A legend in one's own mind: The link between ambition and leadership evaluations.

Individuals who have more ambition-a persistent striving for success, attainment, and accomplishment-are more likely to become leaders. But are these ambitious individuals also more effective in leadership roles? We hypothesize that leader ambition is related to positive self-views of leader effectiveness that remain uncorroborated by relevant third-party actors. In a multiwave, preregistered study, we find evidence for this hypothesis using a sample of executives (N = 3,830 ratings of 472 leaders) who were rated by peers, subordinates, managers, and themselves on ten leadership competencies, including their ability to motivate others, manage collaborative work, coach and develop people, and present and communicate ideas. We consider the implications of our findings for both scholars and practitioners interested in leadership selection and development.

Are You Listening to Me? The Negative Link Between Extraversion and Perceived Listening.

Extraverts are often characterized as highly social individuals who are highly invested in their interpersonal interactions. We propose that extraverts' interaction partners hold a different view-that extraverts are highly social, but not highly invested. Across six studies (five preregistered; N = 2,456), we find that interaction partners consistently judge more extraverted individuals to be worse listeners than less extraverted individuals. Furthermore, interaction partners assume that extraversion is positively associated with a greater ability to modify one's self-presentation. This behavioral malleability (i.e., the "acting" component of self-monitoring) may account for the unfavorable lay belief that extraverts are not listening.

The gifts we keep on giving: documenting and destigmatizing the regifting taboo.

Five studies examined whether the practice of regifting--a social taboo--is as offensive to the original givers as potential regifters assume. Participants who imagined regifting a gift (receivers) thought that the original giver would be more offended than participants who imagined that their gifts were regifted (givers) reported feeling. Specifically, receivers viewed regifting as similar in offensiveness to throwing gifts away, yet givers clearly preferred the former. This asymmetry in emotional reactions to regifting was driven by an asymmetry in beliefs about entitlement. Givers believed that the act of gift giving passed title to the gift on to receivers, so that receivers were free to decide what to do with the gift; in contrast, receivers believed that givers retained some say in how their gifts were used. Finally, an intervention designed to destigmatize regifting by introducing a different normative standard (i.e., National Regifting Day) corrected the asymmetry in beliefs about entitlement and increased regifting.

Better to give than reciprocate? Status and reciprocity in prosocial exchange.

Reciprocity implies equality in the giving and receiving of benefits. However, we find that reciprocity does not generate equal benefits, in terms of social status. Instead, across 7 studies (N = 3,426), observers conferred more status to individuals who initiated (i.e., initiators) than individuals who reciprocated (i.e., reciprocators) identical prosocial acts. Further, choosing not to reciprocate a prosocial act led to a more severe status penalty than choosing not to initiate a prosocial act. We find this discounting of reciprocity is driven by perceived obligation-observers view reciprocators as acting under constraint. When reciprocation appears less obligatory (e.g., given indirectly, or privately), the status discount is mitigated. Finally, we show that the discounting of a reciprocal act can be enduring-reciprocators still received less status after 2 successive, counterbalanced rounds of exchange. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action.

The impacts of COVID-19 on workers and workplaces across the globe have been dramatic. This broad review of prior research rooted in work and organizational psychology, and related fields, is intended to make sense of the implications for employees, teams, and work organizations. This review and preview of relevant literatures focuses on (a) emergent changes in work practices (e.g., working from home, virtual teamwork) and (b) emergent changes for workers (e.g., social distancing, stress, and unemployment). In addition, potential moderating factors (demographic characteristics, individual differences, and organizational norms) are examined given the likelihood that COVID-19 will generate disparate effects. This broad-scope overview provides an integrative approach for considering the implications of COVID-19 for work, workers, and organizations while also identifying issues for future research and insights to inform solutions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

If you need help, just ask: underestimating compliance with direct requests for help.

A series of studies tested whether people underestimate the likelihood that others will comply with their direct requests for help. In the first 3 studies, people underestimated by as much as 50% the likelihood that others would agree to a direct request for help, across a range of requests occurring in both experimental and natural field settings. Studies 4 and 5 demonstrated that experimentally manipulating a person's perspective (as help seeker or potential helper) could elicit this underestimation effect. Finally, in Study 6, the authors explored the source of the bias, finding that help seekers were less willing than potential helpers were to appreciate the social costs of refusing a direct request for help (the costs of saying "no"), attending instead to the instrumental costs of helping (the costs of saying "yes").

Personality and organizational culture as determinants of influence.

