Distances and directions: An emotional journey into the recovery process.

Positive emotions stemming from leisure activities are often promoted as a way to achieve a state of recovery, in particular by counteracting negative emotions experienced throughout the workday. Yet the recovery literature frequently takes an undifferentiated view of both the positive emotions employees experience as well as the negative emotions employees are recovering from. This implicitly assumes that all positive emotions are equally effective in facilitating recovery from all negative emotions. Drawing from theory treating emotional movements as a metaphorical journey, we develop a framework for understanding recovery that highlights the importance of the distance and direction that individuals "travel" when moving from negative emotions to positive emotions during the recovery process. We argue that the negative emotions that people start with from work-that is, their emotional origin-as well as the positive emotions that people end with following leisure activities-that is, their emotional destination-jointly influence the state of being recovered. Across two studies using experience-sampling methodologies, we find that "shorter" journeys consisting of emotional destinations that match the activation level of emotional origins (e.g., experiencing high activation positive emotion [HAP] to counter high activation negative emotion) are effective in promoting recovery, while "longer" journeys consisting of mismatches (e.g., experiencing HAP to counter low activation negative emotion) are ineffective for recovery. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Centralization of member voice in teams: Its effects on expertise utilization and team performance.

Voice, or the expression of work-related suggestions or opinions, can help teams access and utilize members' privately held knowledge and skills and improve collective outcomes. However, recent research has suggested that sometimes, rather than encourage positive outcomes for teams, voice from members can have detrimental consequences. Extending this research, we highlight why it is important to consider voice centralization within teams, or the extent to which voice is predominantly emanating from only a few members rather than equally spread across all members. We argue that, under certain circumstances, voice centralization is harmful to the utilization of members' expertise in the team and, thereby, to team performance. Specifically, we propose that voice centralization is likely to have negative effects when it occurs around members who are more socially dominant or are less reflective. We find support for our arguments in a sample of 78 teams (319 team members) working on graduate student projects in a business school over a semester. Overall, through our theory and results, we showcase why it is important for future studies to examine the distribution of voice among team members. (PsycINFO Database Record