We investigate the extent to which transformational leadership behaviours enacted by team members – shared transformational leadership – relate to safety behaviours of team members, teams, and team leaders. We also consider the role of perceived organizational support in moderating the relationships between shared transformational leadership and safety behaviours. We collected data from 2,139 crew members (‘team members’) and 98 chief engineers (‘team leaders’) working on merchant shipping vessels (‘teams’). Team members’ perceptions of shared transformational leadership positively related to team members’ safety compliance and safety participation. Shared transformational leadership became less effective in relation to team members’ safety compliance under conditions of high levels of perceived organizational support. Shared transformational leadership at the team level related to higher levels of safety participation of teams. Teams’ shared transformational leadership was positively related to team leaders’ safety participation, but only under low levels of perceived organizational support. Taken together, our findings demonstrate the important role of shared transformational leadership in relation to safety behaviours and suggest that the effectiveness of shared transformational leadership might vary depending on perceived organizational support. Practitioner points Transformational leadership behaviours exercised by team members – shared transformational leadership – are associated with higher levels of mandated and discretionary safety behaviours of team members. Teams that have higher levels of shared transformational leadership demonstrate higher levels of team‐level discretionary safety behaviours. Shared transformational leadership is more strongly associated with employees’ mandated safety behaviours under low levels of perceived organizational support. When leaders perceive low levels of organizational support, their teams’ shared transformational leadership becomes a more important correlate of leaders’ discretionary safety behaviours. In addition to traditional leadership training that involves formal leaders only, organizations should consider implementing activities that foster shared leadership behaviours.

Given the high human and economic costs of workplace safety, researchers and practitioners have paid increasing attention to how leadership behaviors relate to workplace safety. Previous research has demonstrated that leadership behaviors are important for workplace safety. In this meta-analysis, we extend our understanding of the leadership-workplace safety relationship by (a) examining the associations between a broader range of five leadership categories-change-oriented, relational-oriented, task-oriented, passive, and destructive-and seven workplace safety variables; (b) investigating the relative importance of these leadership categories in explaining variance in these workplace safety variables; and (c) testing contextual and methodological contingencies of the leadership-workplace safety relationship. Using effect sizes from 194 samples (N = 104,364), we find that although leadership behaviors are associated with workplace safety, the leadership categories vary considerably in their relative importance. Task-oriented leadership followed by relational-oriented leadership emerge as the most important contributors to workplace safety. Change-oriented leadership (which includes transformational leadership) does not emerge as the largest contributor for any of the seven tested safety variables, despite it being the most frequently examined leadership model in the workplace safety literature. Effectiveness of leadership behaviors in relation to workplace safety varies by national culture power distance, industry risk, workforce age, as well as by contextualized forms of leadership (i.e., safety-specific vs. generalized). Finally, there is meta-analytic evidence for publication bias and common-method variance.

Summary To understand the relationship between employee performance and abusive reactions from supervisors, we examine the role of supervisors' attributions about employees' performance. Drawing on the fundamental attribution error, we argue that supervisors over‐attribute lower levels of performance to employees' internal factors (i.e., conscientiousness), which then triggers higher levels of abusive supervision. In Study 1, we collected data from 189 supervisor–employee dyads. The results indicated that lower levels of supervisor‐rated employee performance related to supervisor biased attributions to employee conscientiousness, which in turn resulted in employee‐rated abusive supervision. In Study 2, we combined a recall task with a vignette design to replicate and extend our findings. We demonstrated that after adjusting for the baseline level of employee conscientiousness, supervisors over‐attributed poor performance to employee conscientiousness and then engaged in higher levels of abusive behaviors. Further, consistent with premises of fundamental attribution error, we found that in the absence of information about who was at fault for poor performance, supervisors over‐attributed poor performance to internal factors (employee) as compared to external factors (software malfunction). Taken together, our findings demonstrate that biased attributions about employee conscientiousness help explain the relationship between employee performance and abusive supervision.

Masculinity contest culture (MCC) encourages fierce competition and race for status at all costs. Across three experiments (N total = 554), we investigated how MCC affects discretionary performance at work (i.e., organizational citizenship behaviors; OCBs). Compared to an alternative culture (i.e., feminine nurturing culture; FNC), participants in the MCC condition reported lower levels of OCBs toward the organization and its members. Further results showed that MCC diminished individuals' intentions to engage in discretionary performance through reduced organizational identification. We did not find a moderating effect of gender, suggesting that MCC thwarts discretionary performance and organizational identification for both women and men. Public Significance StatementWe found that compared to a more collaborative and balanced alternative, masculinity contest culture results in less beneficial outcomes for organizations in a form of reduced levels of organizational citizenship behaviors.

