@article{UrbachFay2018,
  author    = {Urbach, Tina and Fay, Doris},
  title     = {When proactivity produces a power struggle},
  series = {European journal of work and organizational psychology : the official journal of The European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology},
  volume    = {27},
  journal   = {European journal of work and organizational psychology : the official journal of The European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {1359-432X},
  doi       = {10.1080/1359432X.2018.1435528},
  pages     = {280 -- 295},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Previous research informs us about facilitators of employees' promotive voice. Yet little is known about what determines whether a specific idea for constructive change brought up by an employee will be approved or rejected by a supervisor. Drawing on interactionist theories of motivation and personality, we propose that a supervisor will be least likely to support an idea when it threatens the supervisor's power motive, and when it is perceived to serve the employee's own striving for power. The prosocial versus egoistic intentions attributed to the idea presenter are proposed to mediate the latter effect. We conducted three scenario-based studies in which supervisors evaluated fictitious ideas voiced by employees that - if implemented - would have power-related consequences for them as a supervisor. Results show that the higher a supervisors' explicit power motive was, the less likely they were to support a power-threatening idea (Study 1, N = 60). Moreover, idea support was less likely when this idea was proposed by an employee that was described as high (rather than low) on power motivation (Study 2, N = 79); attributed prosocial intentions mediated this effect. Study 3 (N = 260) replicates these results.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FayHuettges2016,
  author    = {Fay, Doris and H{\"u}ttges, Annett},
  title     = {Drawbacks of proactivity},
  series = {Journal of Occupational Health Psychology},
  volume    = {22},
  journal   = {Journal of Occupational Health Psychology},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {American Psychological Association},
  address   = {Washington},
  issn      = {1076-8998},
  doi       = {10.1037/ocp0000042},
  pages     = {429 -- 442},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {The benefit of proactive work behaviors for performance-related outcomes has been well established. However, this approach to studying proactivity has not yet acknowledged its potential implications for the actor's well-being. Drawing on the fact that resources at work are limited and that the workplace is a social system characterized by interdependencies, we proposed that daily proactivity could have a negative effect on daily well-being. We furthermore proposed that this effect should be mediated by work overload and negative affect. We conducted a daily diary study (N = 72) to test the potential negative effects of proactivity on daily well-being. Data was collected across 3 consecutive work days. During several daily measurement occasions, participants reported proactivity, work overload, negative affect, and fatigue. They also provided 4 saliva samples per day, from which cortisol was assayed. Based on the 4 samples, a measure of daily cortisol output was produced. Multilevel analyses showed that daily proactivity was positively associated with higher daily cortisol output. The positive association of daily proactivity with bedtime fatigue was marginally significant. There was no support for a mediating effect of work overload and negative affect. Implications for theory-building on the proactivity-well-being link are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{UrbachFayLauche2016,
  author    = {Urbach, Tina and Fay, Doris and Lauche, Kristina},
  title     = {evaluation of innovative ideas},
  series = {European journal of work and organizational psychology : the official journal of The European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology},
  volume    = {25},
  journal   = {European journal of work and organizational psychology : the official journal of The European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {1359-432X},
  doi       = {10.1080/1359432X.2016.1176558},
  pages     = {540 -- 560},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Workplace innovations often take the form of making suggestions about small-range improvements, for example, of processes and work procedures. Research on innovation suggests that people holding a novel idea will often consult their peers first in order to gauge their potential approval and support before proposing the idea to formal decision makers. We argue that peer evaluators' intentions to support an innovative idea depend on the idea's capacity to satisfy or threaten the evaluator's achievement motive. Support intentions will be higher if the idea satisfies the evaluators' achievement motive (idea-motive congruence), and lower if it threatens their achievement motive (idea-motive incongruence); evaluators' affective response is proposed to mediate this effect. Moreover, the intentions attributed to the idea presenter are proposed to affect peers' support intentions. The results of two scenario-based experiments (N = 153 and 123) confirm that motive-incongruent implications of an innovative idea, in particular regarding their fear of failure, reduce the likelihood for peers' support intentions. Results on affective responses were inconsistent across studies, whereas perceiving the idea presenter to hold prosocial intentions was positively related to idea support. Implications for the evaluation of ideas are discussed.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{UrbachFay2018,
  author    = {Urbach, Tina and Fay, Doris},
  title     = {When proactivity produces a power struggle},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {447},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-412968},
  pages     = {17},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Previous research informs us about facilitators of employees' promotive voice. Yet little is known about what determines whether a specific idea for constructive change brought up by an employee will be approved or rejected by a supervisor. Drawing on interactionist theories of motivation and personality, we propose that a supervisor will be least likely to support an idea when it threatens the supervisor's power motive, and when it is perceived to serve the employee's own striving for power. The prosocial versus egoistic intentions attributed to the idea presenter are proposed to mediate the latter effect. We conducted three scenario-based studies in which supervisors evaluated fictitious ideas voiced by employees that - if implemented - would have power-related consequences for them as a supervisor. Results show that the higher a supervisors' explicit power motive was, the less likely they were to support a power-threatening idea (Study 1, N = 60). Moreover, idea support was less likely when this idea was proposed by an employee that was described as high (rather than low) on power motivation (Study 2, N = 79); attributed prosocial intentions mediated this effect. Study 3 (N = 260) replicates these results.},
  language  = {en}
}