Distressed and distracted by COVID-19 during high-stakes virtual interviews: The role of job interview anxiety on performance and reactions.

Employers have increasingly turned to virtual interviews to facilitate online, socially distanced selection processes in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is little understanding about the experience of job candidates in these virtual interview contexts. We draw from Event System Theory (Morgeson et al., 2015) to advance and test a conceptual model that focuses on a high-stress, high-stakes setting and integrates literatures on workplace stress with literatures on applicant reactions. We predict that when applicants ruminate about COVID-19 during an interview and have higher levels of COVID-19 exhaustion, they will have higher levels of anxiety during virtual interviews, which in turn relates to reduced interview performance, lower perceptions of fairness, and reduced intentions to recommend the organization. Further, we predict that three factors capturing COVID-19 as an enduring and impactful event (COVID-19 duration, COVID-19 cases, COVID-19 deaths) will be positively related to COVID-19 exhaustion. We tested our propositions with 8,343 job applicants across 373 companies and 93 countries/regions. Consistent with predictions, we found a positive relationship between COVID-19 rumination and interview anxiety, and this relationship was stronger for applicants who experienced higher (vs. lower) levels of COVID-19 exhaustion. In turn, interview anxiety was negatively related to interview performance, fairness perceptions, and recommendation intentions. Moreover, using a relevant subset of the data (n = 6,136), we found that COVID-19 duration and deaths were positively related to COVID-19 exhaustion. This research offers several insights for understanding the virtual interview experience embedded in the pandemic and advances the literature on applicant reactions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Perceived overqualification and its outcomes: the moderating role of empowerment.

Research shows that perceived overqualification is related to lower job attitudes and greater withdrawal behaviors but to higher supervisor ratings of performance. Drawing upon relative deprivation theory, the authors proposed and tested empowerment as a moderator of the relationship between perceived overqualification and job satisfaction, intentions to remain, voluntary turnover, and objective sales performance to examine if negative outcomes could be lessened while stimulating even higher performance. Hierarchical linear modeling results from a sample of 244 sales associates working in 25 stores of a Turkish retail chain show that empowerment ameliorated the negative effects of perceived overqualification on job satisfaction, intentions to remain, and voluntary turnover. Empowerment did not affect the positive relationship between perceived overqualification and objective sales performance.

Leader humility and team creativity: The role of team information sharing, psychological safety, and power distance.

In this study, we identify leader humility, characterized by being open to admitting one's limitations, shortcomings, and mistakes, and showing appreciation and giving credit to followers, as a critical leader characteristic relevant for team creativity. Integrating the literatures on creativity and leadership, we explore the relationship between leader humility and team creativity, treating team psychological safety and team information sharing as mediators. Further, we hypothesize and examine team power distance as a moderator of the relationship. We tested our hypotheses using data gathered from 72 work teams and 354 individual members from 11 information and technology firms in China using a multiple-source, time-lagged research design. We found that the positive relationship between leader humility and team information sharing was significant and positive only within teams with a low power distance value. In addition, leader humility was negatively related to team psychological safety in teams with a high power distance value, whereas the relationship was positive yet nonsignificant in teams with low power distance. Furthermore, team information sharing and psychological safety were both significantly related to team creativity. We discuss theoretical and practical implications for leadership and work teams. (PsycINFO Database Record

Support from the top: supervisors' perceived organizational support as a moderator of leader-member exchange to satisfaction and performance relationships.

The authors hypothesized that supervisors' perceived organizational support (POS) would moderate the relationships between leader-member exchange (LMX), job satisfaction, and job performance. On the basis of social exchange theory, supervisors' exchanges with the organization and subordinates should be interconnected. The authors expected that supervisors with high POS would have more resources to exchange with subordinates. Thus, supervisor POS should enhance the relationships between LMX and job satisfaction and LMX and job performance for subordinates. Hierarchical linear modeling analysis provided support for the hypotheses in a sample of 210 subordinates and 38 supervisors of a grocery store chain. The positive relationship between LMX and job satisfaction was stronger when supervisors had high POS. Moreover, LMX was related to performance only when supervisors had high POS.

Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: a meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods.

The authors tested a model of antecedents and outcomes of newcomer adjustment using 70 unique samples of newcomers with meta-analytic and path modeling techniques. Specifically, they proposed and tested a model in which adjustment (role clarity, self-efficacy, and social acceptance) mediated the effects of organizational socialization tactics and information seeking on socialization outcomes (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job performance, intentions to remain, and turnover). The results generally supported this model. In addition, the authors examined the moderating effects of methodology on these relationships by coding for 3 methodological issues: data collection type (longitudinal vs. cross-sectional), sample characteristics (school-to-work vs. work-to-work transitions), and measurement of the antecedents (facet vs. composite measurement). Discussion focuses on the implications of the findings and suggestions for future research.

Newcomer adjustment: Examining the role of managers' perception of newcomer proactive behavior during organizational socialization.

Separate streams of organizational socialization research have recognized the importance of (a) newcomer proactivity and (b) manager support in facilitating newcomer adjustment. However, extant research has largely focused on the newcomers' experience, leaving the perspectives of managers during socialization relatively unexplored-a theoretical gap that has implications both for newcomer adjustment and manager-newcomer interactions that may serve as a basis for future relationship development. Drawing from the "interlocked" employee behavior argument of Weick (1979), we propose that managers' perception of newcomers' proactive behaviors are associated with concordant manager behaviors, which, in turn, support newcomer adjustment. Further, we investigate a cognitive mechanism-managers' evaluation of newcomers' commitment to adjust-which we expect underlies the proposed relationship between newcomers' proactive behaviors and managers' supportive behaviors. Using a time-lagged, 4-phase data collection of a sample of new software engineers in India and their managers, we were able to test our hypothesized model as well as rule out alternative explanations via multilevel structural equation modeling. Results broadly supported our model even after controlling for manager-newcomer social exchange relationship, proactive personalities of both newcomers and managers, and potential effects of coworker information providing. The implications of our findings for theory and practice are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

A longitudinal study of the moderating role of extraversion: leader-member exchange, performance, and turnover during new executive development.

