@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{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{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{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}
}
@article{WollnyFayUrbach2016,
  author    = {Wollny, Anna and Fay, Doris and Urbach, Tina},
  title     = {Personal initiative in middle childhood: Conceptualization and measurement development},
  series = {Learning and individual differences},
  volume    = {49},
  journal   = {Learning and individual differences},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {1041-6080},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.lindif.2016.05.004},
  pages     = {59 -- 73},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Drawing on research on personal initiative in adults, this paper present the conceptualization of personal initiative in the middle childhood, and the development and validation of an eight-item teacher and parent rating scale of children's and adolescents' personal initiative. The psychometric properties and construct validity of the measure were tested in two samples of children in middle childhood (N = 1069-1657) and middle childhood to adolescence (N = 1533). Both the teacher and parent rating scale showed good item characteristics. Results of confirmatory factor analyses supported their hypothesized factorial structure. The agreement of teacher and parent ratings was satisfactory. Evidence on the construct validity of the scale was further derived from a nomological network comprising control cognitions, motivational orientations, and cognitive ability. The measures proved to be invariant across school years and raters. We discuss several avenues for future research on personal initiative in the fields of development and education.},
  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}
}
@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}
}
@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}
}
@misc{UrbachFay2021,
  author    = {Urbach, Tina and Fay, Doris},
  title     = {Leader member exchange in leaders' support for voice},
  series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  volume    = {70},
  journal   = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {2},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-51090},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-510904},
  pages     = {37},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {While previous research underscores the role of leaders in stimulating employee voice behaviour, comparatively little is known about what affects leaders' support for such constructive but potentially threatening employee behaviours. We introduce leader member exchange quality (LMX) as a central predictor of leaders' support for employees' ideas for constructive change. Apart from a general benefit of high LMX for leaders' idea support, we propose that high LMX is particularly critical to leaders' idea support if the idea voiced by an employee constitutes a power threat to the leader. We investigate leaders' attribution of prosocial and egoistic employee intentions as mediators of these effects. Hypotheses were tested in a quasi-experimental vignette study (N = 160), in which leaders evaluated a simulated employee idea, and a field study (N = 133), in which leaders evaluated an idea that had been voiced to them at work. Results show an indirect effect of LMX on leaders' idea support via attributed prosocial intentions but not via attributed egoistic intentions, and a buffering effect of high LMX on the negative effect of power threat on leaders' idea support. Results differed across studies with regard to the main effect of LMX on idea support.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{UrbachFay2021,
  author    = {Urbach, Tina and Fay, Doris},
  title     = {Leader member exchange in leaders' support for voice},
  series = {Applied psychology : an international review},
  volume    = {70},
  journal   = {Applied psychology : an international review},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {0269-994X},
  doi       = {10.1111/apps.12245},
  pages     = {674 -- 708},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {While previous research underscores the role of leaders in stimulating employee voice behaviour, comparatively little is known about what affects leaders' support for such constructive but potentially threatening employee behaviours. We introduce leader member exchange quality (LMX) as a central predictor of leaders' support for employees' ideas for constructive change. Apart from a general benefit of high LMX for leaders' idea support, we propose that high LMX is particularly critical to leaders' idea support if the idea voiced by an employee constitutes a power threat to the leader. We investigate leaders' attribution of prosocial and egoistic employee intentions as mediators of these effects. Hypotheses were tested in a quasi-experimental vignette study (N = 160), in which leaders evaluated a simulated employee idea, and a field study (N = 133), in which leaders evaluated an idea that had been voiced to them at work. Results show an indirect effect of LMX on leaders' idea support via attributed prosocial intentions but not via attributed egoistic intentions, and a buffering effect of high LMX on the negative effect of power threat on leaders' idea support. Results differed across studies with regard to the main effect of LMX on idea support.},
  language  = {en}
}