Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:17:09.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Gossiping about outsiders: How time-related work stress among collectivistic employees hinders job performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2019

Dirk De Clercq*
Affiliation:
Goodman School of Business, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario L2S 3A1, Canada
Inam Ul Haq
Affiliation:
Lahore Business School, The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan
Muhammad Umer Azeem
Affiliation:
School of Business and Economics, University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates the connection between employees’ experience of time-related work stress and their job performance, with a particular focus on the mediating role of their propensity to engage in negative gossip and the moderating role of their collectivistic orientation. The results based on multisource, three-wave data from employees, their peers, and supervisors in Pakistani organizations show that an important reason that time-related work stress might diminish job performance is that employees expend significant energy discussing their negative evaluations of other organizational members with peers, possibly as a way to protect their self-esteem resources. This mediating role of gossip is also invigorated by employees’ collectivistic orientation. For organizations, this study identifies a key mechanism – informal conversations with peers about the flaws of others in the organization – by which time-related stress prevents employees from allocating sufficient energy to completing their job tasks, and it reveals that this process is more likely among collectivistic employees.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2019

Introduction

Experiencing resource-draining workplace adversity represents a critical source of concern for employees, because it can hinder the quality of their organizational functioning, their mental well-being, and their performance (Abbas, Raja, Darr, & Bouckenooghe, Reference Abbas, Raja, Darr and Bouckenooghe2014; Demsky, Ellis, & Fritz, Reference Demsky, Ellis and Fritz2014; Hobfoll & Shirom, Reference Hobfoll, Shirom and Golembiewski2000; Perko, Kinnunen, & Feldt, Reference Perko, Kinnunen and Feldt2017; Tang, Au, Schwarzer, & Schmitz, Reference Tang, Au, Schwarzer and Schmitz2001). Understanding how adverse work circumstances might undermine employees’ ability to contribute to the organization accordingly is an important endeavor for organizational decision makers (McCarthy, Trougakos, & Cheng, Reference McCarthy, Trougakos and Cheng2016; Shaukat, Yousaf, & Sanders, Reference Shaukat, Yousaf and Sanders2017). For example, when they experience time-related work stress, employees perceive that they have insufficient time to complete their job duties (Durham, Locke, Poon, & McLeod, Reference Durham, Locke, Poon and McLeod2000; Gärling, Gamble, Fors, & Hjerm, Reference Gärling, Gamble, Fors and Hjerm2016; Parker & DeCotiis, Reference Parker and DeCotiis1983). Manifestations of time-related work stress include a conviction that they have too many responsibilities and too little time to fulfill them, a sense that they never have off time during their work hours, or the perception that they work so much that there is insufficient time left for other activities (Bouckenooghe, Raja, Butt, Abbas, & Bilgrami, Reference Bouckenooghe, Raja, Butt, Abbas and Bilgrami2017; Parker & DeCotiis, Reference Parker and DeCotiis1983). The experience of time-related work stress threatens employees’ well-being by compromising their perceived ability to meet preset performance standards, such that it also generates fears about their future career prospects (Avery, Tonidandel, Volpone, & Raghuram, Reference Avery, Tonidandel, Volpone and Raghuram2010; Beck & Schmidt, Reference Beck and Schmidt2013; Stiglbauer, Reference Stiglbauer2017).

To complement extant research that details these negative performance consequences of employees’ exposure to excessive time pressures, this study proposes an important reason why these experiences diminish job performance – namely, due to employees’ tendency to gossip or talk badly about other organizational members (Erdogan, Bauer, & Walter, Reference Erdogan, Bauer and Walter2015), in their effort to conserve their feelings of self-worth when faced with a threat of underperformance resulting from their time stress (Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll2001). Such negative gossip represents a specific form of deviant behavior, which Robinson and Bennett (Reference Robinson and Bennett1995) categorize according to two dimensions: the seriousness of its harm and the extent to which the behavior harms individuals instead of the organization in general. Negative gossip is a type of deviant behavior whose harmfulness is minor, and it is interpersonal rather than organizational in nature (Robinson and Bennett, Reference Robinson and Bennett1995).

We propose that to the extent that employees believe they have insufficient time to complete their job tasks, their resulting fear about their job prospects (Gärling et al., Reference Gärling, Gamble, Fors and Hjerm2016) may fuel their desire to maintain their self-esteem by engaging in negative gossip and pointing out the inadequacies of others (Brady, Brown, & Liang, Reference Brady, Brown and Liang2017; Ellwardt, Wittek, & Wielers, Reference Ellwardt, Wittek and Wielers2012; Noon & Delbridge, Reference Noon and Delbridge1993). Perceptions of workplace adversity create self-depreciating thoughts among employees (Akhtar & Shaukat, Reference Akhtar and Shaukat2016; Firth, Mellor, Moore, & Loquet, Reference Firth, Mellor, Moore and Loquet2004), yet previous research has not investigated how motives to conserve feelings of self-worth might enhance the propensity of time-pressured employees to engage in negative gossip about other organizational members (Erdogan, Bauer, & Walter, Reference Erdogan, Bauer and Walter2015; Kuo, Chang, Quinton, Lu, & Lee, Reference Kuo, Chang, Quinton, Lu and Lee2015). This enhanced propensity, somewhat paradoxically, might then decrease employees’ own ability to succeed in the execution of their job tasks though, because it requires valuable energy resources (Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll2001), in line with the argument that gossipers tend to suffer from enhanced anxiety levels and concerns about their organizational functioning when they talk badly about other organizational members (Jaeger, Skleder, Rind, & Rosnow, Reference Jaeger, Skleder, Rind, Rosnow, Goodman and Ben-Ze'ev1994; Michelson & Mouly, Reference Michelson and Mouly2004).

In addition, we argue that the mediating role of negative gossip behaviors might be especially salient among employees whose strong collectivistic orientation leads them to protect the interest of their in-group, defined herein as coworkers who belong to their immediate work environment, potentially at the expense of outsiders from other work units (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, Reference Oyserman, Coon and Kemmelmeier2002; Triandis & Gelfand, Reference Triandis and Gelfand1998). The tendency towards intergroup competition that marks collectivists – and associated propensities to identify themselves strongly with people in their surrounding work environment but dissociate from outsiders who are more ‘remote’ in the organization (Smith & Bond, Reference Smith and Bond1993; Triandis, Reference Triandis2001) – might make it more likely that employees engage in negative gossip targeted at outsiders to preserve their self-esteem in the presence of time-related work stress.

