on a wide range of substantive relationships relevant to this leadership theory.One issue that has attracted far less empirical attention, though it has enjoyed the attention of scholars and the lay public for centuries, is the ethics of leadership (Brown and Treviño, 2006), and it is to this that we turn our attention in this article. There has certainly been a tremendous focus within the media recently about the ethics of leadership, given what seems to be increased exposure of and public interest in corporate scandals and government corruption. For example, making recent news in the United States are two top executives of a multinational engineering and electronics company found guilty of theft, fraud, and conspiracy, after having funneled millions of dollars from the company to pay for extravagant personal lifestyles (Maull, 2005). Likewise, former Canadian government politicians and officials recently faced public scrutiny and a subsequent public commission for their role in a sponsorship scandal, involving alleged misappropriation of millions of dollars in public funds (Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities, 2006). Nonetheless, at the outset, we differentiate our focus from that in the examples just cited. While clearly unethical, many of the behaviors depicted in these examples have already been determined to sink to the standard of illegality. Our model of unethical leadership...

No abstract

Prior research has documented an indirect link between socioeconomic status (SES) and health, and the goal in this study was to help unravel this phenomenon from a dynamic perspective. The authors hypothesized that SES would be positively related to feelings of personal control and negatively related to perceived work stressors. Drawing on dynamic conceptualizations of these psychosocial factors, they suggest that these psychosocial factors relate to one another over time. Individuals who have higher levels of personal control experience increasingly fewer work stressors over time than do those with lower levels of personal control, and those who experience greater work stressors increasingly perceive less personal control over time than do those with fewer work stressors. Finally, the authors argue that trajectories of personal control and work stressors are associated with the accumulation of health problems over the same period. Their model was tested with 3-wave data (over 4 years) from a nationally representative sample of Canadian employees (N ϭ 3,419). Latent curve modeling provides support for the proposed dynamic model. Conceptual and practical implications are drawn, and suggestions for future research are outlined.

Status structures in organizations are ubiquitous yet largely ignored in organizational research. We offer a conceptualization of team status inequality, or the extent to which status positions on a team are dispersed. Status inequality is hypothesized to be negatively related to individual performance and physical health for low-status individuals when uncooperative behavior is high. Trajectories of the outcomes across time are also explored. Analyses using multilevel modeling largely support our hypotheses in a sample of National Basketball Association players across six time points from 2000 to 2005.