No abstract

Extant research has investigated the relationship between work engagement and various outcomes, such as job performance and organizational commitment, neglecting the effect of work engagement on social relationships at work. Drawing upon person-environment fit theory and LMX theory, the present study aims to examine the effect of (in)congruence between leader and follower work engagement on leader–member exchange (LMX) and the moderating effect of conscientiousness. About 273 employees and 72 leaders participated in this study and completed the measurements of work engagement, conscientiousness, and LMX at two time points. Using cross-level polynomial regressions, we found that, compared with incongruent work engagement, employees perceived high levels of LMX quality when their work engagement was aligned with that of their leaders. Regarding the congruence, the employees reported higher levels of LMX when congruence in work engagement was at higher rather than lower levels. Regarding the incongruence, when the employees engaged less in their work tasks than their leaders, they were more likely to experience lower LMX. Moreover, the negative relationship between incongruence in leader and follower work engagement and LMX was mitigated when followers were more conscientious. All our hypotheses were supported. Both theoretical and practical implications for work engagement as well as future directions are discussed.

The current research tested the concept of institutional agency (IA) and its implications for laypeople's attribution patterns related to economic behaviors and organizational responsibilities. The term “institutional agency” refers to a set of lay theories about whether or not an organization can have personhood and related mental properties, such as wishes, desires, intents, and responsibility. Through three cross‐cultural studies, we found that people do form certain beliefs about IA which are similar to the legal discourse of institutional responsibility. However, there are significant cultural differences in views of IA, and the concept is more mentally salient for Americans than for Chinese. In Study 1, we distinguished institutional from group agency by showing the cultural differences on attributions in the scenario with “individual vs. group agency” and the scenario with “individual vs. institutional agency.” In Study 2, we again demonstrated the stronger salience of IA for Americans than for Chinese by including the individual, group, and institutional agencies together in one scenario. In Study 3, we further demonstrated that the concept of IA is more salient for Americans by presenting three different agents in separate scenarios. The practical implications of these cultural differences for cross‐cultural understanding and the psychological effects of economic globalization are discussed.