Subordinates' Resistance and Managers' Evaluations of Subordinates' Performance
By Bennett J. Tepper, Mary Uhl‐Bien, Gary F. Kohut, Steven Rogelberg, Daniel E. Lockhart, Michael D. Ensley. 2006
87 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: General Health Professions, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Social Psychology
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1304e3de01c4149892e92b3b8de357a707e015f1
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In General Health Professions
- A. A. Khan
- Melissa Carsten
- Rebecca L. Greenbaum
- Lei Vincent Huang
- David M. Mayer
- Samina Quratulain
- Mary B. Mawritz
In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
- Rebecca L. Greenbaum
- Mary B. Mawritz
- Lei Vincent Huang
- David M. Mayer
- Manuela Priesemuth
- A. A. Khan
- Melissa Carsten
- Mary Uhl‐Bien
In Social Psychology
- Lei Vincent Huang
- Melissa Carsten
- Manuela Priesemuth
- Mary Uhl‐Bien
- A. A. Khan
- S. Moss
- Rebecca L. Greenbaum
- David M. Mayer
Citations in the corpus
- To act out, to withdraw, or to constructively resist? Employee reactions to supervisor abuse of customers and the moderating role of employee moral identity (2013, background): “Supervisors assessed the focal employee’s engagement in constructive resistance with five items from Tepper et al.’s (1998) constructive resistance scale (also used in Tepper et al., 2001, 2006).”
- When and How Subordinate Performance Leads to Abusive Supervision: A Social Dominance Perspective (2018, background): “…is considered deviant and norm violating (e.g., rate busting or showing off), or might it be threatening to the supervisor’s perception of competence, akin to “well-intended resistance,” when subordinates generate better ideas/solutions/outcomes than the supervisor’s (Tepper et al., 2006)?”
- Leader perceptions and motivation as outcomes of followership role orientation and behavior (2018, background): “Upward delegation captures the extent to which followers defer decision-making and problem-solving to the leader, rather than working to solve problems on their own (Tepper et al., 2006; Whittaker, 2011).”