Give them a fishing rod, if it is not urgent: The impact of help type on support for helpers' leadership.

Taking a follower's perspective on leadership and contributing to the new research stream on behaviors conducive to its emergence, we examined how distinct types of instrumental (task focused) helping-autonomy- versus dependency-helping-affected recipients' support for their helpers' leadership. Based on the literature on employees' needs for autonomy and mastery, combined with the empowering nature of autonomy-helping, we reasoned that autonomy- (vs. dependency-) helping typically signals greater benevolence toward recipients, enhancing their support for their helpers' leadership. Our findings were generalized across various samples (of U.S. and Israeli employees), manipulations, and research settings: simulations (Studies 1 and 2b), workplace role-play scenario (Study 2a), and recollections of helping events in the workplace (Study 3). We found that autonomy- (vs. dependency-) helping increased recipients' support for their helpers' leadership by heightening perceptions of helpers' benevolence-based (rather than ability-based) trustworthiness (Studies 1 and 3). We also showed time pressure to be a boundary condition under which the advantage of autonomy-helping disappeared (Studies 2a and 2b)-with dependency-helping then inducing comparable levels of perceived benevolence and thus similar support for the helper's potential leadership. Overall, we shed light on the development of informal leadership by uncovering how recipients interpret and respond to the two help types. Practically, this analysis opens the door to new ways for aspiring managers to enhance support for their leadership from potential followers, available even to those unlikely to be appointed to formal leadership positions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

The primacy of honest reputations.

Reputations play a pivotal role in everyday life, and having a good reputation is deemed a highly valuable currency in the social world. While much of the reputation literature insufficiently distinguishes between varying types of good (or 'cooperative') reputations-e.g., sociable versus honest, here we review recent research pointing to their distinctiveness. Moreover, countering the growing behavioral ethics literature documenting that people are sometimes dishonest, and in some cases, even believe dishonesty is appropriate and ethical, we assert that when it comes to reputations, honesty largely dominates. Specifically, we review recent work suggesting people are primarily concerned about acquiring and maintaining honest (vs. other commendable) reputations, as well as evidence of the substantial consequences of having an honest reputation.

Pay communication, justice, and affect: The asymmetric effects of process and outcome pay transparency on counterproductive workplace behavior.

Grounded on uncertainty management theory, the current research examines the role of employee justice perceptions in explaining the distinct effects of two forms of pay transparency-process versus outcome pay transparency-on counterproductive workplace behavior (CWB). Study 1, a field study of 321 employees, revealed that process pay transparency is inversely related to CWB targeting the organization (i.e., less CWB-O), with this effect explained by enhanced employee procedural justice perceptions. It also indicated, however, that among employees perceiving their pay position as being lower than that of referent others, outcome pay transparency is positively associated with both CWB-O and CWB-I (i.e., CWB targeting other employees), with this effect explained by reduced employee distributive justice perceptions. Study 2, using an online simulation-based experiment conducted on 394 employees and assessing actual deception behaviors (targeting both the agency sponsoring the study and other participants in the study), replicated these findings and extended our understanding of the negative consequences of outcome pay transparency on CWB. Specifically, when pay allocations were transparent (vs. secretive) and participant's pay was manipulated to be lower (vs. higher) than that of teammates, participants reported lower distributive justice perceptions leading to heightened deception behaviors, with this effect explained by a more negative emotional state. Theoretical and practical implications of both the positive and negative consequences of pay transparency on CWB are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Power matters: The role of power and morality needs in competitive victimhood among advantaged and disadvantaged groups.

Competitive victimhood denotes group members' efforts to establish that their ingroup has suffered greater injustice than an adversarial outgroup. Previous research in contexts of structural inequality has stressed the role of the need to defend the ingroup's moral identity, rather than the need for power, in leading advantaged and disadvantaged group members to engage in competitive victimhood. Focusing on the structural inequality between Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel (Study 1) and Israeli women and men (Study 2), we found that across all groups and contexts, power needs predicted competitive victimhood. Also, the need to protect the ingroup's moral reputation (i.e., defensive moral needs) positively predicted competitive victimhood, whereas among advantaged group members, the need to protect the ingroup's moral essence negatively predicted competitive victimhood. Finally, exploratory analyses revealed that competitive victimhood correlated, positively for advantaged and negatively for disadvantaged group members, with support for policies securing realistic and symbolic resources for the disadvantaged group. Theoretical and practical implications of these results, which are consistent with the logic of the needs-based model of reconciliation, are discussed.

Agents of Reconciliation: Agency-Affirmation Promotes Constructive Tendencies Following Transgressions in Low-Commitment Relationships.

Conflicting parties experience threats to both their agency and morality, but the experience of agency-threat exerts more influence on their behavior, leading to relationship-destructive tendencies. Whereas high-commitment relationships facilitate constructive tendencies despite the conflict, we theorized that in low-commitment relationships, affirming the adversary's agency is a prerequisite for facilitating more constructive tendencies. Focusing on sibling conflicts, Study 1 found that when commitment was low (rather than high), agency-affirmation increased participants' constructive tendencies toward their brother/sister compared with a control/no-affirmation condition. A corresponding morality-affirmation did not affect participants' tendencies. Study 2 replicated these results in workplace conflicts and further found that the positive effect of agency-affirmation in low-commitment relationships was mediated by participants' wish to restore their morality. Study 3 induced a conflict between lab participants and manipulated their commitment. Again, in the low- (rather than high-) commitment condition, agency-affirmation increased participants' wish to restore their morality, leading to constructive behavior.

Feeling both victim and perpetrator: investigating duality within the needs-based model.

Victimized versus perpetrating individuals or groups are known to experience enhanced needs for empowerment or acceptance, respectively. The present research examined the emotional needs and consequent anti- and prosocial behaviors (e.g., vengefulness vs. helpfulness) of individuals or groups serving both as victims and perpetrators simultaneously ("duals"). Focusing on interpersonal transgressions, Study 1 used variations of the dictator game to induce participants with victimization, perpetration, duality, or none (control). Duals showed heightened needs for both empowerment and acceptance and equal willingness to reconcile following either empowering or accepting messages from their adversaries. However, duals' need for empowerment overrode their need for acceptance in determining behavior. Similar to victims, and unlike perpetrators, duals showed greater antisocial (rather than prosocial) behavior. Study 2 replicated this pattern on the intergroup level, inducing Israeli Jews with victimization, perpetration, or duality using a recall task referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.