Conservation of resources (COR) theory

To substantiate these theoretical arguments, the current study draws from COR theory, which asserts that employees’ work behaviors reflect their motivation to prevent resource losses and obtain resource gains (Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll1989). A threat of resource loss due to unfavorable work conditions spurs employees to undertake behaviors that counter such an occurrence (Hobfoll & Shirom, Reference Hobfoll, Shirom and Golembiewski2000). For example, the threat of not being able to fulfill their job duties due to excessive time pressures may generate a loss of the resource of employees’ self-esteem (Ford & Jin, Reference Ford and Jin2015; Gärling et al., Reference Gärling, Gamble, Fors and Hjerm2016; Höge, Reference Höge2009). In turn, they may seek to undo that loss by engaging in negative gossip about other members of the organization, to present themselves in a more positive light (Grosser, Lopez-Kidwell, Labianca, & Ellwardt, Reference Grosser, Lopez-Kidwell, Labianca and Ellwardt2012; Noon & Delbridge, Reference Noon and Delbridge1993). Thus, investing personal energy in negative evaluations of others might help mitigate employees’ self-depreciation when they experience significant time stress; however, it could also be detrimental, in that the anxiety and potential for guilt that results from negative work behaviors (Michelson & Mouly, Reference Michelson and Mouly2004; Tangney, Wagner, Hill-Barlow, Marschall, & Gramzow, Reference Tangney, Wagner, Hill-Barlow, Marschall and Gramzow1996; Wicker, Payne, & Morgan, Reference Wicker, Payne and Morgan1983) can leave the actors with insufficient energy resources to perform productive activities and meet their performance requirements (Hobfoll & Shirom, Reference Hobfoll, Shirom and Golembiewski2000).

Moreover, COR theory suggests that employees’ personal characteristics can invigorate the processes that seek to generate resources in response to the threat of resource-depleting work conditions (Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll2001; Hobfoll & Shirom, Reference Hobfoll, Shirom and Golembiewski2000). In particular, employees’ collectivistic orientation might generate personal satisfaction with gossip as a response to time-related work stress, because their desire to distinguish themselves from and compete with outsiders, and associated motivation to protect the interest of their in-group, means that time-pressured employees likely recognize the benefits of maintaining their collective standing by highlighting the inadequacies of outsiders (Gundlach, Zivnuska, & Stoner, Reference Gundlach, Zivnuska and Stoner2006; Noon & Delbridge, Reference Noon and Delbridge1993). In short, this study investigates how the personal characteristic of a collectivistic orientation might stimulate the translation of employees’ time-related work stress into negative gossip about others and thus their poorer job performance.

Contributions

This study seeks to make several contributions. First, by drawing from COR theory, it clarifies how the experience of time-related work stress can diminish employees’ job performance, because they devote energy-consuming efforts to negative evaluations of other organizational members (Erdogan, Bauer, & Walter, Reference Erdogan, Bauer and Walter2015), in an attempt to underscore their flaws while conserving their own self-esteem (Hobfoll & Shirom, Reference Hobfoll, Shirom and Golembiewski2000; Wert & Salovey, Reference Wert and Salovey2004). This behavioral response to excessive time pressures can undermine employees’ ability to perform their job tasks, because they spend so much valuable energy gossiping with peers about the negative features of other members (Quinn, Spreitzer, & Lam, Reference Quinn, Spreitzer and Lam2012). That is, significant efforts to underscore the shortcomings of other organizational members may distract them from performing their own job duties (Brady, Brown, & Liang, Reference Brady, Brown and Liang2017; Grosser et al., Reference Grosser, Lopez-Kidwell, Labianca and Ellwardt2012; Hockey, Reference Hockey1997). The propensity to elaborate on others’ flaws in conversations with peers is an unexplored mechanism through which time-related work stress might cause employees to underperform. Notably, by pinpointing the critical role of negative gossip behavior in connecting time-related work stress with reduced job performance, we complement evidence regarding the potentially positive outcomes of gossip, such that it might spur intra-organizational information exchanges or provide opportunities to vent work-related frustrations (Beersma & Van Kleef, Reference Beersma and Van Kleef2011; Feinberg, Willer, Stellar, & Keltner, Reference Feinberg, Willer, Stellar and Keltner2012). This study instead acknowledges the dark side of gossip and its potentially negative performance consequences, as informed by the enhanced stress levels that it generates (Bergmann, Reference Bergmann1993; Jaeger et al., Reference Jaeger, Skleder, Rind, Rosnow, Goodman and Ben-Ze'ev1994; Michelson & Mouly, Reference Michelson and Mouly2004) and the possibility that this behavior might be perceived as dysfunctional or subversive by other organizational members (Erdogan, Bauer, & Walter, Reference Erdogan, Bauer and Walter2015; Farley, Reference Farley2011; Grosser, Lopez-Kidwell, & Labianca, Reference Grosser, Lopez-Kidwell and Labianca2010).

Second, this study advances prior research by examining when the translation of time-related work stress into diminished job performance through negative gossip might be more likely. Previous research suggests that employees’ collectivistic orientation increases their propensity to protect the interest of their immediate peers, such that they compare the accomplishments of their in-group with those of out-group members (Lam, Liu, & Loi, Reference Lam, Liu and Loi2016; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, Reference Oyserman, Coon and Kemmelmeier2002) and accentuate the competition for organizational rewards (Gomez, Kirkman, & Shaprio, Reference Gomez, Kirkman and Shaprio2000; Smith & Bond, Reference Smith and Bond1993). By addressing a more indirect influence of this personal characteristic, we predict that it catalyzes a sense of personal satisfaction when time-pressured employees seek to enhance their relative attractiveness with negative gossip about others (Grosser et al., Reference Grosser, Lopez-Kidwell, Labianca and Ellwardt2012; Noon & Delbridge, Reference Noon and Delbridge1993). In turn, to the extent that employees’ collectivistic orientation invigorates the positive effect of resource-draining time stress on their negative gossip behaviors, it may further undermine their ability to devote sufficient energy to performance-enhancing activities (Hobfoll & Shirom, Reference Hobfoll, Shirom and Golembiewski2000; Quinn, Spreitzer, & Lam, Reference Quinn, Spreitzer and Lam2012). The consideration of this potential role of a collectivistic orientation also extends previous studies of the contingent roles of other personal characteristics, such as a power distance orientation (Lin, Wang, & Chen, Reference Lin, Wang and Chen2013) or conscientiousness (Taylor & Kluemper, Reference Taylor and Kluemper2012), in terms of how employees react to resource-draining work conditions.

Third, this research responds to calls for studies of job stress in organizations in non-Western settings (De Clercq, Haq, & Azeem, Reference De Clercq, Haq and Azeem2017; Jam, Donia, Raja, & Ling, Reference Jam, Donia, Raja and Ling2017; Jamal, Reference Jamal2010; So, West, & Dawson, Reference So, West and Dawson2011). The empirical context is Pakistan, a country marked by high levels of uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, Reference Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov2010). People in cultures that tend to avoid risk often feel threatened when they must operate under resource-draining work conditions (Abbas et al., Reference Abbas, Raja, Darr and Bouckenooghe2014), so their motivation to conserve their self-esteem resources by emphasizing the inadequacies of other organizational members might be stronger. Moreover, the study of collectivistic orientation, as a critical personal feature, should be highly relevant in Pakistani culture, with its high scores on collectivism (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, Reference Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov2010), though previous research also cites the wide variation within any a particular country in how individual members score on their countries’ average cultural values (Hui & Triandis, Reference Hui and Triandis1986; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, Reference Oyserman, Coon and Kemmelmeier2002). Therefore, our focus on the role of employees’ collectivistic orientation for invigorating the influence of time-related work stress on their gossip behaviors and reduced-job performance is highly relevant in this context and for other countries with similar cultural profiles.

