<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Mayer, D.M.</title>
    <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/22252/</link>
    <description>List of Publications</description>
    <language>en</language>
    
    <item>
      <title>When do leaders sacrifice?. The effects of sense of power and belongingness on leader self-sacrifice (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/34906/</link>
      <pubDate>2012-06-27T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Past research on leader self-sacrifice has focused entirely on the effects of this leader behavior on followers and its implications for organizations. The present research focused on antecedents of leader self-sacrifice. We argued that self-sacrifice is positively influenced by leaders' sense of belongingness to the group they supervise. Furthermore, leaders' subjectively sensed power can serve as a moderator of this effect. We expected this because a high sense of power is known to facilitate goal pursuit. Given that organizational goals often prescribe serving the interests of the organization, leaders' sense of belongingness should promote self-sacrifice particularly among leaders low in subjective power; leaders high in subjective power should display self-sacrifice regardless of their sense of belongingness. Two field studies supported these predictions. A final experiment supported a critical assumption underlying our argument in showing that the sense of power × sense of belongingness interaction is restricted to situations that prescribe cooperative goals. When situations prescribe competitive goals, this interaction was absent. </description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>When does procedural fairness promote organizational citizenship behavior? Integrating empowering leadership types in relational justice models (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/37714/</link>
      <pubDate>2012-03-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>We examined how procedural fairness interacts with empowering leadership to promote employee OCB. We focused on two core empowering leadership types-encouraging self-development and encouraging independent action. An experiment revealed that leaders encouraging self-development made employees desire status information more (i.e., information regarding one's value to the organization). Conversely, leaders encouraging independent action decreased employees' desire for this type of information. Subsequently, a multisource field study (with a US and German sample) showed that encouraging self-development strengthened the relationship between procedural fairness and employee OCB, and this relationship was mediated by employees' self-perceived status. Conversely, encouraging independent action weakened the procedural fairness-OCB relationship, as mediated by self-perceived status. This research integrates empowering leadership styles into relational fairness theories, highlighting that multiple leader behaviors should be examined in concert and that empowering leadership can have unintended consequences. </description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Leader mistreatment, employee hostility, and deviant behaviors: Integrating self-uncertainty and thwarted needs perspectives on deviance (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/30776/</link>
      <pubDate>2012-01-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Integrating self-uncertainty management and thwarted needs perspectives on leader mistreatment and workplace deviance, we examine when and why leader mistreatment is associated with workplace deviance. We propose that competence uncertainty strengthens the relationship between leader mistreatment and workplace deviance and that hostility mediates this interactive effect. Four field studies and one experiment support the hypotheses. The first two studies provide evidence for the predicted interaction between leader mistreatment and competence uncertainty, and the next three studies demonstrate that hostility mediates this interactive effect. We discuss an extended social exchange explanation of workplace deviance and highlight the psychological interplay between motives, cognition, and affect in reciprocating leader mistreatment. </description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Cooperating When “You” and “I” Are Treated Fairly: The Moderating Role of Leader Prototypicality (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/21200/</link>
      <pubDate>2010-11-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>We developed a model predicting that leaders are most effective in stimulating follower cooperation when they consistently treat all group members in a fair manner and are prototypical (i.e., representative of the group's values and norms). In support of this idea, we consistently found that group members cooperated most when prototypical leaders treated themselves as well as their coworkers fairly across a laboratory experiment and 3 cross-sectional field studies. These findings highlight the important role of others' fairness experiences and perceptions in influencing one's own reactions and also the role of leaders as representing the group's values and norms. We discuss implications for fairness theory and the leader prototypicality literature.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>When Do Procedural Fairness and Outcome Fairness Interact to Influence Employees’ Work Attitudes and Behaviors? The Moderating Effect of Uncertainty (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/20840/</link>
      <pubDate>2010-05-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Prior research has shown that procedural fairness interacts with outcome fairness to influence employees’ work attitudes (e.g., organizational commitment) and behaviors (e.g., job performance, organizational citizenship behavior), such that employees’ tendencies to respond more positively to higher procedural fairness are stronger when outcome fairness is relatively low. In the present studies, we posited that people’s uncertainty about their standing as organizational members would have a moderating influence on this interactive relationship between procedural fairness and outcome fairness, in that the interactive relationship was expected to be more pronounced when uncertainty was high. Using different operationalizations of uncertainty of standing (i.e., length of tenure as a proxy, along with self-reports and coworkers’ reports), we found support for this hypothesis in 4 field studies spanning 3 different countries.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>The Role of Authority Power in Explaining Procedural Fairness Effects (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/20868/</link>
      <pubDate>2010-05-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Building on fairness heuristic theory, fairness theory, and trust development models, we argue that unfairly enacted procedures decrease followers' trust in the authority particularly when authorities have high power over their followers. Moreover, we expected trust to mediate procedural fairness effects on followers' attitudes (authorities' legitimacy and charisma attributed to authorities) and organizational citizenship behavior. Procedural fairness effects on these variables, as mediated by trust, should therefore also be stronger when authority power is high. The results of a single- and multisource field study and a laboratory experiment supported these predictions. These studies support the role of authority power as a theoretically and practically relevant moderator of procedural fairness effects and show that its effectiveness is explained through trust in authorities.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>The Role of Authority Power in Explaining Procedural Fairness Effects (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/22424/</link>
      <pubDate>2010-05-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Building on fairness heuristic theory, fairness theory, and trust development models, we argue that unfairly enacted procedures decrease followers' trust in the authority particularly when authorities have high power over their followers. Moreover, we expected trust to mediate procedural fairness effects on followers' attitudes (authorities' legitimacy and charisma attributed to authorities) and organizational citizenship behavior. Procedural fairness effects on these variables, as mediated by trust, should therefore also be stronger when authority power is high. The results of a single- and multisource field study and a laboratory experiment supported these predictions. These studies support the role of authority power as a theoretically and practically relevant moderator of procedural fairness effects and show that its effectiveness is explained through trust in authorities.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Guest Editors’ Introduction On Understanding Ethical Behavior and Decision Making (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/21719/</link>
      <pubDate>2010-01-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Behavioral ethics is an emerging field that takes an empirical, social scientific approach to the study of business ethics. In this special issue, we include six articles that fall within the domain of behavioral ethics and that focus on three themes—moral awareness, ethical decision making, and reactions to unethical behavior. Each of the articles sheds additional light on the specific issues addressed. However, we hope this special issue will have an impact beyond that of the new insights offered in these articles, by stimulating evenmore research in this burgeoning field.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>When Does Self-Sacrificial Leadership Motivate Prosocial Behavior? It Depends on Followers' Prevention Focus (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/18662/</link>
      <pubDate>2009-07-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>In the present set of studies, the authors examine the idea that self-sacrificial leadership motivates follower prosocial behavior, particularly among followers with a prevention focus. Drawing on the self-sacrificial leadership literature and regulatory focus theory, the authors provide results from 4 studies (1 laboratory and 3 field studies) that support the research hypothesis. Specifically, the relationship between self-sacrificial leadership and prosocial behavior (i.e., cooperation, organizational citizenship behavior) is stronger among followers who are high in prevention focus. Implications for the importance of taking a follower-centered approach to leadership are discussed.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>