当领导与员工意见不一致时:调查工作场所事件关键性认知差异的后果

IF 3.1 4区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT
Qi Song, Li Gong, Man Zhao, Tao Shen, Yang Chen, Jialin Wang
{"title":"当领导与员工意见不一致时:调查工作场所事件关键性认知差异的后果","authors":"Qi Song, Li Gong, Man Zhao, Tao Shen, Yang Chen, Jialin Wang","doi":"10.1108/jmp-09-2022-0471","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>Criticality cognitions regarding the same workplace event often differ between leaders and employees. Nevertheless, its consequences on employee work outcomes remain unknown. In this study, we draw on cognitive dissonance theory to examine how and why leader–employee differences in cognitions of workplace event criticality impact employee job-related outcomes.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>Wu used multilevel polynomial regression analyses from a time-lagged, multi-source field study with 145 leader–employee dyads to test our proposed model.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>Leader–employee differences in cognitions of workplace event criticality can bring both benefits and perils to employees. Specifically, such differences can cause employee rumination, which in turn leads to an increase in both employee voice and fatigue.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>This study contributes to the event and cognitive discrepancy literature in four ways. First, prior event studies largely adopted a singular employee perspective for investigation (e.g. Chen <em>et al.</em>, 2021; Lin <em>et al.</em>, 2021). By examining the impacts of event criticality from the dual perspective of leaders and employees, we attain a more comprehensive understanding of the implications of workplace events in organizational life. Second, extant studies have predominantly focused on the dark side of cognitive discrepancy (e.g. Bashshur <em>et al.</em>, 2011; Erdogan <em>et al.</em>, 2004; Grandey <em>et al.</em>, 2013). Our study reveals that leader–employee differences in criticality cognitions can have both a bright and a dark side on employee outcomes, offering a more balanced and dialectical view of the consequences of cognitive discrepancy. Third, drawing on cognitive dissonance theory, we introduce employee rumination as an underlying mechanism to explain the impacts of leader–employee differences in criticality cognitions on employee voice and fatigue. Finally, while prior cognitive dissonance research has primarily employed an intrapersonal perspective (e.g. Sivanathan <em>et al.</em>, 2008; Pugh <em>et al.</em>, 2011; Grandey <em>et al.</em>, 2013), our study adopts an interpersonal lens and underscores that interpersonal differences in cognitions can also serve as an example of cognitive discrepancy to instigate internal dissonance processes. By doing so, we enrich our understanding of cognitive dissonance theory.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":48247,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Managerial Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When leaders and their employees disagree: investigating the consequences of differences in cognitions of workplace event criticality\",\"authors\":\"Qi Song, Li Gong, Man Zhao, Tao Shen, Yang Chen, Jialin Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jmp-09-2022-0471\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Purpose</h3>\\n<p>Criticality cognitions regarding the same workplace event often differ between leaders and employees. Nevertheless, its consequences on employee work outcomes remain unknown. In this study, we draw on cognitive dissonance theory to examine how and why leader–employee differences in cognitions of workplace event criticality impact employee job-related outcomes.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\\n<p>Wu used multilevel polynomial regression analyses from a time-lagged, multi-source field study with 145 leader–employee dyads to test our proposed model.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Findings</h3>\\n<p>Leader–employee differences in cognitions of workplace event criticality can bring both benefits and perils to employees. Specifically, such differences can cause employee rumination, which in turn leads to an increase in both employee voice and fatigue.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\\n<p>This study contributes to the event and cognitive discrepancy literature in four ways. First, prior event studies largely adopted a singular employee perspective for investigation (e.g. Chen <em>et al.</em>, 2021; Lin <em>et al.</em>, 2021). By examining the impacts of event criticality from the dual perspective of leaders and employees, we attain a more comprehensive understanding of the implications of workplace events in organizational life. Second, extant studies have predominantly focused on the dark side of cognitive discrepancy (e.g. Bashshur <em>et al.</em>, 2011; Erdogan <em>et al.</em>, 2004; Grandey <em>et al.</em>, 2013). Our study reveals that leader–employee differences in criticality cognitions can have both a bright and a dark side on employee outcomes, offering a more balanced and dialectical view of the consequences of cognitive discrepancy. Third, drawing on cognitive dissonance theory, we introduce employee rumination as an underlying mechanism to explain the impacts of leader–employee differences in criticality cognitions on employee voice and fatigue. Finally, while prior cognitive dissonance research has primarily employed an intrapersonal perspective (e.g. Sivanathan <em>et al.</em>, 2008; Pugh <em>et al.</em>, 2011; Grandey <em>et al.</em>, 2013), our study adopts an interpersonal lens and underscores that interpersonal differences in cognitions can also serve as an example of cognitive discrepancy to instigate internal dissonance processes. By doing so, we enrich our understanding of cognitive dissonance theory.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\",\"PeriodicalId\":48247,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Managerial Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Managerial Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jmp-09-2022-0471\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Managerial Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jmp-09-2022-0471","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的领导者和员工对同一工作场所事件的批判性认知往往不同。然而,这种差异对员工工作结果的影响仍是未知数。在本研究中,我们借鉴了认知失调理论,探讨了领导与员工在工作场所事件关键性认知上的差异如何以及为何会影响员工的工作相关结果。研究结果领导与员工在工作场所事件关键性认知上的差异既会给员工带来好处,也会给员工带来危险。具体来说,这种差异会引起员工的反刍,进而导致员工的声音和疲劳感增加。首先,以往的事件研究大多采用单一的员工视角进行调查(如 Chen 等人,2021 年;Lin 等人,2021 年)。通过从领导和员工的双重视角考察事件关键性的影响,我们可以更全面地了解工作场所事件对组织生活的影响。其次,现有研究主要关注认知差异的阴暗面(如 Bashshur 等人,2011 年;Erdogan 等人,2004 年;Grandey 等人,2013 年)。我们的研究揭示了领导者与员工在关键性认知上的差异对员工结果的影响既有光明的一面,也有阴暗的一面,从而为认知差异的后果提供了一个更加平衡和辩证的视角。第三,借鉴认知失调理论,我们引入了员工反刍作为一种潜在机制,以解释领导与员工在关键性认知上的差异对员工声音和疲劳的影响。最后,以往的认知失调研究主要采用的是人际视角(如 Sivanathan 等人,2008 年;Pugh 等人,2011 年;Grandey 等人,2013 年),而我们的研究则采用了人际视角,强调人际间的认知差异也可以作为认知差异的一个例子,从而引发内部失调过程。通过这样做,我们丰富了对认知失调理论的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
When leaders and their employees disagree: investigating the consequences of differences in cognitions of workplace event criticality

