Manager-Team (Dis)agreement on Stress-Preventive Behaviours: Relationship with Psychosocial Work Environment and Employees' Well-Being

The "Management Competencies to Prevent and Reduce Stress at Work" (MCPARS) approach focuses on identifying the stress-preventive managers' competencies able to optimise the employees' well-being through the management of the psychosocial work environment. Considering leadership as contextualised in complex social dynamics, the self-other agreement (SOA) investigation of the MCPARS may enhance previous findings, as it allows for exploring the manager-team perceptions' (dis)agreement and its potential implications. However, no studies have tested the MCPARS using the SOA and multisource data. Grounded in Yammarino and Atwater's SOA reference theory, we conducted an in-depth investigation on the MCPARS's theoretical framework by examining the implications of manager-team (dis)agreement, regarding managers' competencies, on employees' psychosocial environment (H1-H2) and affective well-being (H3). Data from 36 managers and 475 employees were analysed by performing several polynomial regressions, response surface, and mediation analyses. The results reveal a significant relationship between SOA on MCPARS and employees' perceptions of the psychosocial environment (H1). Employees report better perceptions when supervised by in-agreement good or under-estimator managers, while lower ratings occur under over-estimator or in-agreement poor managers (H2). Moreover, the psychosocial environment significantly mediated the relationship between SOA on MCPARS and employees' well-being (H3). The MCPARS theoretical model's soundness is supported, and its implications are discussed.

Tugging at Their Heartstrings: Partner's Knowledge of Affective Meta-Bases Predicts Use of Emotional Advocacies in Close Relationships

Traditional studies of attitude change have focused on attempts between strangers, but what about in close relationships? The present article examines whether accuracy regarding a partner's meta-attitudinal bases can influence persuasion attempts. Because meta-bases reflect informationprocessing goals, we hypothesized that given partners with more affective meta-bases, greater accuracy regarding partners' meta-bases would predict use of emotional advocacies and their perceived persuasiveness. Self and partner ratings of meta-bases were assessed, and emotional advocacies as well as cognitive ones were provided to participants to present to their partners. Results revealed that the correspondence between perceptions of partner's affective meta-bases and use of emotional advocacies was greater among those whose partners rated themselves as having more affective meta-bases compared to those whose partners rated themselves as having less affective meta-bases. Results remained significant when controlling for perceived similarity. Implications of meta-bases for understanding interpersonal influence are discussed.

Self-other agreement of leadership

Purpose

A common component in leadership interventions is the provision of feedback on leadership behaviors. The assumption is that, when there is a discrepancy in this feedback between managers’ and others’ ratings of leadership, this will increase managers’ self-awareness and motivate them to close this gap. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how agreement between managers and their subordinates changes over time as a result of a leadership intervention.

Design/methodology/approach

Questionnaire data were collected from line managers (N=18) and their subordinates (N=640) at pre-intervention, post-intervention and at a six-month follow-up. The managers participated in a leadership intervention that aimed to increase their knowledge and skills related to the leadership behaviors described in the Full-Range Leadership Model. Inter-rater agreement and reliability were calculated to justify aggregating the subordinates’ ratings. The managers and their subordinates were grouped according to three agreement categories: in agreement, managers’ over-rating and managers’ under-rating based on the managers’ views of their leader behaviors in relation to their subordinates’.

Findings

Manager-subordinate agreement on the managers’ leadership increased between pre-intervention and post-intervention but then decreased at the six-month follow-up (17, 61 and 44 percent, respectively). Most managers (n=15) changed agreement categories over time, and only three managers remained in the same agreement category throughout. The subordinates’ mean leadership ratings changed more than the managers’ mean ratings.

Originality/value

This is the first study to explore how manager-subordinate agreement changes when managers participate in a leadership intervention in a health care context. It shows that an intervention that includes upward feedback, by which managers self-rating of their leadership is compared with their subordinates’ ratings, can be an effective way to increase agreement.

Self-other agreement on transformational leadership and subordinates’ assessment of supervisor’s performance

Purpose

Given the importance of the extent to which supervisors and their subordinates agree in their assessment of supervisors’ leadership, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the possible relationship between self-other agreement on supervisors’ transformational leadership and subordinates’ perceptions of supervisors’ in-role and extra-role performance, through the mediating role of leader-member exchange.

Design/methodology/approach

Self-other agreement was conceptualized as the degree of congruence between supervisors’ self-assessment and subordinates’ assessment of supervisors’ transformational leadership. Data were collected from 36 supervisors and 189 of their subordinates. Cross-level polynomial regressions and surface response analysis were used to analyze the hypothesized relationships.

