Drawing on the social exchange theory this study assesses the relationship between co-workers' solidarity as an antecedent of incivility and deviant behavior. More specifically we hypothesize that reduced co-workers' solidarity will increase not only incivility but also deviant behaviors of employees. An additional hypothesis predicts that incivility will enhance coworkers' deviant behavior. Data was collected in 15 organizations of various types using an online questionnaire in 2014. We analyze the data using structural equation modeling. Our findings reveal interrelationships between all three variables. Co-workers' solidarity reduces uncivil and deviant behaviors of employees, whereas incivility increases organizational deviance. Moreover, we found that the explained variance of property deviance by incivility was twice as high compared to production deviance. ARTICLE HISTORY

While intrapreneurship is widely researched from the viewpoint of managers, it is scantly investigated from the standpoint of employees. Specifically, thus far, researchers overlooked employees’ perceptions concerning the quality of support they receive from their organisation and its impact on their intrapreneurial behaviour. In the framework of social exchange theory (SET), our study addresses these deficiencies by assessing the relationships between incivility, which represents lack of organisational support, organisational support and intrapreneurship. In line with SET, we hypothesised that incivility decreases employees’ resourcefulness to generate new ideas. Additionally, it was hypothesised that organisational support would enhance intrapreneurship. Moreover, it was hypothesised that organisational support would mediate the relationships between incivility and intrapreneurship. Findings indicated that organisational support is positively correlated with intrapreneurship and that organisational support fully mediates the relationships between incivility and intrapreneurship. Implications of these findings are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

PurposeThe full-range leadership theory, and the distinction between transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership behaviour has strongly influenced leadership theory and research in the last several decades. However, in spite of its impact on theory and practice, it has a few shortcomings, as, in its essence, it disregards several essential aspects of a leader’s behaviour, such as the dark side of leadership behaviour. Therefore, to capture various leader behaviours, we provide a more comprehensive leadership model named the “complete full range of leadership”.Design/methodology/approachBased on reviewing the relevant theoretical and empirical literature, we propose an extended theoretical model, which addresses the existing shortcomings of the full range leadership model.FindingsFirst, we added a new active and more destructive facet of leadership style named active, destructive leadership style. Second, based on existing empirical findings, we restructured the transactional facet of full-range leadership by collapsing its components into two new distinct facets representing active constructive leadership style and passive destructive leadership style. Finally, drawing on Hersey and Blanchard’s model, we add a new passive and constructive facet named passive constructive leadership.Originality/valueOur suggested “complete full range of leadership” contributes to leadership theory by addressing the gap between existing theory and empirical findings, making a clear distinction between lack of leadership and delegation and by comprising the dark side of leadership with its bright side into one comprehensive leadership model.