Explore the vast range of titles available.

We thank you for the opportunity to respond to the letter written by Dr. Lourenço and Dr. Paradela, our colleagues from Rio de Janeiro. We understand scientific progress relies on lively debate and exchange of experiences; therefore, we also thank our colleagues for the opportunity to reflect upon our previous findings. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Thriving at work refers to a positive psychological state characterized by a joint sense of vitality and learning. On the basis of Spreitzer and colleagues' model, we present a comprehensive meta-analysis of antecedents and outcomes of thriving at work (K = 73 independent samples, N = 21,739 employees). Results showed that thriving at work is associated with individual characteristics, such as psychological capital (rc = .47), proactive personality (rc = .58), positive affect (rc = .52), and work engagement (rc = .64). Positive associations were also found between thriving at work and relational characteristics, including supportive coworker behavior (rc = .42), supportive leadership behavior (rc = .44), and perceived organizational support (rc = .63). Moreover, thriving at work is related to important employee outcomes, including health-related outcomes such as burnout (rc = −.53), attitudinal outcomes such as commitment (rc = .65), and performance-related outcomes such as task performance (rc = .35). The results of relative weights analyses suggest that thriving exhibits small, albeit incremental predictive validity above and beyond positive affect and work engagement, for task performance, job satisfaction, subjective health, and burnout. Overall, the findings of this meta-analysis support Spreitzer and colleagues' model and underscore the importance of thriving in the work context.

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between perceived co-worker support, commitment to colleagues, job satisfaction, intention to help others, and pro-environmental behavior with the emphasis on eco-helping, with a view to determining the extent to which peer relationships encourage employees to engage in pro-environmental behaviors at work. This paper is framed by adopting social exchange theory through the lens of ethics of care. Data from a sample of 449 employees showed that receiving support from peers triggers an exchange process that encourages eco-helping among colleagues. The implications of the findings are discussed in the light of the social exchange literature.

Purpose This paper aims to examine the role of trust in colleagues and its relationships with the factors of the theory of reasoned action (TRA). Specifically, this study examines the relationships among perceived social pressure about knowledge sharing, attitude toward knowledge sharing, behavioural intent to share knowledge, trust in colleagues and knowledge-sharing behaviour. Design/methodology/approach The methodology adopted was a questionnaire survey of employees working in 34 member institutions of the Singapore Association for Private Education (SAPE). These institutions form the entire member list of the SAPE as of 2020. A total of 297 employees completed a self-administered and anonymous survey using a cross-sectional design. Multiple linear regression was used to test the conceptual framework. Findings On the mediation effects, full mediation was found to affect attitude toward knowledge sharing on knowledge-sharing behaviour, and partial mediation was found to affect perceived social pressure on knowledge-sharing behaviour. On the moderation effects, trust in colleagues moderates both perceived social pressure and knowledge-sharing behaviour and attitude toward knowledge sharing and knowledge-sharing behaviour positively. Specifically, as the level of trust in colleagues increases, the impact of direct relationships also increases. Research limitations/implications Data for the current study were obtained at a single point in time and self-reported. The findings may be biased because of common method variance. Furthermore, this study was conducted in a specific industry in Singapore, i.e. the private education institutions, which limits the generalisability of the research. Practical implications The results of this study indicate that managers need to encourage a higher level of trust between employees. Policies and processes could be enacted to promote building quality and trusting relationships between employees. Originality/value This study contributes to knowledge-sharing behaviour by integrating the role of trust with the TRA. This study extends the conceptual model of the TRA by providing a new theoretical perspective that takes into account the position of trust in knowledge sharing.

On the basis of a meta-analysis of 51 studies, Ditto et al. (this issue, p. 273) conclude that ideological bias is equivalent on the left and right of U.S. politics. In this commentary, we contend that this conclusion does not follow from the review and that Ditto and his colleagues are too quick to embrace a false equivalence between the liberal left and the conservative right. For one thing, the issues, procedures, and materials used in the studies reviewed by Ditto and his colleagues were selected for purposes other than the inspection of ideological asymmetries. Consequently, methodological choices made by researchers were systematically biased to avoid producing differences between liberals and conservatives. We also consider the broader implications of a normative analysis of judgment and decision making and demonstrate that the bias examined by Ditto and his colleagues is not, in fact, an irrational bias, and that it is incoherent to discuss bias in the absence of standards for assessing accuracy and consistency. Other conclusions about domain-general asymmetries in motivated social cognition have suggested that epistemic virtues are more prevalent among liberals than conservatives, and these conclusions are closer to the truth of the matter when it comes to current American politics. Finally, we question the notion that the research literature in psychology is necessarily characterized by liberal bias, as several authors have claimed.

Using a novel data set of U.S. financial advisors that includes individuals' employment histories and misconduct records, we show that coworkers influence an individual's propensity to commit financial misconduct. We identify coworkers' effect on misconduct using changes in coworkers caused by mergers of financial advisory firms. The tests include merger-firm fixed effects to exploit the variation in changes to coworkers across branches of the same firm. The probability of an advisor committing misconduct increases if his new coworkers, encountered in the merger, have a history of misconduct. This effect is stronger between demographically similar coworkers.