Whether, how and when do leaders engage in ethical leadership as a response to status threat? We propose that leaders facing status threat are likely to develop ethical leadership behaviors toward subordinates. Drawing on power dependence theory, we theorize that experiencing status threat augments leaders’ dependence on subordinates who can provide them with status-relevant resources. Dependence on subordinates further motivates leaders to absorb the resource constraints through displaying ethical leadership. However, if leaders are able to obtain alternative resources to cope (...) with status threat, their dependence on subordinates is weakened. We conducted two studies to test the predictions. Using a moderation-of-process design, Study 1 found that when participants experienced status threat, they displayed more ethical leadership behaviors, but particularly so when their reward structure was team- rather than individual-based. Study 2 was a field study using a sample of 104 teams from two Chinese firms listed in the “Top 500 private enterprises in China.” We found that leaders who experienced more status threat were perceived to be more ethical by their subordinates, which was mediated by leaders’ perceptions of dependence on subordinates. The mediated effect was stronger for leaders who were less skilled in networking. Implications for theory on the contextual factors of ethical leadership, dependence, and status threat are discussed. (shrink)

Why do organizations conduct job interviews? The traditional view of interviewing holds that interviews are conducted, despite their steep costs, to predict a candidate’s future performance and fit. This view faces a twofold threat: the behavioral and algorithmic threats. Specifically, an overwhelming body of behavioral research suggests that we are bad at predicting performance and fit; furthermore, algorithms are already better than us at making these predictions in various domains. If the traditional view captures the whole story, then interviews seem (...) to be a costly, archaic human resources procedure sustained by managerial overconfidence. However, building on T. M. Scanlon’s work, we offer the value of choice theory of interviewing and argue that interviews can be vindicated once we recognize that they generate commonly overlooked kinds of noninstrumental value. On our view, interviews should thus not be entirely replaced by algorithms, however sophisticated algorithms ultimately become at predicting performance and fit. (shrink)

Overqualified employees are prevalent in today’s organizations. While previous research suggests that supervisors may not often appreciate employee overqualification, how they may respond to the overqualification of their subordinates unethically has unfortunately been overlooked in organizational research. Drawing on social rank theory, we propose that supervisors may perceive a threat to their status from their overqualified subordinates, leading to supervisor undermining as an unethical response. We further hypothesize that the interpersonal personality traits of subordinates—extroversion and agreeableness—moderate the indirect relationship. We (...) conducted a multi-wave, multisource survey study among supervisor-subordinate dyads (Study 1) and two vignette-based experiments (Studies 2A and 2B) to test our hypotheses. In Study 1, our results show that the positive indirect effect of subordinate overqualification on supervisor undermining through supervisor perceived status threat is weaker when subordinates exhibit low (vs. high) extraversion. Studies 2A and 2B largely replicate the above findings with strengthening the internal validity of our theorization. The implications of our findings for theory and practice are discussed. (shrink)

We design a double-or-quits game to compare the speed of learning one’s specific ability with the speed of rising confidence as the task gets increasingly difficult. We find that people on average learn to be overconfident faster than they learn their true ability and we present an intuitive-Bayesian model of confidence which integrates confidence biases and learning. Uncertainty about one’s true ability to perform a task in isolation can be responsible for large and stable confidence biases, namely limited discrimination, the (...) hard–easy effect, the Dunning–Kruger effect, conservative learning from experience and the overprecision phenomenon if subjects act as Bayesian learners who rely only on sequentially perceived performance cues and contrarian illusory signals induced by doubt. Moreover, these biases are likely to persist since the Bayesian aggregation of past information consolidates the accumulation of errors and the perception of contrarian illusory signals generates conservatism and under-reaction to events. Taken together, these two features may explain why intuitive Bayesians make systematically wrong predictions of their own performance. (shrink)

This paper studies performance predictions in the 7-item Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) and whether they differ by gender. After participants completed the CRT, they predicted their own (i), the other participants' (ii), men's (iii), and women's (iv) number of correct answers. In keeping with existing literature, men scored higher on the CRT than women and both men and women were too optimistic about their own performance. When we compare gender-specific predictions, we observe that men think they perform significantly better than (...) other men and do so significantly more than women. The equality between women's predictions about their own performance and their female peers cannot be rejected. Our findings contribute to the growing literature on the underpinnings of behavior in economics and in psychology by uncovering gender differences in confidence about one's ability relative to same and opposite sex peers. (shrink)