As the conceptual framework in Figure 1 predicts, employees’ experience of time-related work stress should stimulate their engagement in gossip behaviors with peers, which diminish their ability to dedicate significant energy to meeting their job requirements. Thus, the time invested in negative evaluations of others helps explain why time-related work stress diminishes job performance. Employees’ collectivistic orientation in turn serves as a trigger, such that the conversion of time-related work stress into reduced-job performance, through negative gossip behavior, becomes more likely when employees emphasize in-group over out-group interests.

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

Hypotheses

Mediating role of negative gossip with peers

According to COR theory, employees seek to protect their personal resource bases in the presence of work adversity (Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll1989, Reference Hobfoll2001). Notably, the frustration they suffer when they have insufficient time to complete their job tasks threatens their self-worth, because they perceive themselves as incapable of meeting the expectations that their organization has set forth (Beck & Schmidt, Reference Beck and Schmidt2013; Gärling et al., Reference Gärling, Gamble, Fors and Hjerm2016; Höge, Reference Höge2009). Therefore, time-pressured employees may desire to emphasize how other organizational members might be performing even worse than they are (Erdogan, Bauer, & Walter, Reference Erdogan, Bauer and Walter2015), because such negative evaluations help them conserve or protect their personal self-esteem resources (Avery et al., Reference Avery, Tonidandel, Volpone and Raghuram2010; Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll2001; Russ-Eft, Reference Russ-Eft2001). This process transfers the focus, from their own inadequacies to those of other people in the organization, thereby preserving feelings of self-worth (Brady, Brown, & Liang, Reference Brady, Brown and Liang2017; Noon & Delbridge, Reference Noon and Delbridge1993). Ultimately, employees may maintain a more positive image of themselves, even if they cannot handle the time pressures they face, if they shift attention to the failures of others instead of their own (Grosser et al., Reference Grosser, Lopez-Kidwell, Labianca and Ellwardt2012; Kuo et al., Reference Kuo, Chang, Quinton, Lu and Lee2015).

Hypothesis 1

There is a positive relationship between employees’ experience of time-related work stress and their undertaking of negative gossip with peers.

Yet this negative behavior could also harm their job performance. According to COR theory, employees’ allocation of personal energy resources to negative work behaviors, such as spreading negative rumors about others’ shortcomings (Erdogan, Bauer, & Walter, Reference Erdogan, Bauer and Walter2015), leaves them with less energy to undertake productive, performance-enhancing activities (Grosser et al., Reference Grosser, Lopez-Kidwell, Labianca and Ellwardt2012; Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll2001). This energy-draining effect might stem from gossipers’ worries about the quality of their organizational functioning (Jaeger et al., Reference Jaeger, Skleder, Rind, Rosnow, Goodman and Ben-Ze'ev1994; Michelson & Mouly, Reference Michelson and Mouly2004) or sense of guilt and shame (Tangney et al., Reference Tangney, Wagner, Hill-Barlow, Marschall and Gramzow1996; Wicker, Payne, & Morgan, Reference Wicker, Payne and Morgan1983), which in turn might relate to their reduced likeability (Farley, Reference Farley2011) and less central positions in the intra-organizational network (Erdogan, Bauer, & Walter, Reference Erdogan, Bauer and Walter2015). Thus, their efforts to emphasize the failures of other organizational members might diminish employees’ own job performance, because of the energy depletion that comes with concerns about how they are perceived by other members, including the targets of their gossip but also supervisors (Bergmann, Reference Bergmann1993; Erdogan, Bauer, & Walter, Reference Erdogan, Bauer and Walter2015; Farley, Reference Farley2011); such energy cannot be allocated to their job tasks. Conversely, employees who refrain from negative gossip likely can devote more resources to productive activities that help them meet their performance requirements (Hobfoll & Shirom, Reference Hobfoll, Shirom and Golembiewski2000; Noon & Delbridge, Reference Noon and Delbridge1993). That is, when employees are not distracted by sharing their negative evaluations of others with peers, they can devote sufficient energy to activities that help them complete their job tasks (Quinn, Spreitzer, & Lam, Reference Quinn, Spreitzer and Lam2012). Consistent with these arguments,

Hypothesis 2

There is a negative relationship between employees’ negative gossip behavior with peers and their job performance.

The combination of these arguments suggests a critical mediating role of negative gossip behavior, such that it provides an explanatory mechanism for why the experience of time-related work stress undermines employees’ job performance. If employees who feel pressured by excessive time constraints devote significant energy to emphasizing the shortcomings of other organizational members, as a mechanism to conserve their feelings of self-worth (Avery et al., Reference Avery, Tonidandel, Volpone and Raghuram2010; Ellwardt, Wittek, & Wielers, Reference Ellwardt, Wittek and Wielers2012), it leaves them with less energy to undertake productive activities (Hobfoll & Shirom, Reference Hobfoll, Shirom and Golembiewski2000). Thus, suffering from time-related work stress may diminish job performance, because this adverse work condition steers employees to gossip about other members, rather than performing their job responsibilities (Quinn, Spreitzer, & Lam, Reference Quinn, Spreitzer and Lam2012). Previous research proposes mediating roles of other factors in this link between time stress and negative work outcomes, such as state-level goal orientations (Beck & Schmidt, Reference Beck and Schmidt2013) and job satisfaction (Silla & Gamero, Reference Silla and Gamero2014). As an extension, this study predicts that engaging in gossip mediates the effect of time-related work stress on job performance.

Hypothesis 3

Employees’ negative gossip behavior with peers mediates the relationship between their experience of time-related work stress and their job performance.

Moderating role of collectivistic orientation

According to COR theory, the motivation to conserve feelings of self-worth by undertaking negative gossip behaviors in response to time-related work stress should be reinforced by personal factors that generate positive feelings in response to such activities (Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll2001; Hobfoll & Shirom, Reference Hobfoll, Shirom and Golembiewski2000). We argue, then, that employees with a strong collectivistic orientation might enjoy spreading negative rumors about others in the organization when they suffer from time-related work stress, because doing so appears to be an acceptable, desirable response (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, Reference Oyserman, Coon and Kemmelmeier2002; Triandis, Reference Triandis2001). A notable characteristic of people with a strong-collectivistic orientation is that they behave distinctively in relation to their in-group compared with out-groups (Smith & Bond, Reference Smith and Bond1993). The behavioral outcomes of this personal characteristic thus are contingent on the specific target, underscoring the importance of the identities of others with whom a person might be collectivistic (Hui & Triandis, Reference Hui and Triandis1986). In particular, collectivistic employees tend to value close collaboration with people in their immediate work environment but compete with or distinguish themselves from outsiders beyond their inner circle (Gomez, Kirkman, & Shaprio, Reference Gomez, Kirkman and Shaprio2000; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, Reference Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai and Lucca1988).

