4.4 Article

When lending an ear turns into mistreatment: An episodic examination of leader mistreatment in response to venting at work

期刊

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
卷 74, 期 1, 页码 175-195

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/peps.12418

关键词

experience sampling; interpersonal mistreatment; negative affect; venting

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Venting is a common coping mechanism in organizational settings, with potential benefits for the self but possible negative consequences for leaders. Research suggests that leaders with higher need for cognition are less influenced by venting and emotional expressions from others.
Venting-an emotion-focused form of coping involving the discharge of negative feelings to others-is common in organizational settings. Venting may benefit the self via the release of negative emotion, or by acting as a catalyst for changes to problematic work situations. Nonetheless, venting might have unintended consequences via its influence on those who are the recipients of venting from others. In light of this idea, we provide a theoretical explanation for how leaders in particular are affected by venting receipt at work. Drawing from the transactional model of stress, we theorize that venting tends to be appraised as a threat, which triggers negative emotion that, in turn, potentiates deviant action tendencies (i.e., interpersonal mistreatment). Yet, our theory suggests that not all leaders necessarily experience venting in the same way. Specifically, leaders with higher need for cognition are less influenced by surface-level cues associated with others' emotional expressions and find challenging interpersonal situations to be less aversive, thereby attenuating the deleterious effects of receipt of venting. In an experience sampling study of 112 managers across 10 consecutive workdays, we find support for our theoretical model. Altogether, our findings provide insight into the costs incurred when leaders lend an ear to those who vent, which can result in negative downstream consequences.

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

4.4
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