Recovery from work is a critical component for employees' proper functioning. While research has documented the beneficial effects of after-work recovery, it has focused far less on the recovery that happens while at work in the form of work breaks. In this review, we systematically review available empirical evidence on the relationship between work breaks and well-being and performance among knowledge workers. Doing so enables us to (a) integrate studies from multiple disciplines, (b) propose a conceptual framework for categorizing work breaks, and (c) provide a future research agenda for studying the role of work breaks in employee well-being and performance. Using Cochrane's guidelines, we review observational and intervention studies (N = 83). Based on the extant research, we propose that work breaks can be described and classified in terms of five features: initiator, duration, frequency, activities, and experiences. The result of our review is an integrative model that comprehensively captures the relationship between work breaks and well-being and performance outcomes, as well as the mechanisms and boundary conditions of these relationships. We conclude by proposing avenues for the future study and practice of work breaks.

PurposeThis paper investigates the extent to which disability type contributes to differential evaluation of employees by managers. In particular, the authors examined managerial prejudice against 3 disability diagnoses (i.e. psychiatric, physical disability and pending diagnosis) compared to a control group in a return-to-work scenario.Design/methodology/approachWorking managers (N = 238) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 scenarios containing medical documentation for a fictional employee that disclosed either the employee's psychiatric disability, physical disability, or a pending diagnosis. The authors also collected a separate sample (N = 42) as a control group that received a version of the medical documentation but contained no information about the disability diagnosis.FindingsCompared with employees without stated disabilities, employees with a psychiatric disability were evaluated as more aggressive toward other employees, less trustworthy and less committed to the organization. Compared to employees with either physical disabilities or pending diagnoses, employees with psychiatric disabilities were rated as less committed to the organization. The authors discuss implications for future research and the trade-offs inherent in disability labeling and disclosure.Originality/valueThe current study extends prior research by examining a broader range of outcomes (i.e. perceived aggressiveness, trustworthiness and commitment) and moving beyond performance evaluations of employees with disabilities. The authors also assess the relative status of a “pending diagnosis” category—a type of disclosure often encountered by managers in many jurisdictions as part of accommodating employees returning to work from medical-related absence.

No abstract

Workplace mistreatment researchers study negative interpersonal behaviors under a plethora of different labels, including incivility, bullying, harassment, aggression, and violence. While negative interpersonal behaviors differ in their intensity, intent, and frequency, a common denominator of these behaviors is their adverse impact on employees and organizations. Research has identified the nomological network of workplace mistreatment, which illustrates individual and contextual factors associated with mistreatment behaviors. Authors have also highlighted outcomes of mistreatment, showing that mistreatment results in reduced psychological and physical health, worsened job attitudes, and diminished performance for both targets and bystanders. Further, enacted mistreatment is not without consequences for the perpetrators, and these consequences can be both negative and positive. While workplace mistreatment research has been steadily growing, many questions remain unanswered. There are unexplored topics, approaches, and methodologies. First, there is a need to understand the uniqueness and similarities of different mistreatment constructs to provide a more comprehensive approach for studying workplace mistreatment and highlight alternative ways of measuring mistreatment constructs. Novel methodological approaches, such as HotMap and artificial intelligence, could shed light on the dynamics between targets and perpetrators of mistreatment, allowing researchers to capture the dynamic nature of mistreatment behaviors. Second, the interactions among societal, cultural, and interpersonal factors are likely to shape enacted mistreatment. For instance, social networks within organizations and the interrelations between employees are likely to influence not only the individual who becomes targeted, but also the way in which bystanders are to take action against such mistreatment. Third, while the role of bystanders in the dynamics of workplace mistreatment is undoubtedly important, there is a need to critically investigate the role bystanders may play in curtailing or encouraging mistreatment. More specifically, bystander interventions can take both constructive and destructive forms. Finally, targets’ responses to experienced mistreatment are likely to be relevant to the understanding of the dyadic nature of workplace mistreatment, such that an aggressive target response is likely to cause a mistreatment spiraling. However, it remains unclear what type of target response, if any, would be beneficial in helping de-escalate destructive behavior from the perpetrator. Thus, more research is needed to help address the important question of the best ways to deal with experienced mistreatment.