In the context of this study, we postulate that employees who suffer from severe time pressures and have a strong collectivistic orientation may experience a strong sense of personal fulfillment when they shift attention away from their own inadequacies to the failures of other members who do not belong to their immediate work environment (Oyserman, Reference Oyserman1993; Ryan & Deci, Reference Ryan and Deci2000). In particular, employees with a strong collectivistic orientation tend to be energized by contrasting their own and their in-group's performance against the performance of out-groups in the same organization, who are seen as competitors (Gundlach, Zivnuska, & Stoner, Reference Gundlach, Zivnuska and Stoner2006; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, Reference Oyserman, Coon and Kemmelmeier2002), so they may feel particularly excited about underscoring these failures during peer conversations, as a mechanism to conserve their self-esteem (Gärling et al., Reference Gärling, Gamble, Fors and Hjerm2016; Stiglbauer, Reference Stiglbauer2017). Conversely, employees with a weak collectivistic orientation should derive less personal satisfaction from responding to this threat by highlighting the shortcomings of others, so they may be less likely to react to a resource-draining work situation by gossiping (Hobfoll & Shirom, Reference Hobfoll, Shirom and Golembiewski2000). They have less need to distinguish their own or in-group competencies from those of outsiders (Triandis & Gelfand, Reference Triandis and Gelfand1998; van Dyne, Vandewalle, Kostova, Latham, & Cummings, Reference van Dyne, Vandewalle, Kostova, Latham and Cummings2000) and thus should be less likely to invest personal energy to underscore the shortcomings of outsiders in conversations with peers. Formally,

Hypothesis 4

The positive relationship between employees’ experience of time-related work stress and negative gossip behavior with peers is moderated by their collectivistic orientation, such that this relationship is invigorated for employees with a stronger collectivistic orientation.

These arguments also indicate the presence of moderated mediation (Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, Reference Preacher, Rucker and Hayes2007), such that employees’ collectivistic orientation is a contingent factor that determines the indirect effect of their experience of time-related work stress on their job performance, through gossip behavior. For employees who derive personal satisfaction from comparing themselves and immediate peers with others who do not belong to their inner circle, discussing negative evaluations of those outsiders with peers should be a particularly important mechanism to conserve their self-esteem resources (Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll2001; Hobfoll & Shirom, Reference Hobfoll, Shirom and Golembiewski2000) and explain why they cannot meet their performance requirements (Beck & Schmidt, Reference Beck and Schmidt2013; Silla & Gamero, Reference Silla and Gamero2014). Conversely, if employees lack a strong tendency to contrast in-group performance with that of outsiders, the need to engage in gossip with peers to protect their self-esteem resources becomes less important, in terms of explaining how the experience of time-related work stress contributes to their diminished job performance (Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll2001).

Hypothesis 5

The indirect relationship between employees’ experience of time-related work stress and their job performance, through enhanced negative gossip behavior with peers, is moderated by their collectivistic orientation, such that this indirect relationship is invigorated for employees with a stronger collectivistic orientation.

Research method

Sample and data collection

We collected data from employees in 10 organizations in Pakistan, operating in four industry sectors, namely, automotive, banking, education, and textiles. The research design entailed three waves, with a time lag of two weeks between each wave. Although reverse causality cannot be completely ruled out with this relatively short time lag, the gaps reduce this risk, compared with cross-sectional designs. The surveys were written in English, which is the official language of business and education in Pakistan. During each round, the participants were guaranteed complete confidentiality; no individual identifying information would ever be communicated, and they could withdraw from the research whenever they wished. The surveys also emphasized that there were no right or wrong answers, that participants would vary in their answers to the questions, and that it was instrumental that their answers reflected their true opinions – measures that help diminish the likelihood of social desirability and acquiescence biases (Spector, Reference Spector2006).

The first survey wave asked employees to assess their time-related work stress and collectivistic orientation. The second wave captured their negative gossip behaviors, as assessed by randomly selected peers. These peers worked in the same department as the employees who participated in the first wave, and they had to have worked with these employees for at least six months, so they had sufficient knowledge about their colleagues’ work behaviors. Each peer rated no more than two employees, to prevent data nesting, consistent with previous research (Naseer, Raja, & Donia, Reference Naseer, Raja and Donia2016). In the third survey, the supervisors of the employees rated their job performance. Of the 400 originally administered surveys, we received 198 completed sets, for a response rate of 50%. The employee sample had the following characteristics: 10% were women, their average age was 32 years, and they had worked in their current job for an average of eight years.

Measures

The measures of the focal constructs include items validated by previous research, as detailed next. The scales used five-point Likert anchors that ranged from 1 (‘strongly disagree’) to 5 (‘strongly agree’).

Time-related work stress

We assessed employees’ experience of time-related work stress with an eight-item scale developed by Parker and DeCotiis (Reference Parker and DeCotiis1983) and used in previous research (e.g., Bouckenooghe et al., Reference Bouckenooghe, Raja, Butt, Abbas and Bilgrami2017). For example, employees responded to the following statements: ‘I have too much work and too little time to do it in,’ ‘I spend so much time at work that I can't see the forest for the trees,’ and ‘I feel like I never have a day off’ (Cronbach's α = .84).

Collectivistic orientation

We measured employees’ collectivistic orientation with a four-item scale of horizontal collectivism, developed by Triandis and Gelfland (Reference Triandis and Gelfand1998). This measure captures the extent to which employees see themselves and their peers as part of a collective of equal others. The survey emphasized that the items pertained to how employees feel about colleagues in their immediate work environment, such that they assessed their agreement with statements such as, ‘The well-being of my peers is important to me,’ ‘If a peer gets a prize, I would feel proud,’ and ‘I feel good when I cooperate with peers’ (Cronbach's α = .70).

Negative gossip behavior

To measure employees’ engagement in negative evaluations of other organizational members, we applied a four-item gossip scale developed by Erdogan, Bauer, and Walter (Reference Erdogan, Bauer and Walter2015), assessed by peers who had worked with the focal employees for at least six months in the same department. The items were preceded by a statement that explained that the term ‘peers’ refer to any colleagues who belong to the employees’ immediate work environment, whereas ‘other organizational members’ are people outside this work environment. Example items were, ‘This employee talks with his/her peers about the mistakes of other organizational members,’ ‘This employee talks with his/her peers about the poor performance of other organizational members,’ and ‘This employee talks with his/her peers about the failures of other organizational members’ (Cronbach's α = .91).

