@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{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{LiLiFayetal.2019, author = {Li, Wen-Dong and Li, Shuping and Fay, Doris and Frese, Michael}, title = {Reciprocal Relationships Between Dispositional Optimism and Work Experiences: A Five-Wave Longitudinal Investigation}, series = {Journal of applied psychology}, volume = {104}, journal = {Journal of applied psychology}, number = {12}, publisher = {American Psychological Association}, address = {Washington}, issn = {0021-9010}, doi = {10.1037/apl0000417}, pages = {1471 -- 1486}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Previous research on dispositional optimism has predominantly concentrated on the selection effect of dispositional optimism on predicting work outcomes. Recent research, however, has started to examine the socialization effect of life experiences on fostering dispositional optimism development. Extrapolating primarily from the TESSERA framework of personality development (Wrzus \& Roberts, 2017) and the literature on dispositional optimism, the current study represents a first attempt to reconcile the 2 seemingly contrasting perspectives. We proposed and examined change-related reciprocal relationships between dispositional optimism and work experience variables including income, job insecurity, coworker support. and supervisor support. Latent change score modeling of data from a five-wave longitudinal study demonstrated that dispositional optimism resulted in decreases in job insecurity, and the decreased job insecurity in turn promoted further increases in dispositional optimism later on. Furthermore, income gave rise to increases ill dispositional optimism at a later point in time. but not vice versa. No significant relationships were observed between dispositional optimism and coworker and supervisor support. The findings provide a cautionary note to the majority of previous research based on cross-sectional and lagged designs that assumes causal effects of dispositional optimism on work outcomes. They also showcase the importance of examining personality change in organizational research and enrich our understanding of a more nuanced dynamic interplay between the optimistic employee and the work environment.}, language = {en} } @article{SchulzSchoellgenFay2019, author = {Schulz, Anika D. and Sch{\"o}llgen, Ina and Fay, Doris}, title = {The role of resources in the stressor-detachment model}, series = {International journal of stress management}, volume = {26}, journal = {International journal of stress management}, number = {3}, publisher = {American Psychological Association}, address = {Washington}, issn = {1072-5245}, doi = {10.1037/str0000100}, pages = {306 -- 314}, year = {2019}, abstract = {A recent extension of the stressor-detachment model holds that the path running from job stressors via psychological detachment to impairment of well-being is moderated by both personal and job resources (Sonnentag \& Fritz, 2015). The aim of the present study was to test this proposition by investigating the moderating role of one personal resource and one job resource (i.e., coworker social support and general self-efficacy, respectively) on the linkage between different job stressors (i.e., workload and role ambiguity), detachment, and well-being. Hypotheses were tested with structural equation modeling using data from a representative survey of the German workforce (N = 3,937 employees, M-age = 46.5 years, 47.5\% women). In agreement with previous findings, the results showed that psychological detachment mediated the negative effects of job stressors on well-being. Social support from coworkers buffered the mediation such that the conditional indirect effects of workload and role ambiguity on well-being via detachment were weaker at higher levels of support. General self-efficacy did not moderate the stressor-well-being linkage. These results imply that social support can be considered as a protective factor that helps employees maintain their well-being by alleviating the negative effects of job stressors on their ability to switch off mentally from work.}, 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} }