Bearing the Burden: Outcomes and Moderators of Social Burden in the Workplace

Gallagher, Christopher M.; Hughes, Ian M.

doi:10.1007/s41542-020-00063-4

Cited by 3 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Across two studies, we find that expanding the scope of the support elicitation construct space to delineate instrumental from emotionally laden elicitations demonstrates that there are often differential effects based on the kind of elicitation. In Study 1, we found that SEE-E was primarily responsible for the strong relation to CWB found in past research on social burden (e.g., Gallagher & Hughes, 2020;Yang et al, 2016). That is, although SEE-I correlated with production deviance and withdrawal, the explained variance in such behaviors was subsumed by SEE-E in our tests of incremental prediction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 48%

“…The current research refines and introduces dimensional nuance to an extant measure (i.e., social burden; Yang et al, 2016). We believe it is important to demonstrate that, although the original 4-item measure predicted CWB (Gallagher & Hughes, 2020;Yang et al, 2016), the new measure explains incremental variance over this measure in the prediction of outcomes. To do this, we tested social burden, SEE-E, and SEE-I in the prediction of the types of CWB using multiple regression.…”

Section: Study 1 Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Study 1 focuses on measurement development; here, we eschew the label of social burden and generate a wider range of items for potential inclusion. We also examine the factor structure of our new measure, provide item-and scale-level content validity evidence, and demonstrate incremental validity over the original social burden measure for predicting CWBan established outcome of social burden (e.g., Gallagher & Hughes, 2020;Yang et al, 2016). In Study 2, we explore the relations between the reception of different types of support elicitation and job-relevant outcomes as well as investigate the role that providing support may play in affecting these relations.…”

Section: Refining Social Burdenmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Here, we focus on CWB as an outcome of SEE. CWB is a family of harmful behaviors that have consistently shared positive relations with social burden in past research (Gallagher & Hughes, 2020;Yang et al, 2016)-relations thought to be due to social burden behaviors' potency as a social stressor. The omega coefficients for these subscales were .79 and .81, respectively, in the holdout sample.…”

Section: Scale Creationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

From Social Burden to Support Elicitation: Development and Validation of a New Measure of Workplace Support Elicitation Experiences

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Receiving social support is widely considered a positive workplace phenomenon, but what about the employees from whom the support is being sought? Following recent calls from social support scholars, we focus on the "potential support provider" perspective of the social support dynamic and propose that the measure of social burden (Yang et al., 2016) currently used to capture this dynamic is significantly limited. In Study 1, we refine and expand the measure of social burden by constructing and validating a measure of support elicitation experiences (SEE) that distinguishes between emotionally laden SEE (SEE-E; explicit or implicit requests for support with an emotional valence) and instrumental SEE (SEE-I; explicit requests for work-related support). In Study 2, based on Conservation of Resources Theory, we examine how SEE-E and SEE-I differentially relate to work outcomes and explore the potential costs of providing support in response to these behaviors. Results demonstrate that our measure of SEE is an improvement over the social burden measure and support the empirical distinctiveness of emotionally laden (associated with negative outcomes) and instrumental (associated with positive outcomes) support elicitations. In addition, we find some evidence that routinely providing support for both SEE-E and SEE-I carries implications for undesirable workplace behavior. Findings from this research support the notion that there are often differential effects for the kinds of support we elicit from our colleagues and provides researchers with an improved instrument to assess the social support dynamic from the perspective of potential support providers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 48%

Section: Study 1 Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Refining Social Burdenmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Scale Creationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

From Social Burden to Support Elicitation: Development and Validation of a New Measure of Workplace Support Elicitation Experiences

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We contend that the Big Five traits of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism (McCrae & Costa, 1987 ), 1 and the social exchange disposition of negative reciprocity beliefs (Eisenberger et al, 2004 ) are likely important in determining the extent to which an interpersonal stressor such as UWSS is appraised as a threat to personal or social self-esteem. These individual differences have been found to influence interpersonal stressor-strain relations (e.g., Gallagher & Hughes, 2020 ; Welbourne et al, 2020 ), and may be of importance here.…”

Section: Unhelpful Workplace Social Support As a Threat To The Selfmentioning

confidence: 76%

“Your help isn’t helping me!” Unhelpful workplace social support, strain, and the role of individual differences

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the reception of social support at work is generally considered a net positive for employees, researchers have identified that particular kinds of social support, such as unhelpful workplace social support (UWSS), tend to evoke stress and contribute to strain for recipients. Although (Gray et al. Work and Stress , 34 (4), 359–385, 2020 ), when validating the novel UWSS measure, uncovered relations between UWSS and various outcomes, more research is needed to further understand the impacts of UWSS. Furthermore, the extant social support literature is currently lacking in its understanding of how individual differences strengthen or weaken the relations such support has with strain. Drawing from the Theory of Stress as Offense to Self (Semmer et al. Occupational Health Science , 3 (3), 205–238. 10.1007/s41542-019-00041-5, 2019 ), we, through two studies ( N 1 = 203, N 2 = 277), further explore the relations of UWSS, focusing on behavioral and psychological strain, and examine how these relations are influenced by relevant individual differences (e.g., Big Five traits). Results from our first study replicate key findings from (Gray et al. Work and Stress , 34 (4), 359–385, 2020 ), providing additional validity evidence for the novel measure of UWSS, and demonstrate that UWSS is related to various types of behavioral strain. Our second study shows that the strength of these deleterious relations varies based on characteristics of the recipient of UWSS. Altogether, the present research contributes to the literature on social support as a stressor by elucidating further the effects of UWSS, and, perhaps more importantly, for whom UWSS is particularly deleterious.

show abstract

Job flourishing research: A systematic literature review

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on job flourishing is still in its infancy, relies on a plethora of different theories, and shows inconsistent results, but has already shown numerous beneficial effects on various organizational outcomes. In this state-of-the-art review, we identify the theoretical frameworks used to examine (the dynamics of) job flourishing, including its predictors and outcomes, and offer an integrated approach that is, thus far, missing. We selected and analyzed 40 empirical studies and derived from them a comprehensive multilevel conceptual model with matching propositions. This review extends our current knowledge of organizational psychology literature by suggesting how to combine the evidence obtained so far on how job flourishing arises and unfolds in organizational work contexts and its effects (e.g., on job performance, turnover intention, etc.). Rooted therein, we provide both directions for impactful future research and recommendations for managers on how to foster this desirable mental-health state at work.

show abstract

Bearing the Burden: Outcomes and Moderators of Social Burden in the Workplace

Cited by 3 publications

References 46 publications

From Social Burden to Support Elicitation: Development and Validation of a New Measure of Workplace Support Elicitation Experiences

From Social Burden to Support Elicitation: Development and Validation of a New Measure of Workplace Support Elicitation Experiences

“Your help isn’t helping me!” Unhelpful workplace social support, strain, and the role of individual differences

Job flourishing research: A systematic literature review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About