Prototypical implicit followership theories, leader support, and follower organizational citizenship behavior

References

• Almeida, T., Ramalho, N. C., & Esteves, F. (2021). Can you be a follower even when you do not follow the leader? Yes, you can. Leadership, 17(3), 336–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715020987740
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avey, J. B., Palanski, M. E., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2011). When leadership goes unnoticed: The moderating role of follower self-esteem on the relationship between ethical leadership and follower behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4), 573–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0610-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avolio, B. J., Walumba, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 421–449. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2018). Multiple levels in job demands-resources theory: Implications for employee well-being and performance. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being (pp. 554–565). DEF Publisher.
   Google Scholar
• Bergeron, D. M. (2007). The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good citizens at what cost? Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1078–1095. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26585791
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernerth, J. B., & Aguinis, H. (2016). A critical review and best-practice recommendations for control variable usage. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 229–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, S., Stegmann, S., Hernandez Bark, A. S., Junker, N. M., & van Dick, R. (2017). Think manager—think male, think follower—think female: Gender bias in implicit followership theories. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(7), 377–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12445
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 389–444). Allyn and Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, E. M., Liao, H., Chuang, A., Zhou, J., & Dong, Y. (2017). Hot shots and cool reception? An expanded view of social consequences for high performers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(5), 845–866. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000183
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carsten, M. K., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2013). Ethical followership: An examination of followership beliefs and crimes of obedience. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051812465890
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, C. C., & Chiu, S. F. (2008). An integrative model linking supervisor support and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 23(1–2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-008-9084-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung, M. Z., Peng, K., & Wong, C. S. (2014). Supervisor attribution of subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior motives. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(8), 922–937. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-11-2012-0338
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1082–1103. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1082
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coyle, P. T., & Foti, R. (2015). If You’re not with me You’re. ? Examining prototypes and cooperation in Leader–follower relationships. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(2), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051814550830
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawes, R. M., & Mulford, M. (1996). The false consensus effect and overconfidence: Flaws in judgment or flaws in how we study judgment? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(3), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 627–647. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2010.53503267
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, J. A. (2003). The interactive effects of processing preference and motivation on information processing: Causal uncertainty and the MBTI in a persuasion context. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(2), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00537-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014891
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1577–1613. https://doi.org/10.2307/256822
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.565
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, A. P., Porter, C. O., & Mai, K. M. (2022). The impact of supervisor–employee self-protective implicit voice theory alignment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 95(1), 155–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12374
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004a). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.293
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004b). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.293
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epitropaki, O., Sy, T., Martin, R., Tram-Quon, S., & Topakas, A. (2013). Implicit leadership and followership theories “in the wild”: Taking stock of information - processing approaches to leadership and followership in organizational settings. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(6), 858–881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foti, R. J., Hansbrough, T. K., Epitropaki, O., & Coyle, P. T. (2017). Dynamic viewpoints on implicit leadership and followership theories: Approaches, findings, and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(2), 261–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.02.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foti, R., Hansbrough, T. K., Epitropaki, O., & Coyle, P. (2014). Special issue: Dynamic viewpoints on implicit leadership and followership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 411–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.02.004
   Google Scholar
• Gerard, H. B., & Orive, R. (1987). The dynamics of opinion formation. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, (Vol. 20, pp. 171–202). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60414-1
   Google Scholar
• Goswami, A., Carsten, M., & Coyle, P. (2022). Antecedents and consequences of leaders’ implicit followership theories. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 95(2), 495–520. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity—A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammond, M. M., Neff, N. L., Farr, J. L., Schwall, A. R., & Zhao, X. (2011). Predictors of individual-level innovation at work: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 90–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018556
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansbrough, T. K., & Jones, G. E. (2014). Inside the minds of narcissists: How narcissistic leaders’ cognitive processes contribute to abusive supervision. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 222(4), 214–220. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000188
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management and Organization, 10(4), 15–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.1980.11656300
   Google Scholar
• Humberg, S., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2019). Response surface analysis in personality and social psychology: Checklist and clarifications for the case of congruence hypotheses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(3), 409–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618757600
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Junker, N. M., & van Dick, R. (2014). Implicit theories in organizational settings: A systematic review and research agenda of implicit leadership and followership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(6), 1154–1173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kedharnath, U. (2011). The Influence of leaders’ Implicit Followership Theory on Employee Outcomes. [ Unpublished Master Dissertation], Colorado State University.
