00557nas a2200133   4500008004100000245009300041210006900134260003000203653001500233100002400248700001600272700002200288856011300310       2017                        eng d00aThe daily Effects of Humble (Caring) Leadership Depend on Whether the Leader is Abusive.0 adaily Effects of Humble Caring Leadership Depend on Whether the   aCopenhagen, Denmarkc201710aManagement1 aSchilpzand, Pauline1 aCho, Jeewon1 aHouston, Lawrence  uhttps://business.oregonstate.edu/biblio/daily-effects-humble-caring-leadership-depend-whether-leader-abusive03066nas a2200157   4500008004100000245006300041210006300104260002600167300001000193520251600203653001502719100003102734700002402765700002102789856009802810       2013                        eng d00aDyadic Fit and the Process of Organizational Socialization0 aDyadic Fit and the Process of Organizational Socialization  aWiley-Blackwellc2013  a50-743 aPerson-environment fit matters. Research has repeatedly shown that employees who fit with their jobs, their work groups, and their organizations are more committed and more satisfied (Kristof-Brown, Barrick, & Stevens, 2005). However, despite the demonstrated importance of person-environment fit, there has been a notable absence of research on interpersonal, dyadic fit at work (Ferris, Liden, Munyon, Summers, Basik, & Buckley, 2009). This is a surprising omission, because most people only feel like they really “fit” in a job if they have positive dyadic relationships with their co-workers and supervisor. As such, our understanding of behavior at work is incomplete if we fail to take the role of person-to-person relationships into account. There is also a practical, operational side to understanding dyadic relationships at work, because they facilitate the exchange of information and resources (e.g., Ibarra, Kilduff, & Tsai, 2005; Labianca & Brass, 2006; Nebus, 2006). Unfortunately, research on social relationships at work does not yet reflect the rich body of knowledge that has been amassed in other fields (Barry & Crant, 2000). Thus, while we know that interpersonal relationships are important, we currently do not know a great deal about these relationships in organizational contexts. <br>In this chapter, we outline a model of how person-environment fit develops in the course of social interactions among established organizational members and those who are new to the organization. The focus on the initial period of relationship development (i.e. organizational socialization) will help to illustrate a number of important processes that occur primarily in the initial acquaintance phase and unfold as individuals come to know one another better. Our theoretical development will proceed from a relationship science perspective (e.g., Berscheid, 1999; Kelley et al., 1983). This perspective offers insights that have been unexplored in both the person-environment fit and organizational socialization literatures, including an increased understanding of how people come to have close affective bonds with one another, a better set of tools for discussing the processes of social acceptance (and rejection), and a useful typology for differentiating types of relationships. To date, there has been only limited transfer of this material into the organizational behavior literature (for exceptions, see Ferris et al., 2009; Poteat, Shockley, & Allen, 2009; or Ragins & Dutton, 2007).10aManagement1 aKammeyer-Mueller, John, D.1 aSchilpzand, Pauline1 aRubenstein, Alex  uhttps://business.oregonstate.edu/biblio/dyadic-fit-and-process-organizational-socialization-001642nas a2200193   4500008004100000245010400041210006900145260000900214300001400223490000700237520094300244653001501187100001901202700002301221700002701244700002401271700002001295856013301315       2012                        eng d00aDifferent hats, different obligations: Plural occupational identities and situated moral judgments.0 aDifferent hats different obligations Plural occupational identit  c2012  a1316-13330 v553 aIt is well understood that moral identity substantially influences moral judgments. However, occupational identities are also replete with moral content, and individuals may have multiple occupational identities within a given work role (e.g., engineer-manager). Consequently, we apply the lenses of moral universalism and moral particularism to categorize occupational identities and explore their moral prescriptions. We present and test a model of occupational identities as implicitly-held and dynamically-activated knowledge structures, cued by context and containing associated content about the absolute and/or relationship-dependent moral obligations owed by the actor to stakeholders. Results from one field study and two situated experiments with dual-occupation individuals indicate that moral obligations embedded in occupational identities influence actors’ work-role moral judgments in a predictable and meaningful manner.10aManagement1 aLeavitt, Keith1 aReynolds, Scott, J1 aBarnes, Christopher, M1 aSchilpzand, Pauline1 aHannah, Sean, T  uhttps://business.oregonstate.edu/biblio/different-hats-different-obligations-plural-occupational-identities-and-situated-moral-0