Purpose

Criticality cognitions regarding the same workplace event often differ between leaders and employees. Nevertheless, its consequences on employee work outcomes remain unknown. In this study, we draw on cognitive dissonance theory to examine how and why leader–employee differences in cognitions of workplace event criticality impact employee job-related outcomes.

Design/methodology/approach

Wu used multilevel polynomial regression analyses from a time-lagged, multi-source field study with 145 leader–employee dyads to test our proposed model.

Findings

Leader–employee differences in cognitions of workplace event criticality can bring both benefits and perils to employees. Specifically, such differences can cause employee rumination, which in turn leads to an increase in both employee voice and fatigue.

Originality/value

This study contributes to the event and cognitive discrepancy literature in four ways. First, prior event studies largely adopted a singular employee perspective for investigation (e.g. Chen et al., 2021; Lin et al., 2021). By examining the impacts of event criticality from the dual perspective of leaders and employees, we attain a more comprehensive understanding of the implications of workplace events in organizational life. Second, extant studies have predominantly focused on the dark side of cognitive discrepancy (e.g. Bashshur et al., 2011; Erdogan et al., 2004; Grandey et al., 2013). Our study reveals that leader–employee differences in criticality cognitions can have both a bright and a dark side on employee outcomes, offering a more balanced and dialectical view of the consequences of cognitive discrepancy. Third, drawing on cognitive dissonance theory, we introduce employee rumination as an underlying mechanism to explain the impacts of leader–employee differences in criticality cognitions on employee voice and fatigue. Finally, while prior cognitive dissonance research has primarily employed an intrapersonal perspective (e.g. Sivanathan et al., 2008; Pugh et al., 2011; Grandey et al., 2013), our study adopts an interpersonal lens and underscores that interpersonal differences in cognitions can also serve as an example of cognitive discrepancy to instigate internal dissonance processes. By doing so, we enrich our understanding of cognitive dissonance theory.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
6.20%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: ■Communication and its influence on action ■Developments in leadership styles ■How managers achieve success ■How work design affects job motivation ■Influences on managerial priorities and time allocation ■Managing conflicts ■The decision-making process in Eastern and Western business cultures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信