@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{SelenkoBerkersCarteretal.2018,
  author    = {Selenko, Eva and Berkers, Hannah and Carter, Angela and Woods, Stephen A. and Otto, Kathleen and Urbach, Tina and De Witte, Hans},
  title     = {On the dynamics of work identity in atypical employment},
  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    = {3},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {1359-432X},
  doi       = {10.1080/1359432X.2018.1444605},
  pages     = {324 -- 334},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Starting from the notion that work is an important part of who we are, we extend existing theory making on the interplay of work and identity by applying them to (so called) atypical work situations. Without the contextual stability of a permanent organizational position, the question "who one is" will be more difficult to answer. At the same time, a stable occupational identity might provide an even more important orientation to one's career attitudes and goals in atypical employment situations. So, although atypical employment might pose different challenges on identity, identity can still be a valid concept to assist the understanding of behaviour, attitudes, and well-being in these situations. Our analysis does not attempt to "reinvent" the concept of identity, but will elaborate how existing conceptualizations of identity as being a multiple (albeit perceived as singular), fluid (albeit perceived as stable), and actively forged (as well as passively influenced) construct that can be adapted to understand the effects of atypical employment contexts. Furthermore, we suggest three specific ways to understand the longitudinal dynamics of the interplay between atypical employment and identity over time: passive incremental, active incremental, and transformative change. We conclude with key learning points and outline a few practical recommendations for more research into identity as an explanatory mechanism for the effects of atypical employment situations.},
  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}
}