Job performance

To assess supervisor-rated job performance, we applied a previously validated seven-item scale developed by Williams and Anderson (Reference Williams and Anderson1991). Sample items included, ‘This employee adequately completes his/her assigned duties,’ ‘This employee meets the formal performance requirements of his/her job,’ and ‘This employee fulfills the responsibilities specified in his/her job descriptions’ (Cronbach's α = .79).

Control variables

The analyses also included four control variables: gender (1 = female), age (in years), organizational tenure (in years), and industry (using three dummies for automotive, banking, and education, with textiles as the base category).

Results

Table 1 provides the correlation coefficients and descriptive statistics, and Table 2 features the hierarchical regression results. Models 1–3 predict negative gossip behavior, and Models 4–6 predict job performance. For each model, the variance inflation factor values were lower than 5.0, so multicollinearity is not a concern (Aiken & West, Reference Aiken and West1991).

Table 1. Correlation table and descriptive statistics

Note. N = 198.

*p < .05; **p < .01.

Table 2. Regression results

Note. n = 198 (unstandardized regression coefficients).

+p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (two-tailed tests).

a The textiles industry is the base category.

Hypothesis 1 predicted that employees who suffer from excessive time pressures would be more likely to spend significant energy talking negatively about other organizational members during their conversations with peers. The positive relationship between time-related work stress and negative gossip behavior in Model 2 confirms this prediction (β = .306, p < .01). In support of Hypothesis 2, negative gossip prevents employees from allocating sufficient energy to performance-enhancing activities, as evidenced in the negative relationship between gossip behavior and job performance in Model 5 (β = −.293, p < .001).

The assessment of the mediating role of negative gossip behavior relied on the bootstrapping method developed by Preacher and Hayes (Reference Preacher and Hayes2004) and the Process macro developed by Hayes (Reference Hayes2013). This method provides confidence intervals (CIs) for the indirect effect of time-related work stress on job performance, thereby avoiding the statistical power problems that might arise due to asymmetric or other non-normal sampling distributions of the indirect effect (MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, Reference MacKinnon, Lockwood and Williams2004). With 10,000 random samples and replacement from the full sample (Shrout & Bolger, Reference Shrout and Bolger2002), the CI for the indirect effect of time-related work stress on job performance through negative gossip behavior did not include 0 [−.100; −.018], which affirms the presence of mediation.

The test of the moderating effect of collectivistic orientation advanced in Hypothesis 4 relies on the interaction term of time-related work stress × collectivistic orientation to predict negative gossip behavior (Model 3). This interaction term is significant (β = .266, p < .05), as depicted in the relationship between time-related work stress and negative gossip behavior in Figure 2 at high and low levels of collectivistic orientation, according to a simple slope analysis (Aiken & West, Reference Aiken and West1991). According to this analysis, the relationship between time-related work stress and negative gossip behavior is positive and significant at high levels of collectivistic orientation (β = .492, p < .001) but not at low levels (β = −.040, ns), in line with Hypothesis 4.

Figure 2. Moderating effect of collectivistic orientation on the relationship between time-related work stress and negative gossip behavior.

Finally, the test for the presence of moderation mediation also drew on the Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (Reference Preacher, Rucker and Hayes2007) method and the Hayes (Reference Hayes2013) Process macro. Similar to the bootstrapping approach used to assess mediation, this method generates CIs rather than point estimates for the conditional indirect effects (MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, Reference MacKinnon, Lockwood and Williams2004). As specified in the Hayes (Reference Hayes2013) Process macro, the CIs pertain to different levels of the moderator (i.e., 10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th percentiles).Footnote 1 The bootstrap 95% CIs for the conditional indirect effect of time-related work stress on job performance at the 10th and 25th percentiles contained 0 ([−.059, .046] and [−.069, .010], respectively), but the intervals did not contain 0 at the 75th and 90th percentiles of collectivistic orientation ([−.109, −.019] and [−.150, −.028], respectively). Furthermore, the CI of the index of moderated mediation (Hayes, Reference Hayes2015) did not include 0 ([−.094; −.002]). Thus, collectivistic orientation invigorated the negative indirect effect of time-related work stress on job performance, through gossip, in support of Hypothesis 5 and the overall conceptual framework.

Discussion

This study extends previous research by examining the link between time-related work stress and job performance, with a particular focus on unexplored factors that might explain or influence this process. Consistent with COR theory (Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll1989, Reference Hobfoll2001; Hobfoll & Shirom, Reference Hobfoll, Shirom and Golembiewski2000), evaluations shared with peers about the shortcomings of other organizational members (Erdogan, Bauer, & Walter, Reference Erdogan, Bauer and Walter2015) represent critical mechanisms that explain why the threat of excessive time pressures leads to reduced-job performance, in that they help conserve employees’ self-esteem resources in the presence of resource-draining time stress (Höge, Reference Höge2009; Wert & Salovey, Reference Wert and Salovey2004) but simultaneously deplete their energy reservoirs for productive, performance-enhancing activities (Quinn, Spreitzer, & Lam, Reference Quinn, Spreitzer and Lam2012). This mediating role is also particularly prominent among employees with a strong collectivistic orientation (Triandis, Reference Triandis2001).

Previous studies consider various negative outcomes of the experience of time-related work stress, such as burnout (McGregor, Magee, Caputi, & Iverson, Reference McGregor, Magee, Caputi and Iverson2016), reduced mental well-being (Stiglbauer, Reference Stiglbauer2017), depressive symptoms (Ford & Jin, Reference Ford and Jin2015), and diminished performance (Beck & Schmidt, Reference Beck and Schmidt2013), but not how such work stress may hamper job performance because of employees’ propensity to allocate significant energy to negative work behaviors. To fill this gap, this study reveals that employees’ exposure to excessive time pressures may compromise their job performance because they respond by attempting to protect their self-esteem resources by elaborating on others’ shortcomings (Erdogan, Bauer, & Walter, Reference Erdogan, Bauer and Walter2015). Informal conversations about other people's inadequacies or underperformance, even if meant to make the time-pressured employees feel good about themselves (Grosser et al., Reference Grosser, Lopez-Kidwell, Labianca and Ellwardt2012; Noon & Delbridge, Reference Noon and Delbridge1993), actually deplete their energy and prevent them from devoting sufficient resources to meeting their performance requirements (Hobfoll & Shirom, Reference Hobfoll, Shirom and Golembiewski2000), consistent with previous studies that point to gossipers’ enhanced anxiety levels when they are perceived as less likeable or powerful by other members (Erdogan, Bauer, & Walter, Reference Erdogan, Bauer and Walter2015; Farley, Reference Farley2011; Michelson & Mouly, Reference Michelson and Mouly2004). That is, gossip might help time-pressured employees cope with self-depreciating thoughts and forget about their own failures (Beck & Schmidt, Reference Beck and Schmidt2013; Elfering, Grebner, & de Tribolet-Hardy, Reference Elfering, Grebner and de Tribolet-Hardy2013), but the associated energy depletion also makes it less likely that they can devote sufficient effort to positive, performance-enhancing activities.

