The history of workplace deviance research has evolved from a focus on singular behaviors, such as theft or withdrawal in the 1970s and 1980s, to the broader focus on a range of behaviors in the 21st century. This more inclusive cluster of related “dark side” behaviors is made up of voluntary behaviors that violate significant organizational norms and in so doing threaten the well-being of an organization, its members, or both. Examples of behaviors that fall in this domain are employee theft and sabotage of organizational goods, services, data, customer lists, materials, working slow, calling in sick when you are not, bullying, harassment, discrimination, and gossip. Workplace deviance can be targeted at other individuals in the organization (coworkers, supervisors, subordinates) or at the organization itself, or both. Typically the actor’s perspective is considered, but other relevant views of the behavior include the supervisor/the organization, peers, customers, or other third parties. Many causes have been studied as sources of deviant workplace behaviors, for example personality characteristics such as neuroticism or low conscientiousness, modeling others’ behavior, experiences of injustice, uncertainty, lack of control or feelings of anger, frustration, and dissatisfaction. Nowadays, some researchers are returning to a focus on individual behaviors, or smaller clusters of behaviors such as sexual misconduct, gossip, and even constructive deviance, and the outcomes of workplace deviance on actors, targets, and observers are being investigated.

Despite wide-ranging negative consequences of interpersonal mistreatment, research offers few practical solutions to reduce such behavior in organizations. Given that interpersonal relationships are strengthened and desired employee behaviors are more frequent when individuals purposefully cultivate feelings of gratitude, the present study tests the effectiveness of a 10-day gratitude journaling intervention in reducing workplace incivility, gossip, and ostracism. Because research has not examined the mechanisms by which gratitude interventions influence outcomes, we draw on theory and research from the gratitude literature to propose and test a multiple mediator model. Specifically, we examine the moral affect theory of gratitude, find-remind-and-bind theory, self-regulation theory, and social exchange theory as possible explanations for the effects of the intervention. Two field experiments involving 147 (Study 1) and 204 (Study 2) employees demonstrated that the intervention decreased mistreatment (as reported by coworkers) by enhancing self-control resources. We also found that the effects of the intervention were stronger for individuals who perceive higher norms for gratitude in their workplace. The findings support the resource-building nature of gratitude interventions and demonstrate that a gratitude intervention is one effective way to decrease interpersonal mistreatment in organizations. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

In this review, we address inconsistencies and a lack of clarity in the study of leader-member exchange (LMX) differentiation and group outcomes. We do so by drawing on another highly visible group dispersion literature in the management domain, group diversity, based on the recognition that LMX quality is a characteristic on which group members vary. Utilizing insights from Harrison and Klein’s typology of group diversity constructs, we introduce a framework that specifies the meaning and shape of three variations of differentiated leader-member relationships in groups and connects each construct with implications in terms of theorizing and measurement. Specifically, our framework conceptualizes LMX differentiation as LMX separation (dispersion in LMX relationships as disagreement or opposition regarding an opinion, perception, or position), LMX variety (dispersion in LMX relationships as distinctiveness in kind, source, or category), and LMX disparity (dispersion in LMX relationships as inequality in concentration of valued social assets or resources). We then apply this framework to conduct a systematic review of the LMX differentiation literature with particular attention to alignment among a study’s descriptions of the construct, application of theory, expected group outcomes, and construct measurement. Finally, we offer recommendations for future research and for applying our framework to enhance reliability, validity, and generalizability in studies of LMX differentiation and group outcomes.

Though gratitude research in organizational behavior (OB) is nascent, this emotion has a rich history in the social sciences. Research has shown gratitude to promote prosocial behaviors, encourage personal well-being, and foster interpersonal relationships. However, gratitude research has been siloed among these three outcomes of gratitude (moral, wellness, and relational). Similarly, past reviews of gratitude have focused on only one group of outcomes, one of its forms (trait, state, or expressed), or empirical findings without emphasis on the theoretical underpinnings. In contrast, this review recognizes that each type of gratitude, its functions, and outcomes are part of a single process model of gratitude. As such, in the current review, we provide a comprehensive assessment of gratitude in the social sciences by distilling and organizing the literature per our process model of episodic gratitude. Then, we translate the insights for management scholars, highlighting possible differences and synergies between extant research and workplace gratitude thereby helping advance "gratitude science" in the workplace. In all, this review (a) examines definitions and operationalizations of gratitude and provides recommendations for organizational research; (b) proposes a process model of episodic workplace gratitude as a conceptual map to guide future OB research on gratitude; (c) reviews empirical gratitude research through the lens of our process model; and (d) discusses the current state of the literature, important differences for workplace gratitude, and future directions for organizational scholars.

No abstract

In the 2 decades since Andersson and Pearson (Academy of Management Review, 24, 452, 1999) suggested workplace incivility occurs in dyadic relationships between two employees, research has only studied incivility from the perspective of either the target or the instigator. In doing so, it implicitly treats experienced and instigated incivility as though they solely reflect (viz., dispositional and situational) characteristics of targets and instigators, ignoring that incivility is also attributable to the unique relationship between dyad members. The present study draws on the norm of reciprocity to examine workplace incivility in dyadic relationships and how it differs across individuals. Using dyads as the unit of analysis, we test our predictions among employees at a U.S. restaurant chain (Sample 1); a technology manufacturer in China (Sample 2); and across a range of industries, organizations, and jobs in the U.S. (Sample 3). We find that experienced and instigated incivility exhibit substantial variation at the dyad level, that the two are related within dyads after accounting for individuals' general tendencies to experience and instigate incivility, and that the within-dyad association between experienced and instigated incivility is moderated by perceived descriptive and injunctive norms regarding uncivil behavior. Implications and future research directions are discussed.

Research identifying specific mechanisms of positive change for couples participating in relationship education is scant. Recent studies have identified the potential of communication skills as a likely mechanism, yet more information is needed about the contribution of process factors. Thus, we examined the influence that quality time spent together had on positive post‐intervention outcomes based on couples’ reports of dyadic coping and dyadic adjustment for 1,367 low‐income couples randomly assigned to receive relationship education. Results indicated that treatment couples reported significant gains in quality time spent together, and that those gains fully mediated positive changes in dyadic coping and adjustment. Additionally, actor and partner effects existed such that men's and women's reports of improved quality time influenced their own and their partners dyadic coping and dyadic adjustment. We discuss study implications for practice and future research.

No abstract