How can individuals attain influence in organizations? Prior research has identified structural determinants of influence, such as formal authority and position in a social network. However, indirect evidence suggests that influence might also stem from personal characteristics. The authors tested whether influence can stem from the fit between the person and his or her organization (P-O fit). Consistent with expectations, extraverts attained more influence in a team-oriented organization, whereas conscientious individuals attained more influence in an organization in which individuals worked alone on technical tasks. Further, these effects held up after controlling for formal authority, job performance, and demographic characteristics, such as gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. The multiple ways in which individuals can gain influence are discussed.

What breaks a leader: the curvilinear relation between assertiveness and leadership.

The authors propose that individual differences in assertiveness play a critical role in perceptions about leaders. In contrast to prior work that focused on linear effects, the authors argue that individuals seen either as markedly low in assertiveness or as high in assertiveness are generally appraised as less effective leaders. Moreover, the authors claim that observers' perceptions of leaders as having too much or too little assertiveness are widespread. The authors linked the curvilinear effects of assertiveness to underlying tradeoffs between social outcomes (a high level of assertiveness worsens relationships) and instrumental outcomes (a low level of assertiveness limits goal achievement). In 3 studies, the authors used qualitative and quantitative approaches and found support for their account. The results suggest that assertiveness (and other constructs with nonlinear effects) might have been overlooked in research that has been focused on identifying what makes a leader rather than on identifying what breaks a leader.

Clarifying the link between job satisfaction and absenteeism: The role of guilt proneness.

We propose that the relationship between job satisfaction and absenteeism depends partly on guilt proneness. Drawing on withdrawal and process models of absenteeism, we argue that job satisfaction predicts absences for employees who are low (but not high) in guilt proneness because low guilt-prone people's behaviors are governed more by fulfilling their own egoistic desires than by fulfilling others' normative expectations. We find support for this prediction in a sample of customer service agents working for a major telecommunications company and a sample of working adults employed in a range of industries. In each study, we use measures of employees' guilt proneness and job satisfaction to predict their subsequent workplace absences. In Study 2, we extend our hypothesis tests to 2 traits that are conceptually comparable to guilt proneness (i.e., moral identity and agreeableness), showing that these traits similarly moderate the relationship between job satisfaction and absenteeism. We discuss the implications of these findings for extant models of absenteeism and research on moral affectivity in the workplace. (PsycINFO Database Record

Helping one's way to the top: self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom.

The authors argue that high self-monitors may be more sensitive to the status implications of social exchange and more effective in managing their exchange relations to elicit conferrals of status than low self-monitors. In a series of studies, they found that high self-monitors were more accurate in perceiving the status dynamics involved both in a set of fictitious exchange relations and in real relationships involving other members of their social group. Further, high self-monitors elevated their social status among their peers by establishing a reputation as a generous exchange partner. Specifically, they were more likely than low self-monitors to be sought out for help and to refrain from asking others for help. This behavior provides one explanation for why high self-monitors acquire elevated status among their peers--they are more attuned to status dynamics in exchange relations and adapt their behavior in ways that elicit status.

What's good for the goose may not be as good for the gander: the benefits of self-monitoring for men and women in task groups and dyadic conflicts.

The authors posit that women can rely on self-monitoring to overcome negative gender stereotypes in certain performance contexts. In a study of mixed-sex task groups, the authors found that female group members who were high self-monitors were considered more influential and more valuable contributors than women who were low self-monitors. Men benefited relatively less from self-monitoring behavior. In an experimental study of dyadic negotiations, the authors found that women who were high self-monitors performed better than women who were low self-monitors, particularly when they were negotiating over a fixed pool of resources, whereas men did not benefit as much from self-monitoring. Further analyses suggest that high self-monitoring women altered their behavior in these negotiations--when their partner behaved assertively, they increased their level of assertiveness, whereas men and low self-monitoring women did not alter their behavior.

Having an open mind: the impact of openness to experience on interracial attitudes and impression formation.

This article considers how Openness to Experience may mitigate the negative stereotyping of Black people by White perceivers. As expected, White individuals who scored relatively high on Openness to Experience exhibited less prejudice according to self-report measures of explicit racial attitudes. Further, White participants who rated themselves higher on Openness to Experience formed more favorable impressions of a fictitious Black individual. Finally, after observing informal interviews of White and Black targets, White participants who were more open formed more positive impressions of Black interviewees, particularly on dimensions that correspond to negative racial stereotypes. The effect of Openness to Experience was relatively stronger for judgments of Black interviewees than for judgments of White interviewees. Taken together these findings suggest that explicit racial attitudes and impression formation may depend on the individual characteristics of the perceiver, particularly whether she or he is predisposed to consider stereotype-disconfirming information.

