@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{HuettgesFay2011,
  author    = {H{\"u}ttges, Annett and Fay, Doris},
  title     = {Geschlechterdifferente (Wissenschafts-)Karrieren - Fakten, Theorien und Denkanst{\"o}ße},
  isbn      = {978-3-531-183252-7},
  year      = {2011},
  language  = {de}
}
@misc{HuettgesFay2015,
  author    = {H{\"u}ttges, Annett and Fay, Doris},
  title     = {The gender-differential impact of work values on prospects in research careers},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {402},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-404843},
  pages     = {16},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Women are strongly underrepresented at top positions in research, with some research suggesting the postdoctoral career stage is a critical stage for female researchers. Drawing on role congruity theory and social cognitive career theory, we tested the gender-differential impact of work values (extrinsic rewards-oriented work values and work-life balance values) on subjective career success and supports from supervisors (leader-member exchange) and team members. We conducted an online survey with male and female postdoctoral scientists (N = 258). As hypothesized, the positive relationship between extrinsic rewards-oriented work values and subjective career success and supports was stronger for male researchers than for female researchers. Results on work-life balance values were less conclusive. These findings support the idea that gendered appraisal processes may affect career-relevant outcomes.},
  language  = {en}
}