Findings

Statistical analyses revealed that self-other agreement on idealized influence and individual support are positively associated with subordinates’ perception of leader-member exchange, and in turn leader member fully mediates the relationship between self-other agreement and subordinates’ perceptions regarding their supervisors’ performance. Results from polynomial analyses indicate that subordinates’ ratings of leader-member exchange would be highest for underestimator, second for in-agreement/good supervisors, third for in-agreement/poor and lowest for overestimator supervisors both for the idealized influence and individual support.

Originality/value

This is one of the pioneer studies investigating the potential relationship between self-other agreement on supervisors’ transformational leadership and the subordinates’ perceptions on their supervisors’ performance through social exchange. Since researchers have paid scant attention to intervening mechanisms, this study aims to extend previous research in the literature by investigating those associations through the mediating effect of leader-member exchange.

Servant leaders as underestimators: theoretical and practical implications

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to provide a new interpretation of underestimation for the particular case of servant leadership, contending the ideas that underestimation is caused by lack of self-awareness or low self-esteem, and that self-other agreement is a necessary condition for self-awareness. Additional reflections are provided on the development of servant leadership in organizations.

Design/methodology/approach

A revision of the self-other agreement literature was done, with a focus on underestimation. The theoretical foundations of servant leadership were analysed. The main hypothesis was derived, including a set of supporting propositions. An empirical study was conducted based on a polynomial regression and 3D surface analysis, including 36 managers and 160 followers.

Findings

Underestimation was the strongest predictor of servant leadership effectiveness in generating psychological empowerment amongst followers. The theoretical revision provides arguments to support the claim that servant leaders underestimate themselves because of their humility and valuing of others.

Practical implications

With the increasing adoption of servant leadership, this study supports the need to develop specific processes for detecting, assessing, and developing servant leaders in organizations. Additional care is necessary on the interpretation of self-other ratings through 360-degree instruments in light of the leadership model being considered.

Originality/value

It is the first empirical study within the self-other leadership agreement that incorporates servant leadership. It provides an alternative explanation of underestimation for servant leaders. The paper also provides a reflection on the practical implications of underestimation for developing servant leadership in organizations.

Justice perceptions, leader-member exchange, and upward influence tactics

Purpose

The authors examine the relationship between leader-member exchange (LMX) and the selection of upward influence tactics. The purpose of this paper is to integrate research on perceptions of justice, LMX, and influence tactics in order to empirically test an integrative model.

Design/methodology/approach

Questionnaires were administered to n=407 employed Masters of Business Administration students at a private Southeastern University in the USA. Structural equation modeling was used to test the statistical significance of paths specified in the models.

Findings

Results indicate that perceptions of organizational justice have indirect effects on upward influence tactics reported. LMX had mediating effects on the relationship between interactional justice and the use of rational and coalition tactics.

Research limitations/implications

The data are cross-sectional and were collected using self-reports, which limits the conclusions that can be drawn. The findings however, suggest that perceptions of interactional justice are associated with LMX, whose effects in turn are associated with the use of influence tactics.

Practical implications

Coalition strategies were used more when subordinates experienced poor LMX. The research suggests that perhaps for individuals experiencing poor relationships with the supervisor, coalition strategies might present an alternative to “rational” influence tactics (which are used more in high-quality relationships).

Originality/value

The current study extends LMX research by examining differing subordinate influence strategies in high- and low-quality relationships. It also extends organizational justice research by examining the effects of the interpersonal implementation of fair procedures on the dynamics between leadership and upward influence.

Innovation Implementation as a Dynamic Equilibrium: Emergent Processes and Divergent Outcomes

Innovation literature typically postulates a linear and institution-driven implementation process that leads to bifurcated outcomes (i.e., acceptance or rejection) of innovation. Adopting a grounded theory approach and a social constructionist perspective, we explore dynamic, interactive implementation processes unfolding over time; these processes generate divergent and often unexpected outcomes. The present qualitative analysis of 40 cases of innovation reveals that two competing forces shape the implementation process. As initiators of innovation implementation, top managers form a driving force and introduce various tactics to facilitate implementation. Resistors or individuals against innovation form a resisting force and organize various schemes to inhibit implementation. The relative strengths of driving and resisting forces lead to four different patterns of implementation, namely, implementation without change, modified implementation, minimal implementation, and implementation failure. Dynamic interactions between initiators and resistors shift implementation outcomes by changing the perceptions of followers with regard to innovation characteristics. The resulting theoretical framework highlights the political nature of innovation implementation and indicates the need to consider socioeconomic and sociopolitical dynamics involving multiple organizational actors.