Why and for whom does the pressure to help hurt others? Affective and cognitive mechanisms linking helping pressure to workplace deviance

Abstract

Scholars are paying increasing attention to the "dark side" of citizenship behavior. One aspect of this dark side that has received relatively scant attention is "helping pressure"-an employee's perception that s/he is being encouraged to, or otherwise feels that s/he should, enact helping behavior at work. Drawing from theory associated with work stress, we examine affective and cognitive mechanisms that potentially explain why helping pressure, counterintuitively, may lead employees to engage in deviant behavior instead. Beyond examining these possible mechanisms, we also answer calls to identify a potential buffer to these effects. Drawing from self-determination theory, we examine how an employee's intrinsic motivation for citizenship may lessen the deleterious consequences of helping pressure at work. In two studies (a withinindividual experience-sampling study and a two-wave betweenindividual study), we find consistent evidence that helping pressure has a positive indirect relationship with deviant behavior through increased negative affect. Further, we find evidence that intrinsic motivation for citizenship weakens the positive relationship of helping pressure with negative affect, buffering the indirect effect on subsequent deviant behavior. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings for the study of helping pressure at work are discussed. K E Y W O R D Saffect, citizenship behavior, intrinsic motivation, self-regulation, work stressors Personnel Psychology. 2020;73:333-362.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/peps

When lending an ear turns into mistreatment: An episodic examination of leader mistreatment in response to venting at work

“…The theoretical notion that there is a positive relationship between negative emotion and interpersonal mistreatment also aligns with research suggesting that individuals experiencing negative affective states are more likely to violate social norms, given that “those who experience negative affect are less articulate, more aggressive, and less attentive to norms of politeness” (Scott, Colquitt, & Paddock, 2009, p. 761). Such sentiments are consistent with theory suggesting that the function of emotion is to coordinate and direct the body's behavioral motor systems (e.g., Cosmides & Tooby, 2000; Keltner & Haidt, 1999), in addition to research that has demonstrated that negative affective states are within‐person predictors of deviance (e.g., Judge, Scott, & Ilies, 2006; Koopman et al., 2020; Matta et al., 2014). Thus, we expect that the experience of negative emotion stemming from leaders' receipt of venting from others will be followed by interpersonal mistreatment—behavior that violates norms for polite and respectful conduct—with such mistreatment occurring during interactions with members of the workgroup within the same workday.…”

Leader Power and Agency-Communion Orientations as Moderators of the Effects of Organizational Characteristics on Workplace Bullying

“…McCarthy and Mayhew ( 2004 , p. 81) argue that organizations may create their bullies “where fear and hopelessness are overwhelming and resentment denied remedies may be projected through traditional construction of evil in targeting violence at perpetrators.” Several studies have shown that the counterproductive behavior of a bully can be one of the most challenging interpersonal conflicts in groups and is driven by contemporary business pressures and stress (see Einarsen, 1999 ; Einarsen et al, 2010 ; Koopman et al, 2020 ; Luzio‐Lockett, 1995 ; Tepper, 2000 ; Tepper et al, 2001 ; Zapf, 1999 ). The typical workplace contains a substantial amount of built-in interpersonal disparity that makes it ripe for workplace bullying.…”

The Dark Side of Organizational Identification: A Multi-Study Investigation of Negative Outcomes

“… Bolino et al (2013) term EMOCB as the dark side of OCB. When OCB is ingrained as an important activity in the organizational culture, employees extend their citizenship behavior to include rule-breaking in order to perform one’s job activities efficiently and extend one’s support of customers and coworkers ( Bolino et al, 2018 ; Koopman et al, 2019 ). As previously stated, OI increases motivation among employees to engage in EMOCB, and employees expand their EMOCB to include deviant behavior in the form of PSRB.…”