Good for you, bad for me? The daily dynamics of perspective taking and well-being in coworker dyads.

Perspective taking is encouraged by organizations as a form of supporting coworkers. Yet, its impact on employees' and coworkers' well-being is not well understood. We, therefore, take a dyadic approach to understand the daily dynamics of employees' perspective taking, its benefits for coworkers, and its costs for employees themselves. Specifically, we draw from self-regulation theory to examine the double-edged sword of perspective taking for one's own and one's coworker's well-being (reflected by subjective vitality). With regard to coworker well-being, we take an other-oriented resource lens and theorize that the focal employee's perspective taking increases the coworker's received support and well-being. With regard to the focal employee's well-being, we take a self-oriented resource lens and theorize that perspective taking increases the focal employee's self-regulatory resource depletion, which impairs their well-being. We examined our research model in a dyadic experience sampling study with three daily measurement occasions over 2 working weeks in a sample of 89 coworker dyads (178 individuals). Multilevel analyses showed that perspective taking had a positive indirect effect on coworker well-being via received coworker support, while it had a negative indirect effect on the focal employee's well-being via self-regulatory resource depletion. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Tell-and-sell or ask-and-listen: A self-concept perspective on why it needs leadership communication flexibility to engage subordinates at work.

Beneath the verbosity of modern leadership theories, there is a simple truth: leading people is essentially about communication. The respective communicative philosophies underlying leadership theories can be broadly separated into two camps: one arguing that leaders should tell-and-sell and one urging leaders to ask-and-listen. In the present essay, we first define the two communication approaches. Second, we outline how both approaches manage to engage subordinates but in different ways. Third, we review the appropriateness of each of these communication approaches under different circumstances, outlining why communicative flexibility is needed. Lastly, despite the advantages, we discuss that leaders will struggle to adopt communicative flexibility due to widespread simplistic leadership schemas-in research and practice.

Should I stay or should I go? The role of daily presenteeism as an adaptive response to perform at work despite somatic complaints for employee effectiveness.

Our study seeks to contribute to scholarly understanding of the antecedents and consequences of the crucial, but so far overlooked within-person daily fluctuations in presenteeism. Drawing on theoretical frameworks of presenteeism, which conceptualize presenteeism as an adaptive behavior to deliver work performance despite limitations due to ill-health, we develop a within-person model of daily presenteeism and examine somatic complaints and work-goal progress as crucial joint determinants of daily fluctuations in presenteeism. We further integrate the aforementioned theoretical frameworks with ego-depletion theory to argue that presenteeism requires self-regulation to suppress cognitions, emotions, and behavioral responses associated with ill-health and instead focus on completing one's work tasks. Accordingly, we predict that presenteeism depletes employees' regulatory resources and impairs employees' next-day work engagement and task performance. The results of a daily-diary study across 15 workdays with N = 995 daily observations nested in N = 126 employees show that daily work-goal progress attenuates the daily relation between somatic complaints and presenteeism, thereby also reducing the indirect effect of somatic complaints on employees' next-day work engagement and task performance through presenteeism and ego depletion. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of shifting presenteeism research from the macro- to the micro-level. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Are social desirability scales desirable? A meta-analytic test of the validity of social desirability scales in the context of prosocial behavior.

Social desirability (SD) scales have been used for decades in psychology and beyond. These scales are sought to measure individuals' tendencies to present themselves overly positive in self-reports, thus allowing to control for SD biases. However, research increasingly questions the validity of SD scales, proposing that SD scales measure substantive trait characteristics rather than response bias. To provide a large-scale empirical test of the validity of SD scales, we conducted a meta-analysis (k = 41; N = 8980) on the relation between SD scale scores and prosocial behavior in economic games (where acting in a prosocial manner is highly socially desirable). If SD scales measure what they are supposed to (namely, SD bias), they should be negatively linked to prosocial behavior; if SD scales measure socially desirable traits, they should be positively linked to prosocial behavior. Unlike both possibilities, the meta-analytic correlation between SD scores and prosocial behavior was close to zero, suggesting that SD scales neither clearly measure bias nor substantive traits. This conclusion was also supported by moderation analyses considering differences in the implementation of games and the SD scales used. The results further question the validity of SD scales with the implication that scholars and practitioners should refrain from using them.

Stop and go, where is my flow? How and when daily aversive morning commutes are negatively related to employees' motivational states and behavior at work.

Despite convincing evidence about the general negative consequences of commuting for individuals and societies, our understanding of how aversive commutes are linked to employees' effectiveness at work is limited. Drawing on theories of self-regulation and by extension a conservation of resources perspective, we develop a framework that explains how an aversive morning commute-a resource-depleting experience characterized by interruptions of automated travel behaviors-impairs employees' immersion in uninterrupted work (i.e., flow), which in turn reduces employee effectiveness (i.e., work engagement, subjective performance, and OCB-I). We further delineate theoretical arguments for daily self-control demands as a boundary condition that amplifies this relation and propose the satisfaction of employees' basic needs as protective factors. Two diary studies across 10 workdays each (Study 1: 53 employees, 411 day-level data points; Study 2: 91 employees, 719 day-level data points) support most of our hypotheses. Study 1 demonstrates that daily aversive morning commutes negatively affect employees' daily work engagement through lower levels of flow experiences, but only on days with high impulse control demands. In addition, we find initial support that employees' general autonomy and competence needs satisfaction attenuate this interaction. Study 2 rules out alternative mechanisms (negative affect and tension), demonstrates ego depletion as an additional mediator of the relation between aversive morning commutes and work effectiveness, and replicates the hypothesized three-way interaction for daily competence need satisfaction. We critically discuss the findings and reflect on corporate interventions, which may allow people to more easily flow to and at work. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

How do people think about interdependence? A multidimensional model of subjective outcome interdependence.

Interdependence is a fundamental characteristic of social interactions. Interdependence Theory states that 6 dimensions describe differences between social situations. Here we examine if these 6 dimensions describe how people think about their interdependence with others in a situation. We find that people (in situ and ex situ) can reliably differentiate situations according to 5, but not 6, dimensions of interdependence: (a) mutual dependence, (b) power, (c) conflict, (d) future interdependence, and (e) information certainty. This model offers a unique framework for understanding how people think about social situations compared to another recent model of situation construal (DIAMONDS). Furthermore, we examine factors that are theorized to shape perceptions of interdependence, such as situational cues (e.g., nonverbal behavior) and personality (e.g., HEXACO and Social Value Orientation). We also study the implications of subjective interdependence for emotions and cooperative behavior during social interactions. This model of subjective interdependence explains substantial variation in the emotions people experience in situations (i.e., happiness, sadness, anger, and disgust), and explains 24% of the variance in cooperation, above and beyond the DIAMONDS model. Throughout these studies, we develop and validate a multidimensional measure of subjective outcome interdependence that can be used in diverse situations and relationships-the Situational Interdependence Scale (SIS). We discuss how this model of interdependence can be used to better understand how people think about social situations encountered in close relationships, organizations, and society. (PsycINFO Database Record