The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly impacted the structure of work foremployees worldwide, as many began working remotely in response to national and local social distancing efforts. These changes occurring amid the transition to remote working conditions led to the question of how daily stress and daily uplifts occur in this new work context. For the present thesis study, I explored how internal (i.e., optimism) and external (i.e., team flow) resources function to moderate the effects of daily hassles and uplifts on employee well-being (i.e., burnout and professional efficacy) during the COVID-19 pandemic. In a sample of 417 adults at baseline, and 266 at the follow-up, I investigated how specific resources function to protect employees experiencing occupational burnout. Additionally, I explored gender differences in these relationships. Study results demonstrated that both daily uplifts and hassles predicted burnout and professional efficacy at earlier stages of the pandemic, while at a later stage in the pandemic, the relationships between daily uplifts and burnout and daily hassles and burnout persisted, but only daily hassles were associated with professional efficacy. For males at baseline, higher scores in optimism strengthened the negative relationship between daily uplifts and burnout. Surprisingly, males with relatively low team flow in work or school settings seemed to fare better professionally with increased daily hassles. This finding indicates that males with less collaboration at work thrive as they experience increased daily stress. While these findings are specific to the COVID-19 context, they may be beneficial for companies and supervisors seeking to improve employee engagement.

In this paper, I examine three areas of the organizational learning (OL) field where consensus has yet to develop. Ultimately, I proceed to develop the foundation for a normative theory of OL predicated on measuring/depicting the knowledge stock, organizational learning, and meta-learning through algebraic functions coupled with consideration of experimentation and meta-experimentation. This OL framework is then used to predict organizational performance and returns from learning while presenting additional areas of integration between the proposed framework and eventual application within organizations.

Individuals have multiple identities, and several of them may be simultaneously driving enacted behavior in a given context. Scholars have suggested that intrapersonal identity networks – the combination of identities, relationships between identities, and identity characteristics – influence enactment. However, very little is known about the process by which several components of one’s identity network result in a single stream of enactment. This is important because different factors (e.g., leader actions) may impact this process and, in turn, change the way people act in organizations and interpret the actions of others. I examined a healthcare system designed to surgically treat cancer patients. Taking an inductive interpretivist approach, and using grounded theory methodology, I developed a process model of intrapersonal identity network enactment that also takes into account interpretations of other system members’ enactment. My findings contribute to the social identity literature by suggesting that a common, highly central identity is not enough to align behavior in organizations. Instead individuals may enact a common “higher-order” identity in combination with the rest of their identity network in ways that actually work against each other, even as they genuinely work toward the same purpose. I also extend the literature on multiple identities by explicating a process by which four different identities, and four characteristics of each identity, foster enactment toward the surgical system. Finally, I show how one’s intrapersonal identity network influences how they interpret the enacted behavior of others. In doing so, I extend the identity threat and opportunity literature by showing how one person’s identity threat is another’s identity opportunity, even when they share a common higher-order identity. In short, my study shows how individuals can work against each other, even when they are genuinely working toward the same purpose.

Grounded in the relational view of leadership, this dissertation explores the dynamics of the leader/follower relationship in the context of a collective using a social networks approach. Specifically, I build on DeRue and Ashford’s (2010) work that focuses on dynamic, socially constructed leadership relationships within a dyad to focus on such relationships within a collective. In doing so, I conceptualize collective leader endorsement – receiving a grant of leader identity from a collective of followers – and examine the implications of collective leader endorsement. As a dynamic relationship, collective leader endorsement can change as individuals give and receive grants of leader identity. I draw on relational models of leadership theory and appraisal theory to examine how contextual situations (i.e., identity jolts) prompt change in collective leader endorsement at the network level and how such change can influence individual functioning at the individual level. As a socially constructed relationship, collective leader endorsement creates the potential for disagreement among members of the collective regarding grants of leader identity. I draw on social comparison theory and appraisal theory to suggest that agreement (or lack thereof) can influence the individual’s perceived demands and overall functioning within the collective. Using data from 106 individuals on a collegiate football team in the United States over 12 consecutive weeks, I find significant changes in collective leader endorsement and the associated leadership network over the course of the season. Specifically, I find that challenging situations prompted a reevaluation of leader identities and shifted the patterns within the leadership network. In addition, change in an individual’s level of collective leader endorsement prompted additional perceived demands and lowered well-being. This relationship was attenuated if the individual had a supportive coach to help him cope with additional leadership demands. Finally, (lack of) agreement regarding the individual’s leader identity also influenced the individual’s well-being. Specifically, the individual experienced enhanced perceived demands (and associated lower well-being) if the individual’s perception of who should receive grants of leader identity was incongruent with the collective’s perception of collective leader endorsement.