@article{FayBagotyriuteUrbachetal.2019,
  author    = {Fay, Doris and Bagotyriute, Ruta and Urbach, Tina and West, Michael A. and Dawson, Jeremy},
  title     = {Differential effects of workplace stressors on innovation},
  series = {International Journal of Stress Management},
  volume    = {26},
  journal   = {International Journal of Stress Management},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {American Psychological Association},
  address   = {Washington},
  issn      = {1072-5245},
  doi       = {10.1037/str0000081},
  pages     = {11 -- 24},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {It is now consensus that engaging in innovative work behaviors is not restricted to traditional innovation jobs (e.g., research and development), but that they can be performed on a discretionary basis in most of today's jobs. To date, our knowledge on the role of workplace stressors for discretionary innovative behavior, in particular for innovation implementation, is limited. We draw on a cybernetic view as well as on a transactional, coping-based perspective with stress to propose differential effects of stressors on innovation implementation. We propose that work demands have a positive effect on innovation implementation, whereas role-based stressors (i.e., role conflict, role ambiguity, and professional compromise) have a negative effect. We conducted a time-lagged, survey-based study in the health care sector (Study 1, United Kingdom: N = 235 nurses). Innovation implementation was measured 2 years after the assessment of the stressors. Supporting our hypotheses, work demands were positively related to subsequent innovation implementation, whereas role ambiguity and professional compromise were negatively related to subsequent innovation implementation. We also tested organizational commitment as a mediator, but there was only partial support for the mediation. To test the generalizability of the findings, we replicated the study (Study 2, Germany: employees from various professions, N = 138, time lag 2 weeks). Similar results to that in Study 1 were obtained. There was no support for strain as a mediator. Our results suggest differential effects of work demands and role stressors on innovation implementation, for which the underlying mechanism still needs to be uncovered.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{PingelFayUrbach2019,
  author    = {Pingel, Ruta and Fay, Doris and Urbach, Tina},
  title     = {A resources perspective on when and how proactive work behaviour leads to employee withdrawal},
  series = {Journal of occupational and organizational psychology},
  volume    = {92},
  journal   = {Journal of occupational and organizational psychology},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {0963-1798},
  doi       = {10.1111/joop.12254},
  pages     = {410 -- 435},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Previous organizational behaviour research has mainly focused on the benefits of proactivity while disregarding its possible drawbacks. The present study examines the ways in which proactive behaviour may foster counterproductive behaviour through increased emotional and cognitive strain. Drawing on conservation of resources theory, we propose that proactive behaviour is a resource-consuming activity that causes irritability and work-related rumination, which, in turn, leads to instrumentally driven employee withdrawal. Further, we hypothesize that external motivation towards proactivity amplifies its strain-eliciting effects. We conducted a longitudinal three-wave questionnaire study (N = 231) and tested hypotheses using an autoregressive, time-lagged model with latent variables. Results showed that when external motivation for proactivity was high, proactivity led to increased irritability and rumination; irritability was, in turn, related to higher levels of withdrawal. The moderated mediation analysis revealed that when external motivation towards proactive behaviour was high, proactive behaviour had an indirect effect on withdrawal behaviour via irritability. The direct effect of proactivity on work-related rumination was in the expected direction, but failed to reach conventional levels of significance (beta = .09, p = .08). Our results indicate that proactivity is not without costs, most clearly if motivated by external reasons.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{WeigeltSyrekSchmittetal.2019,
  author    = {Weigelt, Oliver and Syrek, Christine J. and Schmitt, Antje and Urbach, Tina},
  title     = {Finding peace of mind when there still is so much left undone},
  series = {Journal of occupational health psychology},
  volume    = {24},
  journal   = {Journal of occupational health psychology},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {American Psychological Association},
  address   = {Washington, DC},
  issn      = {1076-8998},
  doi       = {10.1037/ocp0000117},
  pages     = {373 -- 386},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Unfinished work tasks have been identified as a significant job-related stressor in recent occupational stress research. Extending this research, we examine how and when not finishing one's tasks by the end of the work week affects work-related rumination at the weekend. Drawing on control theory, we examined competence need satisfaction as a mediating mechanism that links unfinished tasks at the end of the work week to work-related rumination at the weekend. Furthermore, we scrutinized whether proactive work behavior within the work week may neutralize the detrimental effects of unfinished tasks on competence need satisfaction and rumination. Using diary methodology, we collected weekly observations from 58 employees at the beginning and at the end of the work week over a period of 12 consecutive weeks, yielding 377 matched observations. Multilevel modeling analyses provided evidence for the assumed indirect effect at the intraindividual level. Higher levels of unfinished tasks were associated with lower levels of competence need satisfaction during the weekend. Competence need satisfaction, in turn, was negatively related to work-related rumination. Proactive work behavior attenuated the detrimental effects of unfinished tasks on competence need satisfaction and rumination at the weekend. These results imply that proactive work behavior facilitates switching off mentally during the weekend as it may restore competence need satisfaction in the face of unfinished tasks.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{UrbachWeigelt2019,
