Although the general picture in the organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) literature is that OCB has positive consequences for employees and organizations, an emerging stream of work has begun to examine the potential negative consequences of OCB for actors. Drawing from the cognitive-affective processing system framework and conservation of resources theory, we present an integrative model that simultaneously examines the benefits and costs of daily OCB for actors. Utilizing an experience sampling methodology whereby 82 employees were surveyed for 10 workdays, we find that daily OCB is associated with positive affect, but it also interferes with perceptions of work-goal progress. Positive affect and work-goal progress in turn mediate the effects of OCB on daily wellbeing. Moreover, employees' trait regulatory focus influences the strength of the daily relationships between OCB and its positive and negative outcomes. We conclude by discussing theoretical and practical implications of our multilevel model.

Despite meta-analytic evidence demonstrating that leader-member exchange (LMX) agreement (consensus between leader and subordinate perceptions) is only moderate at best, research on LMX typically examines this relationship from only one perspective (either the leader's or the subordinate's). We return to the roots of LMX and utilize role theory to argue that agreement in leader and subordinate perceptions of LMX quality has meaningful effects on employee motivation and behavior. In a polynomial regression analysis of 280 leader-subordinate dyads, employee work engagement (and subsequent organizational citizenship behavior [OCB]) was maximized (at each level of LMX quality) when leaders and subordinates were in agreement as to the quality of their LMX relationship, but these outcomes suffered when they did not see "eye to eye." Indeed, situations where leaders and subordinates both evaluated their relationship as low quality were associated with higher work engagement (and subsequent OCB) compared to situations of disagreement where only one member evaluated their relationship as high quality. Further, this effect was consistent regardless of whether leaders or subordinates evaluated the relationship highly. We conclude that to fully understand the implications of our only dyadic leadership theory, one must consider the perspectives of both members of the LMX dyad simultaneously.Despite meta-analytic evidence demonstrating that leader-member exchange (LMX) agreement (consensus between leader and subordinate perceptions) is only moderate at best, research on LMX typically examines this relationship from only one perspective (either the leader's or the subordinate's). We return to the roots of LMX and utilize role theory to argue that agreement in leader and subordinate perceptions of LMX quality has meaningful effects on employee motivation and behavior. In a polynomial regression analysis of 280 leader-subordinate dyads,

Incivility at work-low intensity deviant behaviors with an ambiguous intent to harm-has been on the rise, yielding negative consequences for employees' well-being and companies' bottom-lines. Although examinations of incivility have gained momentum in organizational research, theory and empirical tests involving dynamic, within-person processes associated with this negative interpersonal behavior are limited. Drawing from ego depletion theory, we test how experiencing incivility precipitates instigating incivility toward others at work via reduced self-control. Using an experience sampling design across 2 work weeks, we found that experiencing incivility earlier in the day reduced one's levels of self-control (captured via a performance-based measure of self-control), which in turn resulted in increased instigated incivility later in the day. Moreover, organizational politics-a stable, environmental factor-strengthened the relation between experienced incivility and reduced self-control, whereas construal level-a stable, personal factor-weakened the relation between reduced self-control and instigated incivility. Combined, our results yield multiple theoretical, empirical, and practical implications for the study of incivility at work. (PsycINFO Database Record

Scholars have paid an increasing amount of attention to organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), with a particular emphasis on helping others at work. In addition, recent empirical work has focused on how OCB is an intraindividual phenomenon, such that employees vary daily in the extent to which they help others. However, one limitation of this research has been an overemphasis on well-being consequences associated with daily helping (e.g., changes in affect and mental depletion) and far less attention on behavioral outcomes. In this study, we develop a self-regulatory framework that articulates how helping others at work is a depleting experience that can lead to a reduction in subsequent acts of helping others, and an increase in behaviors aimed at helping oneself (i.e., engaging in political acts). We further theorize how two individual differencesprevention focus and political skill-serve as cross-level moderators of these relations. In an experience sampling study of 91 full-time employees across 10 consecutive workdays, our results illustrate that helping is a depleting act that makes individuals more likely to engage in self-serving acts and less likely to help others. Moreover, the relation of helping acts with depletion is strengthened for employees who have higher levels of prevention focus.

Research on organizational justice has predominantly focused on between-individual differences in average levels of fair treatment experienced by employees. Recently, researchers have also demonstrated the importance of considering dynamic, withinindividual fluctuations in fair treatment experienced by employees over time. Drawing on uncertainty management theory, we merge these two streams of research and introduce the concept of "justice variability," which captures between-person differences in the stability of fairness over time. Contrary to the intuitive notion that more fairness is always better, our work shows that being treated consistently unfairly can be better for employees than being treated fairly sometimes and unfairly at other times. Specifically, in a lab study, variably fair treatment resulted in greater physiological stress than both consistently fair and consistently unfair treatment. In a multilevel, experience-sampling field study, we replicated the positive association between justice variability and stress, and we also showed that justice variability exacerbated the positive, daily relationship between general workplace uncertainty and stress. Moreover, daily stress mediated the effects of justice variability on daily job dissatisfaction and emotional exhaustion. Finally, we showed that supervisors with more self-control tended to be less variable in their fair treatment over time. "Visually it looks stunning. .. So stop doubting yourself. Be bold. Pie underneath the pastry looks cooked. Do you hear that on top? Good and crusty. So stop feeling upset with yourself. You've got to start believing in yourself." "Why is the oven not on? Hello, derp brain! Why is the oven not on?. .. You donkey!" "Nothing would make me happier to see you rise and absolutely nail the service tonight, okay?" "I wish you'd jump in the oven! That would make my life a lot easier!" (Smith, Weed, & Ramsay, 2005-present) The above quotes are from celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay. Imagine that Gordon is your boss, and, during a single week of work, he directs the above statements toward you, each on a different day. One The authors would like to thank editor Gerard George and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.