Profiling Employee Time Bandits: Weasels, Mercenaries, Sandbaggers, and Parasites

8562416557_4eb71bbab7_zNothing is more counterproductive for organizations than when employees use work time to engage in non-task-related activities. That said, time banditry is widespread and sometimes difficult for organizations prevent. A recent article published in Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, entitled “Time Banditry and Impression Management Behavior: Prediction and Profiling of Time Bandit Types,” authors Meagan E. Brock Baskin, Victoria McKee, and M. Ronald Buckley investigate the characteristics of time bandits. Their paper outlines situational and dispositional variables that can help predict the four time bandit types–the weasel, the mercenary, the sandbagger, and the parasite. The abstract for the article:

Time banditry recently has been introduced as a distinct construct in the JLOcounterproductive work behavior literature. Employees are engaged in time banditry when they pursue non–task-related activities during work time. We posit that they capitalize on the ambiguity in most work environments to manage impressions that their time banditry behavior really is productive and not counterproductive work behavior. In this investigation, two studies were conducted to explore variables that can be used to classify time bandits into four different categories. Discriminant function analysis was used to determine individual-level and job-level factors that classify time bandits. Results revealed that both situational and dispositional variables can be used to predict time bandit type. Suggestions for future research and implications for managing, reducing, and changing time banditry behaviors are discussed.

Interested in reading more and finding out what kind of time bandit you are? You can read “Time Banditry and Impression Management Behavior: Prediction and Profiling Time Bandit Types” from Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies free for the next two weeks by clicking here.

Want to stay up to date on all of the latest research from Journal of Leadership and Organizational StudiesClick here to sign up for e-alerts! 

*Post-it prank image attributed to Michael Arrighi (CC)

Payal Nangia Sharma on Empowering Leadership Research

GOM 39(6)_Covers.indd[We’re pleased to welcome Payal Nangia Sharma of Rutgers University. Dr. Sharma recently published an article in Group and Organization Management with Bradley L. Kirkman of North Carolina State University entitled “Leveraging Leaders: A Literature Review and Future Lines of Inquiry for Empowering Leadership Research.”]

  • What inspired you to be interested in this topic?

We were inspired to write about the topic of empowering leadership given the increasing need for leaders in today’s organizations to rely more and more on involving their employees in work processes, such as decision making, and motivating employees towards higher levels of engagement. In addition, although empowering leadership has many benefits, there is growing research evidence that not all leaders want to empower or that all employees want to be empowered, so we were inspired to help develop scholarly and practical understanding of a more complete picture of the effects of empowering initiatives in work settings.

  • How do you see this study influencing future research and/or practice?

Our paper sets the agenda for the next decade on empowering leadership. Based on a set of testable propositions, we first encourage researchers to answer the question of why empowering leadership occurs. Second, we encourage researchers to explore less positive and unintended, negative outcomes of empowering leadership.

The abstract:

We review and synthesize the empowering leadership literature and, as a result, suggest two new provocative lines of inquiry directing future research. Based on a set of testable propositions, we first encourage researchers to answer the question of why empowering leadership occurs. Second, we encourage researchers to explore less positive and unintended, negative outcomes of empowering leadership. To identify opportunities for future work along these two lines, we use four theoretical perspectives including (1) person–situation interactions, (2) followership theory, (3) contingency approaches to leadership, and, (4) the too-much-of-a-good-thing effect. As a result, we set an agenda for the next decade of research on empowering leadership.

You can read “Leveraging Leaders: A Literature Review and Future Lines of Inquiry for Empowering Leadership Research” from Group and Organization Management by clicking here. Did you know that you can have all the latest research from Group and Organization Management sent directly to your inbox? Just click here to sign up for e-alerts!


photo-payal-sharma_0Payal Nangia Sharma is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Management and Global Business at Rutgers Business School. She received her PhD degree in Organizational Behavior at the University of Maryland, College Park. Her research focuses on examining and understanding the role of positive and negative factors in leadership processes and team member relationships.

MIE-Kirkman-Official_Headshot.sm_Bradley L. Kirkman is the General (Ret.) H. Hugh Shelton Distinguished Professor of Leadership and head of the Management, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship Department in the Poole College of Management at NC State University. He received his PhD degree in Organizational Behavior from the Kenan-Flagler Business School at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His research focuses on leadership, international management, virtual teams, and work team leadership and empowerment.

Why Entrepreneurs Are Less, Not More, Stressed Out

Entrepreneurs aren’t the stressed-out workaholics we imagine them to be. In fact, a new study published in the Journal of Management finds that they experience less stress than the average worker. Why? Because they are psychologically better equipped to handle stressful situations:

While creating and running new ventures, entrepreneurs are exposed to conditions known to generate high levels of stress (e.g., rapid change, unpredictable environments, work overload, personal responsibility for others). Thus, it has been assumed that they often experience intense stress. A markedly different possibility, Untitledhowever, is suggested by Attraction-Selection- Attrition (ASA) theory. This perspective suggests that persons who are attracted by, selected into, and persist in entrepreneurship may be relatively high in the capacity to tolerate or effectively manage stress. In contrast, persons who are relatively low in this capacity tend to exit from entrepreneurship either voluntarily or involuntarily. As a result, founding entrepreneurs as a group are predicted to experience low rather than high levels of stress while running new ventures. Results supported this reasoning: Founding entrepreneurs reported lower levels of stress when compared to participants in a large national survey of perceived stress. Additional findings indicate that entrepreneJOM_v38_72ppiRGB_150pixWurs’ relatively low levels of stress derive, at least in part, from high levels of psychological capital (a combination of self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience). Psychological capital was negatively related to stress, and stress, in turn, was negatively related to entrepreneurs’ subjective well-being. Furthermore, and also consistent with ASA theory, the stress-reducing effects of psychological capital were stronger for older than younger entrepreneurs.

Continue reading “Why Entrepreneurs Often Experience Low , Not High, Levels of Stress: The Joint Effects of Selection and Psychological Capital” by Robert A. Baron and Rebecca J. Franklin of Oklahoma State University and Keith M. Hmieleski of Texas Christian University, forthcoming in the Journal of Management and now available in the JOM OnlineFirst section. Read related research in the JOM Editor’s Choice Collections on entrepreneurship and work stress and health.