Broadening our sights: Expanding the consequences of allyship for allies.

Scholars are increasingly recognizing that allyship affects allies themselves. Although existing scholarship covers a multitude of constructs, most of the literature focuses on social evaluations and their effects on allyship persistence. We posit that the dual focus on social evaluations and allyship persistence has limited the theoretical insights and applied relevance of scholarship on the consequences of allyship for allies.

Perceived personal and contextual impunity: Conceptualization, antecedents, and implications for workplace misconduct.

Scholarship on impunity has centered around quantifiable prosecutions related to criminal acts that often occur outside of the workplace. We offer insights into the psychological experience of impunity by shifting the focus to organizational settings and embedding impunity within discussions of workplace misconduct. We distinguish between (a) perceived personal impunity, which reflects employees' belief that they will not face punishment for their own misconduct; and (b) perceived contextual impunity, which reflects employees' belief that their organization will not punish employees for their misconduct.

The errors of experts: When expertise hinders effective provision and seeking of advice and feedback.

To be effective, experts need to simultaneously develop others (i.e. provide advice and feedback to novices) and advance their own learning (i.

It's not only what you do, but why you do it: How managerial motives influence employees' fairness judgments.

Although past research demonstrates that perceived fairness leads to many benefits, it also tends to assume that fairness flows almost exclusively from justice adherence. We instead reason that when employees form fairness judgments, they consider not only the extent to which supervisors adhere to justice but also why supervisors do so. In particular, our work outlines three distinct theoretical pathways to fairness.

Keeping it between us: Managerial endorsement of public versus private voice.

When employees use public settings such as team meetings to engage in -the expression of work ideas or concerns, they can spur useful discussions, action planning, and problem solving. However, we make the case that managers, whose support is essential for voice to have a functional impact, are averse to publicly expressed voice and prefer acting on voice that is privately brought up to them in one-on-one settings. Drawing on face management theory (Goffman, 1967), we argue that voice expressed in front of an audience, compared with that expressed one-on-one, is more threatening to the image that managers seek to portray as competent and unerring leaders, and that leads managers to respond more defensively to public voice and endorse it less.

I do not need feedback! Or do I? Self-efficacy, perspective taking, and feedback seeking.

A central idea in the feedback seeking literature is that there should be a positive relationship between self-efficacy and the likelihood of seeking feedback. Yet empirical findings have not always matched this theoretical claim. Departing from current theorizing, we argue that high self-efficacy may sometimes feedback seeking by making people undervalue feedback and that perspective taking is an important factor in determining whether or not this occurs.

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.

Regulating and facilitating: the role of emotional intelligence in maintaining and using positive affect for creativity.

Although past research has identified the effects of emotional intelligence on numerous employee outcomes, the relationship between emotional intelligence and creativity has not been well established. We draw upon affective information processing theory to explain how two facets of emotional intelligence-emotion regulation and emotion facilitation-shape employee creativity. Specifically, we propose that emotion regulation ability enables employees to maintain higher positive affect (PA) when faced with unique knowledge processing requirements, while emotion facilitation ability enables employees to use their PA to enhance their creativity.