How CEOs respond to mortality salience during the COVID-19 pandemic: Integrating terror management theory with regulatory focus theory.

Li, Andrew; Chiu, Shih-Chi; Kong, Dejun Tony; Cropanzano, Russell; Ho, Chien-Wei

doi:10.1037/apl0000956

Cited by 19 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 77 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of course, leaders were affected by the pandemic themselves. The research that we reviewed suggests that even those at the very top of the organization contemplated their own mortality and considered what kind of leaders they wanted to be in their organizations and communities (e.g., Li et al, 2021).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Management Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review

Bolino,

Henry,

Whitney

2023

Journal of Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic, and organizational life around the world changed dramatically overnight. In response, there has been a flurry of management research that seeks to understand the wide-ranging implications of this crisis. In this article, we summarize a scoping review of 69 articles that focused on management issues during the pandemic to understand how it affected individuals, teams, leaders, organizations, and society at large. We also identify and discuss the theoretical perspectives that were prominent in these investigations. We conclude by identifying directions for future inquiry with a mind toward research questions that are likely to be relevant in a postpandemic workplace and note some implications for management scholarship as well.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, Li, Chiu, Kong, Cropanzano, and Ho (2021) highlighted how organizational leaders were the influenced rather than the influencers during the pandemic. Specifically, increased exposure to death in the workplace due to the pandemic made death more salient for CEOs.…”

Section: Leaders and The Pandemicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review

Bolino,

Henry,

Whitney

2023

Journal of Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Numerous articles examined performance ( n = 5, 10% job/task performance; n = 3, 6% creativity; n = 2, 4% helping, OCB, proactive behavior) and employee motivation ( n = 9, 18%) related to working during the pandemic. In terms of individual differences, death and mortality attitudes and perceptions of both employees (e.g., Hu et al, 2020) and leaders (e.g., Li et al, 2021) were incorporated into 12% ( n = 6) of the accepted articles. Twelve percent ( n = 6) of the articles focused on others’ reactions to the pandemic, including observer reactions to essential workers (e.g., Yuan, Cockburn, et al, 2021), stakeholder reactions to how organizations managed crisis (Steinbach et al, 2021), and public sentiment about remote work (e.g., Zhang et al, 2021).…”

Section: Covid-19 Call For Papers With Rapid Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflections on the Journal of Applied Psychology in times of change.

Eby

2022

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the 2 years since my last Editorial, the world is arguably a different place. We have experienced a global pandemic, social justice reckoning including the Black Lives Matter movement, and increasingly pronounced political division in the United States (Dimock & Wike, 2020). Closer to home there has been increased interest and support for open science practices by professional associations, funding agencies, and journals due to the recognition that greater accessibility, transparency, and reproducibility can improve our science (Nosek et al., 2015). This Editorial focuses on two major initiatives that we undertook during these turbulent times at the Journal of Applied Psychology: The Call for Papers on the COVID-19 Pandemic With a Rapid Review Process and the implementation of the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines (https://www .cos.io/initiatives/top-guidelines) on November 1, 2021. COVID-19 Call for Papers With Rapid ReviewThe Call for Papers began on April 10, 2020, just 29 days after the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global pandemic. We received 828 new COVID-19 submissions (including 188 articles submitted on the deadline). Of these 828 submissions, 51% (n = 423) were desk rejected and the remaining 405 manuscripts were sent out for external review. To date, 50 COVID-19 papers have been accepted yielding an overall acceptance rate of 6%. As of this writing, four final COVID-19 manuscripts are in the revision process.I sincerely appreciate everyone's enthusiasm for this initiative (and during a global pandemic nonetheless)-the authors who submitted original research, the 330 COVID-19 reviewers, 1 the COVID-19 Associate Editors, and the other Associate Editors who held down the fort with regular submissions. Special thanks to APA for supporting the Call for Papers and to Jennifer Wood in the Editorial Office for handling the logistics of the Call for Paperswith over 800 submissions, we could not have done it without her. Was the COVID-19 Call for Papers Successful?We designed the call to attract original quantitative and qualitative scholarship aimed at understanding work-and employment-related phenomena associated with a COVID-19 pandemic. The goal of the Call for Papers was to publish relevant and methodologically rigorous research quickly, so that our science could be rapidly available to practitioners, organizational leaders, and employees. The sections that follow take stock of whether we accomplished this goal by reporting on the rapid review process and summarizing the results of a systematic review of the 50 accepted articles in response to the Call for Papers. 2 Rapid ReviewConsistent with our promise for rapid review, the average initial review time for decision letters (excluding desk rejections which averaged 3 days) was 27 days, over 50% faster than our goal of 60 days for regular submissions. All accepted papers were published within 1 month of the author completing the required paperwork, with the first article (Sergent & Stajkovic, 2020) appeari...

show abstract

“…Conversely, in the initial phase of the pandemic, Germany was lauded by most for a ‘swifter reaction’ in implementing lockdowns (Ellyatt, 2020 ). These diverse lockdown responses occurred although the WHO recognized the need for governments to impose these effective but socioeconomically costly interventions (Karatayev et al, 2020 ; WHO, 2020 ) since Covid-19 was (and is) remarkably virulent and quick to spread (Cookson et al, 2020 ; Li et al, 2021 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Perspective on the Influence of National Corporate Governance Institutions and Government’s Political Ideology on the Speed to Lockdown as a Means of Protection Against Covid-19

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This first wave study of the Covid-19 pandemic investigates why the governments of different countries proceeded to lockdown at different speeds. We draw upon the literature on Corporate Governance Institutions (CGIs) to theorize that governments’ decision-making is undertaken in the light of prevailing beliefs, norms, and rules of the collectivity, as portrayed by the focal country’s CGIs, in their effort to maintain legitimacy. In addition, drawing on motivated cognition we posit that the government’s political ideology moderates this relationship because decision-makers are biased when assessing the impact of lockdown on commerce. Running negative binomial regressions on a sample of 125 countries, we find that the more shareholder-oriented the CGIs, the slower the governmental response in shutting down the economy to protect from the pandemic. Moreover, the main relationship is stronger the more right-leaning the government’s ideology. Our study contributes to the research on corporate governance institutions and political ideology and illustrates how societal and ideological biases affect government decision-making, especially when important decisions about public welfare are taken with little information on hand.

show abstract

How CEOs respond to mortality salience during the COVID-19 pandemic: Integrating terror management theory with regulatory focus theory.

Cited by 19 publications

References 77 publications

Management Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review

Management Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review

Reflections on the Journal of Applied Psychology in times of change.

A Perspective on the Influence of National Corporate Governance Institutions and Government’s Political Ideology on the Speed to Lockdown as a Means of Protection Against Covid-19

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About