This mediating role of gossip behavior in turn is moderated by employees’ collectivistic orientation, a personal characteristic that generates resource gains (i.e., personal satisfaction) when time-pressured employees compare themselves with other organizational members who do not belong to their in-group (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, Reference Oyserman, Coon and Kemmelmeier2002; Triandis, Reference Triandis2001). Negative gossip with immediate peers links the experience of time-related work stress to reduced-job performance more powerfully if employees bring up the inadequacies of other organizational members during these conversations (Erdogan, Bauer, & Walter, Reference Erdogan, Bauer and Walter2015). In elucidating this moderated mediation effect, the current study shows how the likelihood that time-pressured employees’ negative evaluations of others – as a means to conserve their feelings of self-worth by shifting attention away from their own inadequacies to those of other members – can escalate into even lower job performance if their collectivistic orientation fuels their desire to spread negative rumors (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, Reference Oyserman, Coon and Kemmelmeier2002).

In summary, this study offers an elaborated understanding of the factors that influence the connection between time-related work stress and job performance. It contributes to extant research by showing how (1) the significant allocation of energy to engaging in gossip functions as a critical mechanism that links an important source of workplace adversity (time stress) to reduced-job performance and (2) employees’ collectivistic orientation triggers this process.

Limitations and future research

This study has some limitations that suggest avenues for further research. First, the focus on gossip as a prominent causal mechanism for explaining the harmful role of time-related work stress on job performance was informed by the need to investigate how negative work behaviors, in response to workplace adversity, prevent employees from allocating their energy to productive, performance-enhancing activities (Berry, Carpenter, & Barratt, Reference Berry, Carpenter and Barratt2012; Cohen, Reference Cohen2016). However, other mediating mechanisms might have influences as well, including negative work attitudes such as job dissatisfaction (Turnley & Feldman, Reference Turnley and Feldman2000) or work disengagement (Aslam, Muqadas, Imran, & Rahman, Reference Aslam, Muqadas, Imran and Rahman2018). An interesting extension would be to investigate the mediating effect of more ‘extreme’ manifestations of organizational deviance, such as property damage or personal aggression (Robinson & Bennett, Reference Robinson and Bennett1995). For example, reduced job performance, in reaction to excessive time pressures, might be greater to the extent that employees respond to time pressures with deviant behaviors that are more aggressive and energy-consuming (Quinn, Spreitzer, & Lam, Reference Quinn, Spreitzer and Lam2012). In this sense, our focus on negative gossip as a ‘mild’ form of deviant behavior (Robinson & Bennett, Reference Robinson and Bennett1995) represents a conservative test of the theoretical arguments.

In a related vein, this study does not provide a direct measure of the theorized focal mechanism that links time-related work stress and gossip behavior, namely, the desire to conserve feelings of self-worth. Nor does it measure the energy depletion that underpins the negative relationship between gossip behavior and job performance. These mechanisms are grounded in the well-established COR theory – that is, employees exposed to resource-draining work conditions seek to mitigate resource losses with specific behaviors, yet these behaviors in turn can deplete the energy resources that employees need to perform their job duties (Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll2001; Hobfoll & Shirom, Reference Hobfoll, Shirom and Golembiewski2000) – but further investigations could assess them more directly. For example, it would be interesting to study why, or in what circumstances, the energy-draining, performance-reducing effect of talking badly about colleagues, as empirically found herein, might be countered by a sense of relief when employees can vent their frustrations about adverse work conditions in the form of gossiping behavior (Beersma & Van Kleef, Reference Beersma and Van Kleef2011).

Second, collectivistic orientation is a critical contingency factor that invigorates the indirect relationship between the experience of time-related work stress and reduced job performance, but further investigations could consider the influences of other personal factors. For example, employees’ neuroticism (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, Reference De Hoogh and Den Hartog2009) or Machiavellianism (Zagenczyk, Restubog, Kiewitz, Kiazad, & Tang, Reference Zagenczyk, Restubog, Kiewitz, Kiazad and Tang2014), might catalyze the translation of time-related work stress into negative gossip behavior and lower job performance. Negative organizational factors could also lead employees to let their frustration with time pressures escalate into gossip behavior, such as an organizational climate marked by dysfunctional politics (Abbas et al., Reference Abbas, Raja, Darr and Bouckenooghe2014) or strong internal rivalry for company resources (Luo, Slotegraaf, & Pan, Reference Luo, Slotegraaf and Pan2006).

Third, our sample consists of organizations that operate in four different industries, and we accordingly controlled for industry. Finding empirical support for the theorized relationships, after accounting for industry effects, implies that the effects of the focal variables are robust, irrespective of pertinent industry-specific factors. Nonetheless, we acknowledge the possibility of omitted variable bias, so continued studies might test additional variables that speak to the professional cultures or the preferred organizational designs that permeate a particular industry, such as the extent to which established industry practices support excessive time pressures or embrace group harmony and intra-organizational collaboration versus competition. Furthermore, an organization's internal work culture might be directly influenced by the competitive dynamics in its industry, so it would be useful to investigate relevant factors, such as the extent of market dynamism or competitive rivalry in the industry (Cui, Griffith, & Cavusgil, Reference Cui, Griffith and Cavusgil2005). Perhaps employees whose organizations operate in industries with unpredictable or intensive competitive dynamics appreciate that their employer needs to impose stringent time pressures on its employee bases, to survive in the external market (Lahiri, Pérez-Nordtvedt, & Renn, Reference Lahiri, Pérez-Nordtvedt and Renn2008). The likelihood that they respond to individual frustrations about excessive time pressures with negative gossip behavior might be subdued in this scenario.

Fourth, this study took place in one country. The characteristics of Pakistani culture (i.e., high-uncertainty avoidance and collectivism) make it highly pertinent for examining the proposed theoretical framework (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, Reference Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov2010). The conceptual arguments are not tied to any specific country though, so the strength but not the nature of the hypothesized relationships may vary across country settings. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to undertake cross-country comparisons to assess whether and how the experience of time-related work stress may spur employees to engage in negative evaluations of other organizational members, as well as the role that different moderators might play in this process, in cultural contexts other than Pakistan. Such comparisons could test the robustness of the hypothesized relationships across countries, as well as investigate the possible interplay between individual- and country-level cultural factors in terms of how employees react to stressful work conditions.

Practical implications

Organizations should be cognizant that a substantial source of workplace adversity arises from employees’ stress about having insufficient time to meet their job obligations, and these feelings can spill over into negative work behaviors such as emphasizing other organizational members’ inadequacies and failures. Managers accordingly should seek to diminish time stress, though such efforts likely are complicated, because employees often are reluctant to admit that they cannot complete their job duties in the time allotted, to avoid perceptions of incompetency or unfavorable performance evaluations (Avery et al., Reference Avery, Tonidandel, Volpone and Raghuram2010). Through proactive efforts to identify excessive workloads and employees who suffer from severe time pressures, organizations might establish more specific, transparent job guidelines, especially among new hires (Saks, Uggerslev, & Fassina, Reference Saks, Uggerslev and Fassina2007). Training programs for newcomers could clearly explain expected performance targets and the paths by which employees can achieve these targets, to increase their ability to manage their time effectively.

