Jamie Gloor

Humor is prolific across our professional lives. Most humor research in organizations has focused on leaders’ humor, showing that more humorous leaders are better leaders. But a key feature of professional contexts—hierarchy—deeply shapes the nature and effects of humor, particularly for understudied groups: followers and those who are relatively lower in the hierarchy. In this interdisciplinary review of upward humor, we consolidate key themes across theories and literatures to propose an overarching model of behavioral humor while also parsimoniously organizing key outcomes along agency and communality. So, as alluded in our title, upwardly humorous employees can be viewed as friend—or fiend—generating more variable reactions than leaders due to their relatively lower position in the hierarchy.

In a series of studies using mixed methods, we develop a new measure of leader narcissism to examine the competing effects of strategic leader narcissism and gender on firm Environmental Performance.

Perceptions of others’ work-family conflict (WFC) have typically been studied as a top-down phenomenon grounded in gender role theory; this work generally reveals negative career consequences for followers ascribed higher WFC—particularly women. However, we know less about how those lower in organizational hierarchies (e.g., followers) notice and behave in response to leaders’ WFC, and if these reactions differ for male and female leaders. Integrating prosocial motivation theory, we propose that followers perceive leaders’ WFC and respond to it positively because they want to help these leaders. We argue that this effect is especially pronounced for male leaders, because higher WFC positively violates gendered stereotypes surrounding care and communality. Results from a multi-source field study of leaders and followers (144 matched dyads from 144 followers and 268 leaders; total N = 412) showed initial support for our model, which we then causally replicated and extended via an experimental recall study (N = 468) and a behavioral vignette experiment (N = 420). This research marks a theoretical integration between WFC and prosocial motivation, highlighting a new behavioral bonus wherein leaders’ ostensibly negative state—WFC—elicits arguably unintentional positive behavioral effects in the form of more interpersonal helping from their followers. This research fits well with the conference theme by integrating a darker side of leadership and examining how it (arguably unintentionally) stimulates positive follower behaviors, thereby exposing a critical leader-follower dynamic between leaders at the work-family interface.

Integrating a social identity approach with Cortina’s (2008) theorizing about selective incivility as modern discrimination, we examine how identification—with an organization, with one’s gender, and as a feminist—shapes bystanders’ interpretations and responses to witnessed incivility (i.e., interpersonal acts of disrespect) and selective incivility (i.e., incivility motivated by targets’ social group membership) towards women at work. We propose that bystanders with stronger organizational identification are less likely to perceive incivility towards female colleagues as discrimination and intervene, but female bystanders with stronger gender identification are more likely to do so. Results from two-wave field data in a cross-lagged panel design (Study 1, N = 336) showed that organizational identification negatively predicted observed selective incivility one year later but revealed no evidence of an effect of female bystanders’ gender identification. We replicated and extended these results with a vignette experiment (Study 2, N = 410) and an experimental recall study (Study 3, N = 504). Findings revealed a “dark side” of organizational identification: strongly identified bystanders were less likely to perceive incivility as discrimination, but there were again no effects of women’s gender identification. Study 3 also showed that bystander feminist identification increased intervention via perceived discrimination. These results raise doubts that female bystanders are more sensitive to recognizing other women’s mistreatment as discrimination, but more strongly identified feminists (male or female) were more likely to intervene. Although strongly organizationally identified bystanders were more likely to overlook women’s mistreatment, they were also more likely to intervene once discrimination was apparent.

This Professional Development Workshop (PDW) is intended for those interested in registered research, either from the author or editor perspective. In the spirit of Creating a Better World Together, by creating better research together, five panelists will represent various approaches to the registered research process, including those who have published registered research articles, those who have edited registered research special issues, and editors who have embraced this process. Each panelist will discuss the requirements for a successful registered research manuscript, which he or she has learned in a career as author, reviewer, or editor. In addition, each panelist will share thoughts regarding the analysis of the process, including any specific changes to one’s past research process, and recommendations for how authors should approach this process in the future. Each panelist will detail necessary action steps, including requirements for reviewers for these journals. After the panelists conclude their remarks, attendees will break into smaller roundtable groups, ordered by topical area and research interest. The session will conclude a debriefing, where each roundtable group will share their experiences and best practices for those choosing registered research. Our goal is to help make the registered research process available and more effective for those in the field by enhancing rigor, relevance, and creating better relationships throughout the publication process. PDW organized by Gretchen Lester (SJSU) and Michelle Hammond (Oakland). Jamie Gloor was a panelist alongside Willian J. Gardner (Texas Tech and LQ AE), Floor Rink (Groningen and AMJ AE), Birgit Schyns (NEOMA and author of pre-registered research at LQ), and Rachel Clapp-Smith (Purdue, Editor for LQ's special issue on pre-registered research)

Research impact is girded by a solid foundation of effective Knowledge Exchange -- i.e., a two-way flow between researchers and end-users of ideas, research evidence, experiences, and skills. However, many of the "best" researchers deploy few strategies beyond teaching, websites, and social media; even fewer can confidently capture public engagement and evaluate its impact. This Professional Development Workshop (PDW) will explore the benefits of humor at work and exploit comedy as a tool of connection to build individual scholars' capacities for science communication and research impact. Participants will receive expert media training in writing and performing comedic delivery of research insights, culminating in a live comedy show!

While prior research has established that CEOs make a difference in firm environmental performance (EP), we know little about why some CEOs perform better on EP than others. Using a microfoundations approach, we theorize a joint effect of CEO gender and narcissism on EP, moderated further by positive media and stakeholder attention. Using a mixed-methods research design, we develop and validate a new measure of grandiose narcissism based on Big Five CEO personality in a pilot experiment. We apply this new measure to panel data from S&P 1500 firms to test and confirm our hypotheses. Finally, we conduct a between-subjects experiment to establish causal relations. We discuss the implications of bridging micro-macro approaches and considering CEO gender and personality in context for research and practice.