Via three studies (two experiment-based and one critical incident-based) we test when and why a social justice appeal garners more support when delivered by a disadvantaged group advocate (DGA) versus by an ally—that is, by someone who does versus does not belong to the marginalized group named in the appeal, respectively. As hypothesized, significantly more support was shown for a social justice appeal by a DGA (rather than an ally) when receivers identified strongly with the disadvantaged group; and this pattern reversed when this identification was weak. Also as predicted, this interaction-effect was mediated by receivers’ perceptions of their similarity with the advocate, the appeal’s credibility, and by their feelings of empathy. Our findings point to the need to broaden theorizing beyond demographic influences on how persuasive a DGA versus an ally will be and the importance of considering appeal-receiver identification when choosing an advocate.

When deciding whether to negotiate, individuals typically assess any potential costs of negotiation. We propose that one major cost that individuals are concerned about, particularly in the context of job offers, is an offer being withdrawn from the bargaining table—losing out on a deal entirely. We refer to this heretofore unexamined concern as the perceived likelihood of jeopardizing a deal by negotiating. We investigate job candidates’ perceived likelihood of jeopardizing a deal, as compared to hiring managers’ reports, across seven studies (total N = 3,338), including surveys of academic job candidates and members of academic hiring committees, managers and hiring professionals, and experimental studies with interactive, incentivized negotiations conducted both in person and online. We consistently document that job candidates’ perception of the likelihood of jeopardizing a deal is exaggerated, i.e., discrepant with that of the hiring side. In some cases, this perception is associated with negotiation avoidance. We also theorize and find support for two underlying psychological mechanisms: zero-sum perceptions and psychological power. We further document contextual factors that decrease candidates’ zero-sum perceptions or increase their perceived power, which, in turn, diminish (but do not fully eliminate) the discrepancy between candidates’ and managers’ perceptions of the likelihood of jeopardizing a deal.

When leaders call on their followers’ loyalty, is it an effective strategy, particularly when such loyalty calls conflict with other ethical duties? And, if calling on loyalty is an effective strategy, when and why are such appeals more effective? These questions were examined in six studies measuring the unethical compliance of workers interacting online, students working together in classroom and fraternity members collaborating in their houses. Findings revealed that the effectiveness of leaders’ loyalty calls depended critically on the target of loyalty: calling on group loyalty was generally more effective than calling on personal loyalty to the leader in eliciting followers’ compliance with leaders’ unethical requests and in helping followers feel better about their deceit because such calls helped followers to rationalize their unethical behavior more easily. Thus, calling on group loyalty not only increases followers’ unethical behavior but also helps them feel righteous about their deceit.

Leader allyship can be an important tool for advancing workplace gender equality; however, its ultimate effectiveness may depend on the reactions of those who witness it. Specifically, male observers can enhance allyship efforts by emulating their leader’s allyship or, conversely, undermine them by decreasing their allyship emulation. Across four studies, we explore why, when, and how ally leaders may encourage rather than discourage such allyship emulation. We find that observers’ identification with the leader drives their allyship emulation. Yet, this identification is contingent on the gender demography of the workgroup, as witnessing leader allyship lowers identification with the leader in male-dominated contexts. Further, how leaders engage in allyship matters for observers’ identification. Performative allyship lowers identification across both gender-balanced and male-dominated contexts, while authentic allyship increases identification and subsequent allyship emulation only in gender-balanced contexts. Finally, leaders can increase allyship emulation through identification in male-dominated workplaces with allyship-related storytelling.