Yet the presence of some time-related work stress might not be avoidable, particularly when external competitive pressures or work complexity is substantial (Avery et al., Reference Avery, Tonidandel, Volpone and Raghuram2010; Gärling et al., Reference Gärling, Gamble, Fors and Hjerm2016). This study shows that when employees feel stressed about having insufficient time to complete their job tasks, the conversion of that stress into dysfunctional gossip might be limited if the company seeks out employees who lack the natural tendency to speak badly about out-group members as a mechanism to protect their own and in-group interest. Moreover, organizational decision makers should seek to match employees’ immediate work context with appropriate selection mechanisms for particular work projects. For example, assigning employees who derive little joy from spending significant time gossiping about others behind their backs to projects with strict deadlines could reduce the likelihood that the time pressures will lead to derogatory comments about others’ inadequacies. Conversely, to the extent that employees derive personal joy from contrasting their in-group performance with that of outsiders, organizations might suffer more from harmful gossip if these employees experience significant time-related work stress, so they should actively seek to reduce such pressures.

Conclusion

This study extends previous research by investigating the harmful effect of employees’ time-related work stress on job performance, as well as the role that their gossip behavior and collectivistic orientations play in this process. The tendency to engage in negative evaluations of others’ shortcomings represents an important path by which the threat of excessive time pressures thwarts the ability to complete job tasks. The strength of this explanatory mechanism also increases to the extent that employees are collectivistic and feel energized by speaking negatively about outsiders. In turn, this study might serve as a platform for further research on how organizations can avoid the detrimental consequences of negative gossip, as well as its causes, such that employees can dedicate sufficient energy to positive, performance-enhancing activities, even in the presence of unfavorable work conditions.

Footnotes

1 In line with the theoretical framework, the model included a moderating effect of collectivistic orientation on the relationship between time-related work stress and negative gossip behavior but not between negative gossip behavior and job performance. A post hoc test affirmed that collectivistic orientation did not significantly influence this second relationship.