  author    = {Urbach, Tina and Weigelt, Oliver},
  title     = {Time pressure and proactive work behaviour: A week-level study on intraindividual fluctuations and reciprocal relationships},
  series = {Journal of occupational and organizational psychology},
  volume    = {92},
  journal   = {Journal of occupational and organizational psychology},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {0963-1798},
  doi       = {10.1111/joop.12269},
  pages     = {931 -- 952},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Recent research on proactive work behaviours (PWBs) pointed out that these behaviours can have negative consequences for the proactive individual. We add to this perspective by showing that PWBs may be a source of strain at work and result in elevated time pressure. Challenging the view of time pressure as a challenge stressor, we hypothesize that over the course of work weeks, time pressure will result in less (rather than more) PWB. We investigate these reciprocal effects as within-person, week-level fluctuations of time pressure and PWB based on experience sampling data (N = 52 participants, k = 274 observations). Over the course of three consecutive work weeks, results show a positive lagged effect of PWB in the first week on experiencing time pressure in the second week; in turn, time pressure in the second week had a negative lagged effect on PWB in the third week. Results further suggest that PWB is lowest in work weeks of low time pressure when following a week of high time pressure, indicating a conservation of resources interpretation of the results.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{FayUrbachScheithauer2019,
  author    = {Fay, Doris and Urbach, Tina and Scheithauer, Linda},
  title     = {What motivates you right now?},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {545},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-42735},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-427350},
  pages     = {17},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Regulatory focus is a motivational construct that describes humans' motivational orientation during goal pursuit. It is conceptualized as a chronic, trait-like, as well as a momentary, state-like orientation. Whereas there is a large number of measures to capture chronic regulatory focus, measures for its momentary assessment are only just emerging. This paper presents the development and validation of a measure of Momentary-Chronic Regulatory Focus. Our development incorporates the distinction between self-guide and reference-point definitions of regulatory focus. Ideals and ought striving are the promotion and prevention dimension in the self-guide system; gain and non-loss regulatory focus are the respective dimensions within the reference-point system. Three-survey-based studies test the structure, psychometric properties, and validity of the measure in its version to assess chronic regulatory focus (two samples of working participants, N = 389, N = 672; one student sample [time 1, N = 105; time 2, n = 91]). In two further studies, an experience sampling study with students (N = 84, k = 1649) and a daily-diary study with working individuals (N = 129, k = 1766), the measure was applied to assess momentary regulatory focus. Multilevel analyses test the momentary measure's factorial structure, provide support for its sensitivity to capture within-person fluctuations, and provide evidence for concurrent construct validity.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FayUrbachScheithauer2019,
  author    = {Fay, Doris and Urbach, Tina and Scheithauer, Linda},
  title     = {What motivates you right now?},
  series = {Measurement Instruments for the Social Sciences},
  volume    = {2},
  journal   = {Measurement Instruments for the Social Sciences},
  number    = {5},
  publisher = {BioMed Central},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {2523-8930},
  doi       = {10.1186/s42409-019-0007-7},
  pages     = {17},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Regulatory focus is a motivational construct that describes humans' motivational orientation during goal pursuit. It is conceptualized as a chronic, trait-like, as well as a momentary, state-like orientation. Whereas there is a large number of measures to capture chronic regulatory focus, measures for its momentary assessment are only just emerging. This paper presents the development and validation of a measure of Momentary-Chronic Regulatory Focus. Our development incorporates the distinction between self-guide and reference-point definitions of regulatory focus. Ideals and ought striving are the promotion and prevention dimension in the self-guide system; gain and non-loss regulatory focus are the respective dimensions within the reference-point system. Three-survey-based studies test the structure, psychometric properties, and validity of the measure in its version to assess chronic regulatory focus (two samples of working participants, N = 389, N = 672; one student sample [time 1, N = 105; time 2, n = 91]). In two further studies, an experience sampling study with students (N = 84, k = 1649) and a daily-diary study with working individuals (N = 129, k = 1766), the measure was applied to assess momentary regulatory focus. Multilevel analyses test the momentary measure's factorial structure, provide support for its sensitivity to capture within-person fluctuations, and provide evidence for concurrent construct validity.},
  language  = {en}
}