   Google Scholar
• Knoll, M., Schyns, B., & Petersen, L. E. (2017). How the influence of unethical leaders on followers is affected by their implicit followership theories. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 24(4), 450–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051817705296
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(4), 1075–1079. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164488484024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kristof-Brown, A. (2005). Consequences of individual’s fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam, C. F., Wan, W. H., & Roussin, C. J. (2016). Going the extra mile and feeling energized: An enrichment perspective of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(3), 379–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000071
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung, A., & Sy, T. (2018). I am as incompetent as the prototypical group member: An investigation of naturally occurring golem effects in work groups. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1581. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01581
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levitan, L. C., & Visser, P. S. (2008). The impact of the social context on resistance to persuasion: Effortful versus effortless responses to counter-attitudinal information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 640–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.03.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Licht, A. N., Goldschmidt, C., & Schwartz, S. H. (2007). Culture rules: The foundations of the rule of law and other norms of governance. Journal of Comparative Economics, 35(4), 659–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2007.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matta, F. K., Scott, B. A., Koopman, J., & Conlon, D. E. (2015). Does seeing “eye to eye” affect work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior? A role theory perspective on LMX agreement. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1686–1708. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mcnatt, D. B. (2000). Ancient Pygmalion joins contemporary management: A meta-analysis of the result. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 314–322. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.314
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng, T. W. H., & Sorensen, K. L. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the relationships between perceptions of support and work attitudes. Group & Organization Management, 33(3), 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601107313307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nie, Q., Peng, J., & Yu, G. (2023). Leader expectations facilitate employee pro-environmental behavior. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 32(2), 555–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12500
   Google Scholar
• Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Organ, D. W. (2018). Organizational citizenship behavior: Recent trends and developments. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 80(1), 295–306. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104536
   Google Scholar
• Orive, R. (1988). Group consensus, action immediacy, and opinion confidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14(3), 573–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167288143016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pelletier, L. G., & Vallerand, R. J. (1996). Supervisors’ beliefs and subordinates’ intrinsic motivation: A behavioral confirmation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.331
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peng, J., Chen, X., Nie, Q., & Wang, Z. (2020). Proactive personality congruence and creativity: A leader identification perspective. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 35(7/8), 543–558. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-10-2018-0444
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peng, J., Nie, Q., Chen, X., & Zhang, Z. (2023). Congruence in positive implicit followership theories, relational identification, and job performance: The moderating role of uncertainty avoidance. Journal of Management & Organization. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.44
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Priesemuth, M., Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Folger, R. (2014). Abusive supervision climate: A multiple-mediation model of its impact on group outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1513–1534. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rafferty, A. E., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2011). The influence of abusive supervisors on followers’ organizational citizenship behaviours: The hidden costs of abusive supervision. British Journal of Management, 22, 270–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00732.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riggs, B. S., & Porter, C. O. (2017). Are there advantages to seeing leadership the same? A test of the mediating effects of LMX on the relationship between ILT congruence and employees’ development. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(2), 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schyns, B., Kiefer, T., Kerschreiter, R., & Tymon, A. (2011). Teaching implicit leadership theories to develop leaders and leadership: How and why it can make a difference. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(3), 397–408. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shanock, L. R., Baran, B. E., Gentry, W. A., Pattison, S. C., & Heggestad, E. D. (2010). Polynomial regression with response surface analysis: A powerful approach for examining moderation and overcoming limitations of difference scores. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(4), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9183-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 689–695. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.689
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 456–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109351241
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snyder, M. (1992). Motivational foundations of behavioral confirmation. M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (Vol. 25, pp. 67–114). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60282-8
   Google Scholar
• Snyder, M. (1984). When belief creates reality. In L. Berkowitz.(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (Vol. 18, pp. 247–305). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60146-X
   Google Scholar
• Swann, W. B., & Ely, R. J. (1984). A battle of wills: Self-verification versus behavioral confirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(6), 1287–1302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.6.1287
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and consequences of implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiedens, L. Z., & Linton, S. (2001). Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: The effects of specific emotions on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 973–988. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.973
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2004). The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of Management, 30(3), 413–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2002.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Gils, S., Van Quaquebeke, N., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2010). The X-factor: On the relevance of implicit leadership and followership theories for leader–member exchange agreement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(3), 333–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320902978458
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Vianen, A. E. M. (2018). Person–environment fit: A review of its basic tenets. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 75–101. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104702
   Google Scholar
• Veestraeten, M., Johnson, S. K., Leroy, H., Sy, T., & Sels, L. (2021). Exploring the bounds of Pygmalion effects: Congruence of implicit followership theories drives and binds leader performance expectations and follower work engagement. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 28(2), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051820980428
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whiteley, P., Sy, T., & Johnson, S. K. (2012). Leaders’ conceptions of followers: Implications for naturally occurring Pygmalion effects. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 822–834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.03.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, Z., Wang, M. O., & Shi, J. (2012). Leader-follower congruence in proactive personality and work outcomes: The mediating role of leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0865
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar