No abstract

No abstract

The movement toward positive psychology has uncovered the important role that positivity plays in both individual and organizational success. Given that work teams are becoming increasingly embedded in organizational structures, it is surprising that few researchers have investigated positivity at the team level. The present study examines the emergence of team level positive psychological capacities and their relationship with team outcomes (e.g., cohesion, cooperation, coordination, and conflict and team satisfaction) during two team sessions. Results from 101 teams suggest that team optimism is an important predictor of team outcomes when teams are newly formed, whereas team resilience and team efficacy show greater explanatory power after several team interactions. Implications of the findings are discussed, as well as possible avenues for additional research.

Followership research posits that followers differ in the way they define and enact the followership role, which can have varying effects in relation to how leaders experience their own roles and responsibilities. Drawing from the role orientation literature and newly emerging research on followership, our study examines the indirect effects of followers' co-production (co-producing leadership outcomes) and passive (deferring to leadership influence) role orientations on leaderrated outcomes of perceived follower support, leader motivation, and follower contribution to goal attainment via followers' voice and upward delegation behaviors. Using data from 306 dyads in a Chinese organization, our results show that follower voice and upward delegation mediate the relationships linking followers' co-production and passive role orientations with leader-rated outcomes. Our study provides evidence that followership role orientations and behaviors differentially influence leader perceptions regarding their followers' support, contribution to goal attainment, and leader motivation. Implications are drawn for further research on followership

No abstract

Drawing on a role-based approach to followership, we investigate followers’ beliefs about the co-production of leadership and examine the association of these beliefs with upward communication behaviors. We also investigate the potential moderating effects of leader consideration, leader-follower relationship quality, and autonomous work climate on the relationship between co-production beliefs and upward communication. The findings show a positive relationship between co-production beliefs and upward communication with leaders (i.e., voice and constructive resistance). Findings also show that leadership style, overall relationship quality, and autonomous work climate moderate the relationship between co-production beliefs and voice, but not constructive resistance. Interactions show that followers with weaker co-production beliefs use significantly less voice when leadership and contextual conditions were unfavorable, but that contextual conditions did not diminish the voice behaviors of those with stronger co-production beliefs. We discuss implications for both research and practice, and lay a foundation for how followership research may supplement and extend our understanding of the co-production of leadership in organizations.

Purpose -Previous research on psychological contracts has assumed that managers play a unidimensional role as either a contractual agent or an employee of the organization. These assumptions are examined in light of a recent article advocating a ''multiple foci'' conceptualization of psychological contracts. Design/methodology/approach -As psychological contracts become increasingly salient in times of rapid change, qualitative data from 16 nurse managers in a post-merger hospital consolidation were examined. Findings -Results indicate that managers have a bi-directional obligation with both the organization and their subordinates. Specifically, managers have strong upward contracts with top management with regard to material support, resources, and strategic communication. Manager-tosubordinate contracts, on the other hand, reflect a greater emphasis on the areas of employee involvement and emotional support. Practical implications -These findings challenge researchers and practitioners to explicitly consider a multiple foci conceptualization of psychological contracts, particularly in the context of organizational change. In practice, this means that one must dedicate more attention to uncovering the constituents with whom managers hold psychological contracts, as well as how managers prioritize their multiple contracts within the organization. Originality/value -Given the conflictual role managers often face in a post-merger environment, it may be increasingly difficult to understand managerial contracts using traditional approaches. Although exploratory, this study provides the first empirical support for the above recent argument, and suggests that taking into account the multifaceted content and structure of managerial contracts may play a critical role in successful change initiatives.

Toffler, 1999) are the most critical antecedents to ethical behavior in organizations. However, the ethical lapses during the past decade (e.g., WorldCom) show that it is often the leaders who act unethically and/or demand unethical actions from followers (Whittington & Pany, 2009). Indeed, the 2011 National Business Ethics Survey conducted by the Ethics Resource Center (2012) found that 34% of employees "had a negative view of their supervisor's ethics." These findings clearly indicate that relying on leader ethical behavior is not enough. We need to also focus on the role of followers in maintaining ethical behavior in organizations (Hollander, 1995;Perreault, 1997).An area that has been identified as important regarding the role of followers in organizational ethics is followers' responses to unethical requests by a leader (Uhl-Bien & Carsten, 2007). Followers face ethical dilemmas when leaders approach them with inappropriate requests, such as asking them to engage in behaviors that are clearly unethical. In such situations, followers must make a decision: They can choose to stand up to the unethical request (e.g., by challenging the leader's directive, refusing to engage in unethical behavior, or proposing alternative courses of action) or they can go along with the leader's request, in essence becoming complicit with the unethical behavior. This choice will likely be associated with their beliefs about the follower role and how followers should interact with leaders. For followers to be able to stand up to a leader's unethical request, they must not view their followership role as passive and obedient. Instead, they must feel a responsibility as an active participant in the leadership process (