Unfinished work tasks have been identified as a significant job-related stressor in recent occupational stress research. Extending this research, we examine how and when not finishing one's tasks by the end of the work week affects work-related rumination at the weekend. Drawing on control theory, we examined competence need satisfaction as a mediating mechanism that links unfinished tasks at the end of the work week to work-related rumination at the weekend. Furthermore, we scrutinized whether proactive work behavior within the work week may neutralize the detrimental effects of unfinished tasks on competence need satisfaction and rumination. Using diary methodology, we collected weekly observations from 58 employees at the beginning and at the end of the work week over a period of 12 consecutive weeks, yielding 377 matched observations. Multilevel modeling analyses provided evidence for the assumed indirect effect at the intraindividual level. Higher levels of unfinished tasks were associated with lower levels of competence need satisfaction during the weekend. Competence need satisfaction, in turn, was negatively related to work-related rumination. Proactive work behavior attenuated the detrimental effects of unfinished tasks on competence need satisfaction and rumination at the weekend. These results imply that proactive work behavior facilitates switching off mentally during the weekend as it may restore competence need satisfaction in the face of unfinished tasks. (PsycINFO Database Record

Previous organizational behaviour research has mainly focused on the benefits of proactivity while disregarding its possible drawbacks. The present study examines the ways in which proactive behaviour may foster counterproductive behaviour through increased emotional and cognitive strain. Drawing on conservation of resources theory, we propose that proactive behaviour is a resource‐consuming activity that causes irritability and work‐related rumination, which, in turn, leads to instrumentally driven employee withdrawal. Further, we hypothesize that external motivation towards proactivity amplifies its strain‐eliciting effects. We conducted a longitudinal three‐wave questionnaire study (N = 231) and tested hypotheses using an autoregressive, time‐lagged model with latent variables. Results showed that when external motivation for proactivity was high, proactivity led to increased irritability and rumination; irritability was, in turn, related to higher levels of withdrawal. The moderated mediation analysis revealed that when external motivation towards proactive behaviour was high, proactive behaviour had an indirect effect on withdrawal behaviour via irritability. The direct effect of proactivity on work‐related rumination was in the expected direction, but failed to reach conventional levels of significance (β = .09, p = .08). Our results indicate that proactivity is not without costs, most clearly if motivated by external reasons. Practitioner points Managers should be cautious about the ways they promote employees’ proactivity because our research shows that proactive behaviours that are motivated by a desire of external rewards, or an avoidance of negative consequences, might have detrimental effects on employees’ psychological well‐being. Organizations should be aware that using rewards and punishments for motivating employees’ proactivity might not only backfire on employees’ well‐being, but also lead to increased counterproductive work behaviours in terms of withdrawal.

Previous research informs us about facilitators of employees' promotive voice. Yet little is known about what determines whether a specific idea for constructive change brought up by an employee will be approved or rejected by a supervisor. Drawing on interactionist theories of motivation and personality, we propose that a supervisor will be least likely to support an idea when it threatens the supervisor's power motive, and when it is perceived to serve the employee's own striving for power. The prosocial versus egoistic intentions attributed to the idea presenter are proposed to mediate the latter effect. We conducted three scenariobased studies in which supervisors evaluated fictitious ideas voiced by employees thatif implementedwould have power-related consequences for them as a supervisor. Results show that the higher a supervisors' explicit power motive was, the less likely they were to support a power-threatening idea (Study 1, N = 60). Moreover, idea support was less likely when this idea was proposed by an employee that was described as high (rather than low) on power motivation (Study 2, N = 79); attributed prosocial intentions mediated this effect. Study 3 (N = 260) replicates these results.

The objective of this conceptual article is to illustrate how differences in societal culture may affect employees’ proactive work behaviors (PWBs) and to develop a research agenda to guide future research on cross-cultural differences in PWBs. We propose that the societal cultural dimensions of power distance, individualism–collectivism, future orientation, and uncertainty avoidance shape individuals’ implicit followership theories (IFTs). We discuss how these cross-cultural differences in individuals’ IFTs relate to differences in the mean-level of PWB individuals show ( whether), in the motivational states driving individuals’ PWBs ( why), in the way individuals’ enact PWBs ( how), and in the evaluation of PWBs by others ( at what cost). We recommend how future research can extend this theorizing and unpack the proposed cross-cultural differences in PWBs, for example, by exploring how culture and other contextual variables interact to affect PWBs.

While previous research underscores the role of leaders in stimulating employee voice behaviour, comparatively little is known about what affects leaders' support for such constructive but potentially threatening employee behaviours. We introduce leader member exchange quality (LMX) as a central predictor of leaders' support for employees' ideas for constructive change. Apart from a general benefit of high LMX for leaders' idea support, we propose that high LMX is particularly critical to leaders' idea support if the idea voiced by an employee constitutes a power threat to the leader. We investigate leaders' attribution of prosocial and egoistic employee intentions as mediators of these effects. Hypotheses were tested in a quasi-experimental vignette study (N = 160), in which leaders evaluated a simulated employee idea, and a field study (N = 133), in which leaders evaluated an idea that had been voiced to them at work. Results show an indirect effect of LMX on leaders' idea support via attributed prosocial intentions but not via attributed egoistic intentions, and a buffering effect of high LMX on the negative effect of power threat on leaders' idea support. Results differed across studies with regard to the main effect of LMX on idea support.