Search results

This study relied on the affective events theory to test the mediating role of the ratio of emotions in the relationship between employees' perceived leadership effectiveness and their well-being at work.

A quantitative methodology was used, based on a deductive approach of a transversal nature. Data were collected from a convenience sample consisting of 255 working adults.

Structural equation modeling results demonstrated that perceived leadership effectiveness positively influenced well-being and the ratio of emotions, showing that when employees perceived their leader as effective, they tended to experience more positive emotions and less negative ones (as indicated by a positive ratio). Furthermore, the results supported the hypothesis that perceived leadership effectiveness influenced well-being through increases in the ratio of emotions.

The nature of the sample makes it impossible to generalize the results. Also, the fact that the questionnaires were self-reported may have biased the results because only the employees' perception of the variables under study was known.

This study highlights the fact that perceived leadership effectiveness can be seen as an affective event that triggers positive and negative emotional responses at work, which, in turn, will have an impact on employee well-being.

An effective leadership style has been shown to be pivotal in reducing the prevalence of negative emotions within a team. When leaders foster a welcoming work environment where team members enjoy their roles, it often results in heightened positive emotions and overall well-being.

This study tests the proprietary cost of reporting sustainability practices. It explores how market competition impacts the reporting of corporate sustainability information. Further, it examines whether the influence of market competition on sustainability reporting is affected by firm size.

It uses two samples of the UK FTSE 350 and German Frankfurt CDAX nonfinancial firms from 2010 to 2023. The sustainability reporting scores for UK and German firms are their Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) disclosure scores based on the Bloomberg disclosure index. The Herfindahl–Hirschman index has been utilized to measure a firm’s degree of market competition.

The results reveal that reporting sustainability practices is a negative function of the degree of market competition. Specifically, companies in highly competitive industries disclose less information about their sustainability practices, suggesting that firms view sustainability reporting as a potential source of competitive disadvantage and, therefore, choose to limit such disclosures to maintain a strategic advantage over rivals. Further, the findings reveal a negative impact of market competition on sustainability reporting among small firms. However, this effect is weak or absent among medium and large firms. The results are more observable in the liberal market economy (i.e. the UK) than in the coordinated market economy (i.e. Germany).

It provides implications for policymakers and market participants to advocate for more significant policies that promote transparency and encourage companies to report their sustainability practices and performance, especially companies in highly competitive industries.

It provides the first evidence of how market competition influences corporate sustainability reporting, adding a deeper insight into another non-financial dimension of sustainability reporting. Likewise, it reflects the varying priorities of companies of different sizes in managing both competition and sustainability reporting. Besides, it is the first to explore this nexus in two distinct jurisdictions: the UK and Germany.

This research relied on the broaden-and-build (B&B) theory to explore emotional predictors for curiosity-related differences in daily engagement and contextual performance. We tested a moderated mediation model, arguing that daily positive emotions would be related to daily work engagement and contextual performance.

A total of 586 participants participated in a five-day diary study (n = 2379).

Multi-level modeling showed that, at the person level of analysis, daily positive emotions were significantly and positively related to daily work engagement and, in turn, daily performance. At the daily level of analysis, the mediation model was moderated by curiosity, such that it became stronger for individuals who scored higher on curiosity.

These findings make relevant theoretical contributions to understanding the power of curiosity for daily emotional dynamics in organizations. Compared to traditional between-person variables, these results also expand knowledge on within-person processes that explain daily work engagement and contextual performance. In sum, this study shows that “curiosity does not kill the cat”; instead, it makes it productive.