Scholars agree that trust primarily has two bases: trustworthiness—the extent to which a trustee is competent, honest, and has goodwill toward the trustor—and trust propensity—a stable trait reflecting the trustor's generalized belief that others can be trusted. Due to this trait characterization, the literature has largely reached a consensus that trust propensity is only an important base of trust in the earliest stage of a relationship—before information on trustworthiness has been gathered. Additionally, the trait conceptualization of trust propensity inhibits it from being modeled as an explanatory mechanism. Drawing on accessibility theory, a theory of trait activation, we argue that trust propensity has state‐like characteristics that are “activated” by the daily treatment an employee receives from coworkers. Our model highlights that the social context—predominantly ignored in prior trust research because of its lack of relevance to dyadic perceptions of trustworthiness—can have a substantial impact on dyadic trust. Across two multisource experience sampling methodology studies, we provide evidence that state trust propensity transmits the effects of citizenship and deviance received to trust in a focal coworker, whether that focal coworker is a source of that treatment or not. We also address how general levels of workplace unfairness—a between‐person construct—influence these dynamics. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these within‐person dynamics for fostering trust within organizations.

Engagement is widely viewed as a motivational state that captures the degree to which individuals apply their physical, cognitive, and emotional energies to their jobs, and ultimately improves job performance. However, this job-level view overlooks the possibility that engagement may vary across the different tasks within a job and that engagement in one task may influence engagement and performance in a subsequent task. In this article, we develop and test hypotheses based on a task-level view of engagement and the general notion that there is "residual engagement" from a task that carries forward to a subsequent task. We propose that although task engagement (engagement in a specific task that comprises a broader role) positively spills over to influence task engagement and performance in a subsequent task, in part because of the transmission of positive affect, task engagement simultaneously engenders attention residue, which in turn impedes subsequent task engagement and performance. These predictions were supported in a study of 477 task transitions made by 20 crew members aboard The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Human Exploration Research Analog (Study 1) and in a laboratory study of 346 participants who transitioned between a firefighting task and an assembly task (Study 2). Our investigation explains how engagement flows across tasks, illuminates a negative implication of engagement that has been masked by the predominant job-level perspective, and identifies completeness as a task attribute that reduces this negative consequence of engagement.

We consider the possibility that a positive organizational reputation brings both benefits and burdens to employees working for those organizations. Drawing from the “Red Queen” notion in competitive strategy and from conservation of resources theory, we argue that although organizational reputation can cause employees to identify more strongly with the organization, it may also pressure employees to commit more of their time to the job. In turn, increased organizational identification and time commitment have contrasting effects on employees’ emotional exhaustion. Following recent theorizing in the reputation literature, we also test the proposal that the effects of organizational reputation—a collective‐level representation—are mediated through employees’ individual‐level perceptions. Taken together, our theoretical model suggests that organizational reputation, through employees’ perceptions of that reputation, simultaneously serves as a benefit that reduces emotional exhaustion via organizational identification, but also as a burden that increases emotional exhaustion via additional time commitment. In turn, we demonstrate that these dynamics have both positive and negative implications for employees’ counterproductive work behavior. Our arguments are confirmed in a multiwave, multisource study of employees from a diverse range of organizations.

Research indicates that leaders who engage in upward ingratiation, a specific form of impression management, develop positive relationships with their bosses, which in turn enhances leaders’ chances of achieving success at work. However, a more complete understanding of leaders’ ingratiation requires recognition that leaders have multiple audiences and that there may be negative unintended consequences of this behavior to at least one of these audiences. Specifically, upward ingratiation may reduce subordinates’ willingness to contribute to the organization through effective performance because it diminishes relationship quality between leaders and subordinates. To explore this issue, we develop and test a multilevel model that contrasts effects of leaders’ upward ingratiation on leader‐ and subordinate‐level outcomes through the quality of social exchange in the corresponding relationship. We test our predictions by conducting a multiwave, multisource field study with a sample of 91 leaders, 91 bosses, and 215 subordinates in South Korea. Our findings reveal that upward ingratiation is positively associated with indicators of leaders’ intrinsic and extrinsic success because it enhances leader–boss exchange quality (LLX). In contrast, leaders’ upward ingratiation negatively influences subordinates’ job performance because it diminishes leader–subordinate exchange quality (LMX). We also find that subordinates’ perceptions of leaders’ political skill mitigate the negative indirect relationship between upward ingratiation and subordinates’ job performance via LMX quality, and that our hypotheses apply to ingratiation but not to other forms of impression management. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our findings in relation to ingratiation specifically and to impression management more generally.

Research indicates that whereas ingratiation directed toward one's supervisor enhances employee-supervisor social exchange quality, it diminishes social exchange quality with those who observe this behavior, such as team members. However, because researchers have largely overlooked the role of social context in shaping supervisors' and teammates' reactions to ingratiatory employees, current understanding of how ingratiation plays out in complex organizational settings may be incomplete, and perhaps misleading. In this study, we augment a social context perspective with social exchange theory to propose that comparative levels of ingratiation, determined by the focal employee's ingratiation in the context of other team members' ingratiation, shape social exchange quality with supervisors and teammates. The results from a multi-wave multi-source field study of 222 employees and their supervisors from 64 teams show that higher levels of ingratiation relative to other team members increases the employee's social exchange quality with the supervisor, whereas congruence between the employee's and other team members' ingratiation enhances social exchange quality with team members. We also find that relative ingratiation and ingratiation congruence increase citizenship received from supervisors and team members, respectively, via social exchange quality with the corresponding actor(s). Overall, our research contributes to a more complete understanding of ingratiation, especially in regard to how reactions to this behavior are largely a function of the social context in which it occurs.