Identifying factors that help or hinder new executives in "getting up to speed" quickly and remaining with an organization is vital to maximizing the effectiveness of executive development. The current study extends past research by examining extraversion as a moderator of relationships between leader-member exchange (LMX) and performance, turnover intentions, and actual turnover for an executive sample. The sample consisted of 116 new executives who were surveyed prior to starting their employment and at 3 months postentry. A total of 67 senior executives rated these new executives in terms of overall performance at 6 months postentry. Turnover data were gathered from company records 3 1/2 years later. Hierarchical regression results showed that LMX was not related to performance or turnover intentions for those high in extraversion; but for individuals low in extraversion, there was a relation between LMX, performance, and turnover intentions. Furthermore, survival analyses showed that LMX was only related to turnover-hazard rate for individuals low in extraversion.

Individual deals within teams: Investigating the role of relative i-deals for employee performance.

The authors extend i-deals theory to an individual-within-a-team context. Drawing upon social comparison theory, they contend that individuals will react to their own i-deals within the context of group members' i-deals. Therefore, they examine the role of relative i-deals (an individual's i-deals relative to the team's average) in relation to employee performance. Furthermore, integrating social comparison theory with social identity theory the authors assert that the behavioral outcomes of relative i-deals are influenced by the team's social and structural attributes of team orientation and task interdependence. Finally, they contend that the perceptions of one's relative standing with the leader, or leader-member exchange social comparison (LMXSC), mediate the i-deals-outcome relationship in groups with low team orientation and task interdependence. Results of multilevel modeling using time-lagged data from 321 employees nested in 46 teams demonstrated that the positive relationship between relative i-deals and employee performance was stronger in groups with low team orientation and task interdependence, and the mediation effect of LMXSC was stronger in teams with low rather than high team orientation. (PsycINFO Database Record

There are lots of big fish in this pond: The role of peer overqualification on task significance, perceived fit, and performance for overqualified employees.

Research has uncovered mixed results regarding the influence of overqualification on employee performance outcomes, suggesting the existence of boundary conditions for such an influence. Using relative deprivation theory (Crosby, 1976) as the primary theoretical basis, in the current research, we examine the moderating role of peer overqualification and provide insights to the questions regarding whether, when, and how overqualification relates to employee performance. We tested the theoretical model with data gathered across three phases over 6 months from 351 individuals and their supervisors in 72 groups. Results showed that when working with peers whose average overqualification level was high, as opposed to low, employees who felt overqualified for their jobs perceived greater task significance and person-group fit, and demonstrated higher levels of in-role and extra-role performance. We discuss theoretical and managerial implications for overqualification at the individual level and within the larger group context.

One member, two leaders: extending leader-member exchange theory to a dual leadership context.

In this study, we develop and test a model that extends leader-member exchange (LMX) theory to a dual leadership context. Drawing upon relative deprivation theory, we assert that when employees work for 2 leaders, each relationship exists within the context of the other relationship. Thus, the level of alignment or misalignment between the 2 relationships has implications for employees' job satisfaction and voluntary turnover. Employing polynomial regression on time-lagged data gathered from 159 information technology consultants nested in 26 client projects, we found that employee outcomes are affected by the quality of the relationship with both agency and client leaders, such that the degree of alignment between the 2 LMXs explained variance in outcomes beyond that explained by both LMXs. Results also revealed that a lack of alignment in the 2 LMXs led to asymmetric effects on outcomes, such that the relationship with agency leader mattered more than the relationship with one's client leader. Finally, frequency of communication with the agency leader determined the degree to which agency LMX affected job satisfaction in the low client LMX condition.

Differentiated leader-member exchanges: the buffering role of justice climate.

The leader-member exchange (LMX) literature has established that leaders differentiate among their followers. Yet little is known about the effects of LMX differentiation (within-group variation in LMX quality). In this study, we contend that the effects of LMX differentiation on the employee outcomes of work attitudes, coworker relations, and employee withdrawal behaviors will be contingent upon the level of procedural and distributive justice climate. Data from 276 employees working in 25 stores of a retail chain in Turkey supported our hypotheses such that LMX differentiation was related to more negative work attitudes and coworker relations, and higher levels of withdrawal behaviors only when justice climate was low.

Where do I stand? Examining the effects of leader-member exchange social comparison on employee work behaviors.

Taking an approach integrating principles of leader-member exchange (LMX) differentiation with social comparison theory, we contend that subjective ratings by individuals of their LMX compared to the LMXs of coworkers (labeled LMX social comparison, or LMXSC) explain unique and meaningful variance in outcomes beyond LMX and the actual standing of those individuals in the LMX distribution, referred to as relative LMX, or RLMX. Our findings demonstrate that employees' perceptions of LMXSC are positively related beyond the effects of LMX and RLMX to job performance and citizenship behaviors. Further, we argue that LMXSC mediates the RLMX→outcomes relationships. Analyses showed that, in a sample of 254 employees nested in 50 work groups, a significant part of the effects of RLMX on job performance and citizenship behaviors was mediated through LMXSC after controlling for LMX.