Accountability has been commonly referred to in the literature as a person’s expectation about others’ evaluations. However, in this study, I develop an alternative perspective of leader accountability by defining it as an individual’s degree of ownership regarding good or poor performance and acceptance of associated rewards or disciplinary actions. Based on attribution theory, leaders can have internal and external ownership regarding good and poor performance. I propose that accountability can be categorized into two correlated but distinct aspects: self-benefitting and other-benefitting. Leader self-benefitting accountability refers to leaders’ attributions towards their own benefits (i.e., internal attribution of good performance and external attribution of poor performance). Leader other-benefitting accountability reflects leaders’ attributions towards others’ interests (i.e., internal attribution of poor performance and external attribution of good performance). Using multiple samples, I develop and validate a leader accountability scale, and then test a theoretical model with a focus on leader accountability and collective accountability (i.e., a group of individuals’ degree of ownership) by collecting data from 57 leaders and 162 followers in three Chinese companies. The findings show that leader humility is positively related to leader other-benefitting accountability. Both leader self-benefitting and other-benefitting accountability are associated with collective self-benefitting and other-benefitting accountability, respectively. Moreover, the relationship between leader self-benefitting and collective self-benefitting accountability is enhanced when the leader has high organization prototypicality. Furthermore, collective self-benefitting accountability decreases leader effectiveness and team effectiveness, while collective other-benefitting accountability increases leader effectiveness.

This study develops a theoretical model that explains how leaders come to adapt their leadership behaviors to achieve follower effectiveness. Mindfulness theory suggests that mindful individuals are better able to engage in self-regulation and I consider empathy, response flexibility, and emotional regulation as three self-regulatory processes in particular which likely impact the leader-follower relationship. I suggest that leaders who have the ability to self-regulate in these three ways will be better able to engage in leadership behavior characterized by adapting or flexing the specific types of leadership they demonstrate according to the needs of the situation and what their followers most require at a given time to perform at their best. When followers receive the type of situationally-appropriate support in the form of leader behavior, they are more effective (e.g. have higher job performance and extra-role performance). I validate a new trait and state measure of workplace mindfulness with multiple samples and utilize this new scale to collect data from leaders and followers from a government organization to test the theoretical relationships proposed in this study. I utilize an experience sampling methodology (ESM) design over 10 days to investigate the within-leader variation among variables in the study given theory suggesting the dynamic nature of the mindfulness, self-regulation, and situational leadership constructs which may not adequately be captured when data are collected at one point in time. Finally, I introduce organizational constraints as a moderator of the relationship between leader mindfulness and leader self- regulation in order to understand how stressors and strains outside the control of a leader may overload a leader’s ability to ultimately self-regulate his/her behavior.

I develop and test theoretical hypotheses for how employees' authenticity at work influences their motivational, relational, and effectiveness outcomes. These hypotheses are grounded in the idea that when individuals feel they display their true selves at work, they can more fully employ their physical, cognitive and emotional energies in their work roles, which in turn leads to higher levels of employee effectiveness (e.g., task performance, perceived value to the organization, and promotability). In addition to this personal motivational process, individuals who are more authentic also develop high-quality relationships with their coworkers, thereby receiving more instrumental support and minimizing the antagonistic encounters they have with their colleagues. Both types of coworker interactions should, in turn, also influence the focal individual's effectiveness at work. Finally, I hypothesize that the relationships between authenticity and these relational and effectiveness outcomes are moderated by certain personality traits, such that when an individual is highly narcissistic, has very low self-esteem, or has strongly held values or beliefs generally perceived to be negative or deviant, the relationships change: authenticity's positive influence on coworker instrumental support becomes less positive, and authenticity's negative influence on coworker incivility becomes less negative. These moderation effects are expected for employee effectiveness as well. The sample used to test these hypotheses consisted of 102 employees and their 16 supervisors from two private companies headquartered in the Southwest United States. Authenticity was found to be positively associated with employee engagement, coworker instrumental support, and employee effectiveness, and negatively associated with coworker incivility. Once other factors were controlled for, significant relationships remained with employee engagement and coworker support. Contrary to expectations, neither engagement nor coworker interactions mediated the authenticity-employee effectiveness relationship. A dark side of authenticity was found for two of the three personality traits: self-esteem moderated the relationship between authenticity and coworker instrumental support, such that when self-esteem was low, the relationship between authenticity and coworker support was significantly weaker. Additionally, narcissism moderated the relationship between authenticity and employee effectiveness such that when narcissism was low, the relationship between authenticity and effectiveness was positive, but when narcissism was high, the relationship became negative.

Researchers lament that feedback interventions often fail. Traditional theories assume a cognitive relationship between the receipt of feedback and its impact on employee performance. I offer a theoretical model derived from Affective Events and Broaden and Build Theories to shed new light on the feedback-performance relationship. I bridge the two primary streams of feedback literature-the passive receipt and active seeking-to examine how employees' affective responses to feedback drive how they use feedback to improve performance. I develop and test a model whereby supervisor developmental feedback and coworker feedback seeking relate to the positivity ratio (the ratio of positive as compared to negative affect), enabling them to be more creative and thus improving their performance. I test my model using Experience Sampling Methodology with a sample of MBA students over a two week working period.