References

Abbas, M., Raja, U., Darr, W., & Bouckenooghe, D. (2014). Combined effects of perceived politics and psychological capital on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance. Journal of Management, 40, 18131830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Akhtar, S., & Shaukat, K. (2016). Impact of petty tyranny on alienation from work: Role of self-esteem and power-distance. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 17, 275285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aslam, U., Muqadas, F., Imran, M.K., & Rahman, U.U. (2018). Investigating the antecedents of work disengagement in the workplace. Journal of Management Development, 37, 149164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avery, D.R., Tonidandel, S., Volpone, S.D., & Raghuram, A. (2010). Overworked in America? How work hours, immigrant status, and interpersonal justice affect perceived work overload. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25, 133147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, J.W., & Schmidt, A.M. (2013). State-level goal orientations as mediators of the relationship between time pressure and performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 354363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beersma, B., & Van Kleef, G.A. (2011). How the grapevine keeps you in line: Gossip increases contributions to the group. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 642649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergmann, J. R. (1993). Discreet indiscretions: The social organization of gossip. New York: Aldinede Gruyter.Google Scholar
Berry, C.M., Carpenter, N.C., & Barratt, C.L. (2012). Do other-reports of counterproductive work behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 613636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bouckenooghe, D., Raja, U., Butt, A.N., Abbas, M., & Bilgrami, S. (2017). Unpacking the curvilinear relationship between negative affectivity, performance, and turnover intentions: The moderating effect of time-related work stress. Journal of Management and Organization, 23, 373391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, D.L., Brown, D.J., & Liang, L.H. (2017). Moving beyond assumptions of deviance: The reconceptualization and measurement of workplace gossip. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, A. (2016). Are they among us? A conceptual framework of the relationship between the dark triad personality and counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs). Human Resource Management Review, 26, 6985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cui, A.S., Griffith, D.A., & Cavusgil, S.T. (2005). The influence of competitive intensity and market dynamism on knowledge management capabilities of multinational corporation subsidiaries. Journal of International Marketing, 13, 3253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Clercq, D., Haq, I.U., & Azeem, M.U. (2017). Perceived threats of terrorism and job performance: The roles of job-related anxiety and religiousness. Journal of Business Research, 78, 2332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Hoogh, A.H.B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2009). Neuroticism and locus of control as moderators of the relationships of charismatic and autocratic leadership with burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 10581067.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Demsky, C.A., Ellis, A.M., & Fritz, C. (2014). Shrugging it off: Does psychological detachment from work mediate the relationship between workplace aggression and work-family conflict? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19, 195205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Durham, C.C., Locke, E.A., Poon, J.L., & McLeod, P.L. (2000). Effects of group goals and time pressure on group efficacy, information-seeking strategy, and performance. Human Performance, 13, 115138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elfering, A., Grebner, S., & de Tribolet-Hardy, F. (2013). The long arm of time pressure at work: Cognitive failure and commuting near-accidents. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22, 737749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellwardt, L., Wittek, R., & Wielers, R. (2012). Talking about the boss: Effects of generalized and interpersonal trust on workplace gossip. Group & Organization Management, 37, 521549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdogan, B., Bauer, T.N., & Walter, J. (2015). Deeds that help and words that hurt: Helping and gossip as moderators of the relationship between leader–member exchange and advice network centrality. Personnel Psychology, 68, 185214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farley, S.D. (2011). Is gossip power? The inverse relationships between gossip, power, and likability. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 574579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, M., Willer, R., Stellar, J., & Keltner, D. (2012). The virtues of gossip: Reputational information sharing as prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 10151030.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Firth, L., Mellor, D.J., Moore, K.A., & Loquet, C. (2004). How can managers reduce employee intention to quit? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 170187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, M.T., & Jin, J. (2015). Incongruence between workload and occupational norms for time pressure predicts depressive symptoms. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 88100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gärling, T., Gamble, A., Fors, F., & Hjerm, M. (2016). Emotional well-being related to time pressure, impediment to goal progress, and stress-related symptoms. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17, 17891799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomez, C., Kirkman, B.L., & Shaprio, D.L. (2000) Reward allocation preferences in Mexico and the United States: The effects of ingroup/outgroup status and collectivism. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 10971106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosser, T.J., Lopez-Kidwell, V., & Labianca, G. (2010). A social network analysis of positive and negative gossip in organizational life. Group & Organization Management, 35, 177212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosser, T.J., Lopez-Kidwell, V., Labianca, G., & Ellwardt, L. (2012). Hearing it through the grapevine: Positive and negative workplace gossip. Organizational Dynamics, 41, 5261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundlach, M., Zivnuska, S., & Stoner, J. (2006). Understanding the relationship between individualism-collectivism and team performance through an integration of social identity theory and the social relations model. Human Relations, 59, 16031632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, A.F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, A.F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50, 122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989). Conservation of resources. A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hobfoll, S.E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resource theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 337369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobfoll, S.E., & Shirom, A. (2000). Conservation of resources theory: Applications to stress and management in the workplace. In Golembiewski, R. T. (Ed.). Handbook of organization behavior (pp. 5781). New York: Dekker.Google Scholar
Hockey, G.R. (1997). Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under stress and high workload: A cognitive-energetical framework. Biological Psychology, 45, 7393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofstede, G.H., Hofstede, G.J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Höge, T. (2009). When work strain transcends psychological boundaries: An inquiry into the relationship between time pressure, irritation, work-family conflict and psychosomatic complaints. Stress and Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 25, 4151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hui, C.H., & Triandis, H.C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural researchers. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 17, 225248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, M.E., Skleder, A.A., Rind, B., & Rosnow, R L. (1994). Gossip, gossipers, gossipees. In Goodman, R. F. & Ben-Ze'ev, A. (Eds.). Good gossip (pp. 1124), Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Jam, F.A., Donia, M.B.L., Raja, U., & Ling, C.H. (2017). A time-lagged study on the moderating role of overall satisfaction in perceived politics: Job outcomes relationships. Journal of Management and Organization, 23, 321336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamal, M. (2010). Burnout among Canadian, Chinese, Malaysian and Pakistani employees: An empirical examination. International Management Review, 6, 3141.Google Scholar
Kuo, C.-C., Chang, K., Quinton, S., Lu, C.-Y., & Lee, I. (2015). Gossip in the workplace and the implications for HR management: A study of gossip and its relationship to employee cynicism. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26, 22882307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahiri, S., Pérez-Nordtvedt, L., & Renn, R.W. (2008). Will the new competitive landscape cause your firm's decline? It depends on your mindset. Business Horizons, 51, 311320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lam, L.W., Liu, Y., & Loi, R. (2016). Looking intra-organizationally for identity cues: Whether perceived organizational support shapes employees' organizational identification. Human Relations, 69, 345367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, W., Wang, L., & Chen, S. (2013). Abusive supervision and employee well-being: The moderating effect of power distance orientation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 62, 308329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, X., Slotegraaf, R.J., & Pan, X. (2006). Cross-functional ‘coopetition’: The simultaneous role of cooperation and competition within firms. Journal of Marketing 70, 6780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, J.M., Trougakos, J.P., & Cheng, B.H. (2016). Are anxious workers less productive workers? It depends on the quality of social exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 279291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGregor, A., Magee, C.A., Caputi, P., & Iverson, D. (2016). A job demands-resources approach to presenteeism. Career Development International, 21, 402418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelson, G., & Mouly, V.S. (2004). Do loose lips sink ships? The meaning, antecedents and consequences of rumour and gossip in organizations. Corporate Communications, 9, 189201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naseer, S., Raja, U., & Donia, M.B.L. (2016). Effect of perceived politics and perceived support on bullying and emotional exhaustion: The moderating role of Type A personality. Journal of Psychology, 150, 606624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noon, M., & Delbridge, R. (1993). News from behind my hand: Gossip in organizations. Organization Studies, 14, 2336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oyserman, D. (1993). The lens of personhood: Viewing the self, others, and conflict in a multicultural society. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 9931009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oyserman, D., Coon, H.M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, D.F., & DeCotiis, T.A. (1983). Organizational determinants of job stress. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 160177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perko, K., Kinnunen, U., & Feldt, T. (2017). Long-term profiles of work-related rumination associated with leadership, job demands, and exhaustion: A three-wave study. Work and Stress, 31, 395420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D., & Hayes, A.F. (2007). Assessing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, R.W., Spreitzer, G.M., & Lam, C.F. (2012). Building a sustainable model of human energy in organizations: Exploring the critical role of resources. Academy of Management Annals, 6, 337396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, S.L., & Bennett, R.J. (1995). A typology of deviant behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russ-Eft, D. (2001). Workload, stress, and human resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 13.3.0.CO;2-Q>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 6878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saks, A., Uggerslev, K.L., & Fassina, N.E. (2007). Socialization tactics and newcomer adjustment: A meta-analytic review and test of a model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 413446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaukat, R., Yousaf, A., & Sanders, K. (2017). Examining the linkages between relationship conflict, performance and turnover intentions: Role of job burnout as a mediator. International Journal of Conflict Management, 28, 423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrout, P.E., & Bolger, N. (2002) Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods 7, 422455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silla, I., & Gamero, N. (2014). Shared time pressure at work and its health-related outcomes: Job satisfaction as a mediator. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23, 405418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, P.B., & Bond, M. (1993). Social psychology across cultures. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
So, T.T.C., West, M.A., & Dawson, J.F. (2011). Team-based working and employee well-being: A cross-cultural comparison of United Kingdom and Hong Kong health services. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 305325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spector, P.E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiglbauer, B. (2017). Under what conditions does job control moderate the relationship between time pressure and employee well-being? Investigating the role of match and personal control beliefs. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 730748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, C. S.-K., Au, W.-T., Schwarzer, R., & Schmitz, G. (2001). Mental health outcomes of job stress among Chinese teachers: Role of stress resource factors and burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 887901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tangney, J.P., Wagner, P.E., Hill-Barlow, D., Marschall, D.E., & Gramzow, R. (1996). Relation of shame and guilt to constructive versus destructive responses to anger across the lifespan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 797809.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, S.G., & Kluemper, D.H. (2012). Linking perceptions of role stress and incivility to workplace aggression: The moderating role of personality. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 316329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Triandis, H.C. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality, 69, 907924.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Triandis, H.C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Triandis, H.C., & Gelfand, M.J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turnley, W.H., & Feldman, D.C. (2000). Re-examining the effects of psychological contract violations: Unmet expectations and job dissatisfaction as mediators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 2542.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dyne, L., Vandewalle, D., Kostova, T., Latham, M. E., & Cummings, L. L. (2000). Collectivism, propensity to trust and self-esteem as predictors of organizational citizenship in a non-work setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 323.3.0.CO;2-6>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wert, S.R., & Salovey, P. (2004). A social comparison account of gossip. Review of General Psychology, 8, 122137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wicker, E.W., Payne, G.C., & Morgan, R.D. (1983). Participant descriptions of guilt and shame. Motivation and Emotion, 7, 2539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, L.J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behavior. Journal of Management, 17, 601617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zagenczyk, T.J., Restubog, S.L., Kiewitz, C., Kiazad, K., & Tang, R.L. (2014). Psychological contracts as a mediator between Machiavellianism and employee citizenship and deviant behaviors. Journal of Management, 40, 10981122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

Figure 1

Table 1. Correlation table and descriptive statistics

Figure 2

Table 2. Regression results

Figure 3

Figure 2. Moderating effect of collectivistic orientation on the relationship between time-related work stress and negative gossip behavior.