Does CWB repair negative affective states, or generate them? Examining the moderating role of trait empathy.

Abstract

Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) is a topic of considerable importance for organizational scholars and practitioners. Yet, despite a wide-ranging consensus that negative affect (NA) is a precursor to CWB, there is surprisingly little consensus as to whether CWB enactment will subsequently lead to lower or higher levels of NA. That is, scholars disagree as to whether CWB has a reparative (negative) or generative (positive) effect on subsequent NA. We submit that both perspectives have validity, and thus the question should not be whether CWB is associated with lower or higher subsequent levels of NA, but rather for whom. This article is dedicated to answering this question. Drawing from the behavioral concordance model, we position empathy as a moderator of this relationship, such that CWB will be reparative for those with lower levels of empathy and generative for those with higher levels of empathy. Findings across 3 experience-sampling studies support our hypotheses and highlight a number of interesting directions for future research.

The role of justice perceptions in formal and informal university technology transfer.

“…Furthermore, common method bias is less of a concern when testing interaction effects (Podsakoff et al, 2012; Siemsen et al, 2010). With regard to low base rates, our low means are consistent with prior research investigating deviant behavior (e.g., Koopman et al, 2020) and technology transfer-related behavior in general (Huyghe et al, 2016). That said, future research should consider obtaining information from multiple sources such as department heads and deans, as well as objective data on technology transfer behavior (e.g., meetings with the TTO, patents filed, spin-offs created, court disputes).…”

Reflecting on one's best possible self as a leader: Implications for professional employees at work

“…Thus, Hypothesis 2 was partially supported. 345 To assess the practical relevance of our predictors, we calculated the R 2 using model likelihood statistics for our supported paths, following the method of Lang et al (2019) and the recent examples of Anicich et al (2020) and Koopman et al (2020). We found that the best possible leader self explained 1.3% of the variance in positive affect, positive affect explained 2.3% of the variance in helping and 3.1% of the variance in visioning, helping explained 3.3% of the variance in enacted leader identity, and visioning explained 5.2% of the variance in enacted leader identity and 3.8% of the variance in clout.…”

Employee time theft: Conceptualization, measure development, and validation

“…A recent paper from Koopman et al. (2020) also provides a potential lens through which to view time theft. That is, time theft could be seen as a form of cathartic behavior.…”