Many organizational phenomena such as leader-member exchange, mentoring, coaching, interpersonal conflict and cooperation, negotiation, performance appraisal, and the employment interview involve inherently dyadic relationships and interactions. Even when theories explicitly acknowledge the dyadic nature of such phenomena, it is not uncommon to observe a disconnection or misalignment between the level of theory and method. Our purpose in the current paper is to discuss how organizational scholars might better align these components of their research endeavors. We discuss how recent developments involving the actor-partner interdependence model (APIM) and reciprocal one-with-many (OWM) models are applicable to studying dyadic phenomena in organizations. The emphasis is on preanalytic considerations associated with collecting and organizing reciprocal dyadic data, types of research questions that APIM and reciprocal OWM models can help answer, and specific analytic techniques involved in testing dyadic hypotheses.

In this article, we propose a framework for understanding destructive leadership that summarizes the extant destructive leadership research and extends it in new directions. By reviewing the current literature on destructive leadership and drawing on organizational leadership theory and the more general research on deviant behaviors in organizations, we identify the underlying features and mechanisms that define destructive leadership. Recognizing that each form of destructive leadership currently studied (e.g., abusive supervision, petty tyranny, and pseudo-transformational leadership) addresses aspects of destructive leadership but fails to capture the complete picture of the phenomenon, we clarify the boundaries among the constructs studied within the domain of destructive leadership, address some ambiguities about the nature of destructive leadership, make explicit some characteristics of destructive leadership that set it apart from other forms of leading, and integrate this thinking into a theoretical model that helps us understand the manifestations of destructive leadership, and their antecedents and consequences.

No abstract

In this study, we draw from the conservation of resources theory and the narcissism literature to examine why and when narcissistic leaders develop and maintain differentiated social relationships with followers in a group setting, therefore demotivating follower voice. Using data from 457 employees and their 95 supervisors working at a large Chinese consulting company, we tested and found support for our hypotheses that leader narcissism had a negative direct effect on employee voice, as well as a negative indirect effect on voice via group-level leader-member exchange (LMX) differentiation. Our findings further showed that leaders' upward exchange, leaderleader exchange (LLX), with their own supervisor moderated the negative indirect effect of narcissism on voice such that this negative indirect effect was stronger in the presence of low leader LLX but turned nonsignificant in the presence of high leader LLX. Theoretical and practical implications of our research are discussed. Limitations and directions for future research are also offered. K E Y W O R D Sleader-leader exchange, leader narcissism, LMX differentiation, voice

In a large body of literature, the construct of psychological capital (PsyCap) has been shown to predict a wide range of work-related behavioral and attitudinal outcomes. Specifically, PsyCap has been related to increased job performance (across various measures of performance and sources of performance ratings), job satisfaction, organi-

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

We propose the recently introduced implicit measure of psychological capital (PsyCap), the Implicit Psychological Capital Questionnaire (I-PCQ; Harms & Luthans, 2012), can provide a needed valid alternative to the self-report Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ). We explain the development of the I-PCQ items, assess the structural validity of the instrument, test its vulnerability to response distortion, and assess its capacity to predicting work attitudes and behaviors vis-à-vis the PCQ and Big Five personality facets. We found that the I-PCQ demonstrated acceptable structural validity that was consistent with and added to prior theorizing, was resistant to response distortion, and predicted work outcomes above and beyond the widely used self-report PCQ and Big Five personality traits. We conclude that the I-PCQ represents a valid, easily administered measure of psychological capital that minimizes problems associated with self-reports and is appropriate for use in work settings.

No abstract