Relationships are a critical component of professional life, yet people often experience difficulties forming workplace bonds. We examine the impact of perceiving one’s interaction partner as authentic in an initial encounter as a key driver of relationship initiation through shared reality. Study 1, a longitudinal field study of professional networking events, revealed that perceived partner authenticity predicted relationship initiation four weeks later. Study 2 found pre-registered experimental evidence for the relationship between perceived partner authenticity and relationship initiation. Study 3 replicated these effects between pairs of new acquaintances working on a collaborative task and found that shared reality mediated the link between perceived partner authenticity and relationship initiation. In Study 4, these effects persisted for observable authenticity behaviors in conversations. Finally, Studies 5a-5b tested the causal effect of perceived partner authenticity on relationship initiation through increased shared reality. Overall, our results suggest that perceiving one’s partner as authentic during initial professional encounters promotes relationship initiation by fostering shared reality.

People who are extrinsically motivated are negatively stereotyped and are viewed less positively compared to those who are intrinsically motivated. As a result, individuals can strategically express their intrinsic motivation as an impression management tactic to gain more favorable evaluations from others. Aside from directly signaling their intrinsic motivation, individuals can also choose a more aggressive strategy by demeaning extrinsic motivation (e.g., “being motivated by money is shallow and meaningless!”). Across 7 primary studies and 3 supplementary studies (N = 3153), we document the prevalence of this phenomenon, users’ (mis)perceptions of how effective this strategy should be, and its actual interpersonal consequences across different contexts. Although being extrinsically motivated is negatively evaluated, we posit that demeaning extrinsic motivation would ironically make one appear more hypocritical and thus disliked, compared to demeaning other negative behaviors or explicitly praising extrinsic motivation. Furthermore, we found that these effects are stronger for those who are low in job calling orientation and high in socioeconomic status. In sum, although people might choose to demean extrinsic motivation in order to gain social approval, such a strategy often backfires.

Curiosity serves a basic function in increasing the probability of work engagement, productivity, creativity, and innovation. Much of what is known about curiosity in organizations has been limited to explorations of individuals. Here, we provide empirically supported insights on how curiosity operates at various levels spanning individuals, collaborations, teams, organizations, and societies. Additionally, we advance research and practice by addressing several neglected issues. There is a strange disconnect in how leaders and co-workers encourage curiosity yet often experience an adverse reaction during or after its occurrence. There is also a strange asymmetry in the field such that curiosity is often described as a universally positive asset/trait yet there are costs that are worthy of consideration such as decision-making speed (i.e., trade-offs). Depending on the type of curiosity and mode of expression, curiosity can have bright, dark, or mixed consequences. Our aim is to help scientists and practitioners to better understand and intervene when attempting to capitalize on curiosity.

Although organizations increasingly seek to communicate allyship with the Black community, their ally statements can receive vastly different responses from Black observers. We develop and test a theoretical model outlining key drivers of allyship evaluations among these perceivers. Drawing from signaling theory and integrating insights from the literature on identity safety, we reveal the costliness and consistency of ally statements as critical determinants of Black perceivers’ evaluations of organizations as allies. Two studies—the first leveraging statements released by Fortune 500 companies and the second a more controlled follow-up experiment—demonstrate the interactive effects of cost and consistency on these assessments. Specifically, the most positive allyship evaluations emerged for organizations whose statements conveyed both high cost and high consistency. Our findings have implications for organizations and business leaders who aim to communicate allyship. To be recognized as allies, devoting resources and incurring costs is not enough; organizations must also signal a consistent commitment to supporting marginalized communities.

Reflecting trends in society, organizations are seeking to embrace personal distinctiveness and self-expression among their members. Doing so is more complicated than meets the eye, however. By its very nature, personal identity is complex and dynamic. As such, people often lack a comprehensive understanding of who they are. Here, I theorize that organizations can navigate this challenge by inviting their members to undergo a novel method of employee development – one designed to produce sudden, personally transformational realizations, or epiphanies. Organizations can promote and, in turn, support epiphanies through a range of practices that open people to the prospect of self-transformation and activate the psychological processes by which epiphanies arise. For these practices to prove effective, however, organizations must avoid the missteps identified here. Collectively, my theoretical claims reveal how organizations can help their members gain self-insight – and why doing so can enhance their reputation and attract job seekers.