4.5 Article

My boss' passion matters as much as my own: The interpersonal dynamics of passion are a critical driver of performance evaluations

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
卷 43, 期 9, 页码 1496-1515

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/job.2554

关键词

job performance; motivation; passion; performance evaluations

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research shows that supervisors who successfully pursue their passion may overvalue passion in employee performance evaluations, leading to potential bias and offering new perspectives on managing upward for employees who help their supervisors pursue their passion.
Companies often celebrate employees who successfully pursue their passion. Academic research suggests that these positive evaluations occur because of the passion percolating inside the employee. We propose that supervisors are also a key piece of this puzzle: Supervisors who are more successful in their own pursuit of passion place more value on passion in their performance evaluations. This produces an interpersonal dynamic whereby employees who are more successful in pursuing their passion may receive higher performance ratings when their supervisors are also more successful in pursuing their passion. We provide support for this core hypothesis across a crowdsourced study with a heterogeneous sample (N = 106 subordinate-supervisor dyads), a field study with a financial services company (N = 321 subordinate-supervisor dyads), and a laboratory experiment (N = 205) that offers both causal and mediating evidence. Crucially, we demonstrate that this interpersonal dynamic is specific to passion and does not apply to less observable motivations (intrinsic and extrinsic motivation). These results demonstrate that supervisors who successfully pursue their passion may overvalue passion relative to other valuable attributes, leading to potential bias. They also give a new perspective on managing upward: Employees may further their own careers by helping their supervisors pursue their passion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据