The authors studied the effect of 3 modes of managerial influence (managerial oversight, ethical leadership, and abusive supervision) on counterproductivity, which was conceptualized as a unit-level outcome that reflects the existence of a variety of intentional and unintentional harmful employee behaviors in the unit. Counterproductivity was represented by an objective measure of food loss in a longitudinal study of 265 restaurants. After prior food loss and alternative explanations (e.g., turnover, training, neighborhood income) were controlled for, results indicated that managerial oversight and abusive supervision significantly influenced counterproductivity in the following periods, whereas ethical leadership did not. Counterproductivity was also found to be negatively related to both restaurant profitability and customer satisfaction in the same period and to mediate indirect relationships between managerial influences and distal unit outcomes.

No abstract

Background The COVID-19 pandemic, the accompanying lockdown measures, and their possible long-term effects have made mental health a pressing public health concern. Acts that focus on benefiting others—known as prosocial behaviors—offer one promising intervention that is both flexible and low cost. However, neither the range of emotional states prosocial acts impact nor the size of those effects is currently clear—both of which directly influence its attractiveness as a treatment option. Objective To assess the effect of prosocial activity on emotional well-being (happiness, belief that one’s life is valuable) and mental health (anxiety, depression). Methods 1,234 respondents from the United States and Canada were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk and randomly assigned (by computer software) to perform prosocial (N = 411), self-focused (N = 423), or neutral (N = 400) behaviors three times a week for three weeks. A follow-up assessment was given two weeks after the intervention. Participants were blind to alternative conditions. Analyses were based on 1052 participants (Nprosocial = 347, Nself = 365, Nneutral = 340). Findings Those in the prosocial condition did not differ on any outcome from those in the self-focused or neutral acts conditions during the intervention or at follow-up, nor did prosocial effects differ for those who had been negatively affected socially or economically by the pandemic (all p’s > 0.05). Exploratory analyses that more tightly controlled for study compliance found that prosocial acts reduced anxiety relative to neutral acts control (β = -0.12 [95% CI: -0.22 to -0.02]) and increased the belief that one’s life is valuable (β = 0.11 [95% CI: 0.03 to 0.19]). These effects persisted throughout the intervention and at follow-up. Conclusion Prosocial acts may provide small, lasting benefits to emotional well-being and mental health. Future work should replicate these results using tighter, pre-registered controls on study compliance.

No abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic, the accompanying lockdown measures, and their possible long-term effects have made mental health a pressing public health concern. Acts that focus on benefiting others—known as prosocial behaviors—offer one promising intervention that is both flexible and low cost. However, neither the range of emotional states prosocial acts impact nor the size of those effects is currently clear, both of which directly influence its attractiveness as a treatment option. Using a large online sample from Canada and the United States, we will examine the effect of a three-week prosocial intervention on two indicators of emotional well-being (happiness and the belief that one’s life is valuable) and mental health (anxiety and depression). Respondents will be randomly assigned to perform prosocial, self-focused, or neutral behaviors each week. Two weeks after the intervention, a final survey will assess whether the intervention has a lasting effect on mental health and emotional well-being. Our results will illuminate whether prosocial interventions are a viable approach to addressing mental health needs during the current COVID-19 pandemic, as well for those who face emotional challenges during normal times.

We propose a future-oriented model that focuses on the reconciliation of the supervisor—subordinate relationship after a workplace injustice. First, we propose factors associated with the victim’s sensemaking process that influence the need for relationship reconciliation efforts: the seriousness of the violation, blame attribution, and equity sensitivity. We address the moderating effects of relationship characteristics, such as the existing trust reservoir and level of interdependence. Next, we propose that relationship outcomes will be influenced by characteristics of the relationship repair effort. Lastly, we examine the outcomes of successful reconciliation: forgiveness and restored trust and the moderating effects of victim characteristics.

No abstract

This conceptual paper draws on cognitive theory and attribution theory to develop a process model of managerial dissonance and responsibility attribution after harmdoing. Although extant harm-doing literature assumes managerial backing for such decisions, this study suggests that there will, at times, be acts of organizationally mandated harm-doing (e.g., pay freezes) that managers believe are unnecessary. In these cases, it is proposed that managers will experience dissonance from enacting the harm-doing event, resulting in the externalization of responsibility to either the organization or the harm-doing target. This paper examines the challenges faced by the manager through each phase of the dissonance resolution process and possible outcomes of the process. This study concludes with the model's implications for moral theorizing.