Uncertainty is a defining feature of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, because uncertainty is an aversive state, uncertainty reduction theory (URT) holds that employees try to manage it by obtaining information. To date, most evidence for the effectiveness of obtaining information to reduce uncertainty stems from research conducted in relatively stable contexts wherein employees can acquire consistent information. Yet, research on crises and news consumption provides reasons to believe that the potential for information to mitigate uncertainty as specified by URT may break down during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Integrating URT with research on crises and news consumption, we predict that consuming news information during crises—which tends to be distressing, constantly evolving, and inconsistent—will be positively related to uncertainty. This in turn may have negative implications for employee goal progress and creativity; two work outcomes that take on substantial significance in times of uncertainty and the pandemic. We further predict that death anxiety will moderate this relationship, such that the link between employees’ news consumption and uncertainty is stronger for those with lower levels of death anxiety, compared to those with higher levels. We test our theorizing via an experience-sampling study with 180 full-time employees, with results providing support for our conceptual model. Our study reveals important theoretical and practical implications regarding information consumption during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

No abstract

Helping is a foundational aspect of organizational life and the prototypical organizational citizenship behavior, with most research implicitly assuming that helping benefits its recipients. Despite this, when scholars focus on help recipients, the experience is depicted as somewhat aversive that may actually reduce recipient perceptions of competence. The result is a literature at odds as to whether receiving help is beneficial. Our thesis is that this is the wrong question on which to focus. Instead, we submit that more valuable insight can be gained by asking: "when is receiving help beneficial vs. not beneficial, and for whom?" Regarding when, we differentiate between receiving help that is empowering (i.e., offers tools to empower recipients to become more self-reliant) or nonempowering (i.e., offers only immediate, short-term solutions). Regarding for whom, we draw from theory and research on stereotype threat and benevolent sexism to explain why the help recipient's gender is a critical moderator of the link between receiving nonempowering help specifically and competence perceptions. We present a multistudy "full-cycle" approach to test our hypotheses and understand the consequences of receiving empowering versus nonempowering help in more depth. Combined, our results help shift the conversation as noted above, and identify important practical implications that speak to a larger discussion on systematic disadvantages for women at work.

The literature on abusive supervision largely presumes that employees respond to abuse in a relatively straightforward way: When abuse is present, outcomes are unfavorable, and when abuse is absent, outcomes are favorable (or, at least less unfavorable). Yet despite the recognition that abusive supervision can vary over time, little consideration has been given to how past experiences of abuse may impact the ways employees react to it (or, its absence) in the present. This is a notable oversight, as it is widely acknowledged that past experiences create a context against which experiences in the present are compared. By applying a temporal lens to the experience of abusive supervision, we identify abusive supervision inconsistency as a phenomenon that may have different outcomes than would otherwise be predicted by the current consensus in this literature. We draw from theories on time and stress appraisal to develop a model that explains when, why, and for which employees, inconsistent abusive supervision may have negative outcomes (specifically, identifying anxiety as a proximal outcome of abusive supervision inconsistency that has downstream effects on turnover intentions). Moreover, the aforementioned theoretical perspectives dovetail in identifying employee workplace status as a moderator that may buffer employees from the stressful consequences of inconsistent abusive supervision. We test our model using two experience sampling studies with polynomial regression and response surface analyses. Our research makes important theoretical and practical contributions to the abusive supervision literature, as well as the literature on time.

No abstract