@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{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}
}
@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}
}