It's the thought that counts: on perceiving how helpers decide to lend a hand.

How do people react to those who have helped them? The authors propose that a recipient's evaluation of a helper's intentions and the recipient's own attitudes about future interactions with the helper depend partly on the recipient's perceptions of how the helper decided to assist: on the basis of affect, of role, or of cost-benefit calculation. When a recipient perceives that the decision was based on affect (i.e., positive feelings about him or her), he or she will be more inclined toward future interaction and reciprocation than if he or she perceives the decision as based on role or cost-benefit calculation. It is proposed that these "decision modes" signal the helper's underlying attitudes about the recipient, which in turn, clarify their relationship. A boundary is also identified: The negative impact of apparent cost-benefit thinking is greatest when the amount of help provided is small. Predictions are confirmed in four studies of actual and experimentally manipulated helping episodes.

It's different to give than to receive: predictors of givers' and receivers' reactions to favor exchange.

The present research examines episodes of favor exchange among peer employees. We posit that favor receivers' and favor givers' commitment to their exchange relationships with one another will be accounted for by different factors. As predicted, in 2 different organizational contexts, receivers' commitment to their relationships with givers was found to be more related to their judgments of the givers' interactional justice when performing the favor, whereas givers' commitment to their relationships with receivers was shown to be more associated with their judgments of the favorability of the outcomes associated with the favor that they performed. The implications of these findings for how givers and receivers can better manage favor exchange, and hence their relationships with each other, are discussed.

When feeling bad leads to feeling good: guilt-proneness and affective organizational commitment.

The authors posit that higher levels of guilt-proneness are associated with higher levels of affective organizational commitment. To explain this counterintuitive link, the authors suggest that a dispositional tendency to feel guilt motivates individuals to exert greater effort on their work-related tasks that, in turn, strengthens their affinity for the organization. The authors tested this idea using a laboratory study and field data from 2 samples of working adults. Individuals who are more guilt-prone reported higher levels of organizational attachment compared with less guilt-prone individuals. Furthermore, mediation analyses indicate that the link between guilt-proneness and affective commitment is driven by greater task effort. The authors discuss the implications of these findings for understanding the affective drivers of commitment in organizations.

Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown: the link between guilt proneness and leadership.

We propose that guilt proneness is a critical characteristic of leaders and find support for this hypothesis across 3 studies. Participants in the first study rated a set of guilt-prone behaviors as more indicative of leadership potential than a set of less guilt-prone behaviors. In a follow-up study, guilt-prone participants in a leaderless group task engaged in more leadership behaviors than did less guilt-prone participants. In a third, and final, study, we move to the field and analyze 360° feedback from a group of young managers working in a range of industries. The results indicate that highly guilt-prone individuals were rated as more capable leaders than less guilt-prone individuals and that a sense of responsibility for others underlies the positive relationship between guilt proneness and leadership evaluations.

Do you two know each other? Transitivity, homophily, and the need for (network) closure.

The authors investigate whether need for closure affects how people seek order in judging social relations. In Study 1, the authors find that people who have a high need for closure (NFC) were more likely to assume their social contacts were connected to each other (i.e., transitivity) when this was not the case. In Studies 2 and 3, the authors examine another form of order in network relations--racial homophily--and find that high-NFC participants were more inclined to believe that 2 individuals from the same racial category (e.g., African American) were friends than two racially dissimilar individuals. Furthermore, high-NFC individuals were more likely to make errors when judging a racially mixed group of people; specifically, they recalled more racial homophily (racially similar people sitting closer together) than had actually appeared.

Are two narcissists better than one? The link between narcissism, perceived creativity, and creative performance.

The current research examines the link between narcissism and creativity at the individual, relational, and group levels of analysis. It finds that narcissists are not necessarily more creative than others, but they think they are, and they are adept at persuading others to agree with them. In the first study, narcissism was positively associated with self-rated creativity, despite the fact that blind coders saw no difference between the creative products offered by those low and high on narcissism. In a second study, more narcissistic individuals asked to pitch creative ideas to a target person were judged by the targets as being more creative than were less narcissistic individuals, in part because narcissists were more enthusiastic. Finally, a study of group creativity finds evidence of a curvilinear effect: Having more narcissists is better for generating creative outcomes (but having too many provides diminishing returns).