Purpose -The central aim of this paper is to give an overview of theory and research on the crossover of (work-related) wellbeing from employees to their partners at home. In addition, it seeks to discuss studies on the crossover of wellbeing from employees to their colleagues in the workplace. It aims to discuss possible moderators of the crossover effect and delineate a research agenda. Design/methodology/approach -The paper takes the form of a literature review. Findings -The review of the literature shows that strain may spillover from work to home, and consequently influence, the wellbeing of one's partner. Additionally, the paper discusses recent studies documenting that the enthusiasm for one's work may cross over to the partner as well. Furthermore, research has shown that employees influence one another in the workplace. Several conditions may facilitate such crossover, including the frequency of interactions, empathy, susceptibility to contagion, and similarity. The paper outlines a research agenda, and indicates what the gaps in the literature are. Originality/value -The literature review reveals which advancements can be made in crossover theory. One way would be to further validate the spillover-crossover model. This model postulates that job demands lead to work-family conflict, which, in turn, leads to conflict with the partner (social undermining). Thus, job strain (or work engagement) first spills over from work to home, and then crosses over to the partner. This interaction sequence consequently influences the partner's wellbeing.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c tThis study examines the relation between leadership and team cohesiveness in different societal cultures. We expect direct effects of societal culture on leadership and team cohesiveness, as well as a moderating effect of culture on the relationship between leadership and cohesiveness. Data were collected from 29,868 managers and 138,270 corresponding team members in 80 countries. Multilevel analysis was used to test the hypotheses, relating societal individualism-collectivism (IC), with directive and supportive leadership, and with team cohesiveness. In individualistic societies managers use less directive and less supportive behavior, compared with collectivistic societies. Team cohesiveness is not directly related with IC. Directive leadership and supportive leadership are negatively and positively related with team cohesiveness respectively and these relations are stronger in individualistic societies. Implications for managerial education and practices are discussed.

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

Does proactive personality always enhance job success? The authors of this study draw on socioanalytic theory of personality and organizational political perspectives to study employees' political skill in moderating the effects of proactive personality on supervisory ratings of employee task performance, helping behaviors, and learning behaviors. Multisource data from 225 subordinates and their 75 immediate supervisors reveal that proactive personality is associated negatively with supervisory evaluations when political skill is low, and the negative relationship disappears when political skill is high. Implications and future research directions are discussed.

PurposeThis study aims to investigate the crossover specificity of team‐level stressors to individual‐level work‐family conflict.Design/methodology/approachThe paper takes the form of a multilevel analyses with data from 428 employees of a Dutch municipality working in 49 teams.FindingsThe results indicate the expected crossover specificity of different types of work‐family conflicts. After controlling for individual‐level demands there is little evidence that team‐level work demands influence work‐family conflict (WFC) or family‐work conflict (FWC), but team‐level WFC and FWC do influence individual‐level WFC and FWC, respectively.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper distinguishes two types of WFC, but it did not distinguish between strain‐ and time‐based conflicts. Further, it did not pay attention to individual differences (e.g., susceptibility to distress of team members), although such differences may be important moderators of the crossover process.Originality/valueThis study is one of the first that empirically linked team‐level stressors and WFC to individual‐level WFC and that tested crossover specificity. Findings indicated the associations of team‐level WFC and FWC and focal employees' WFC and FWC respectively, thereby underscoring the importance of crossover specificity.