Extensive scholarly attention has focused on how employees with mental illness can face barriers in the workplace (e.g., stigmatizing perceptions, such as perceiving those with mental illness as incompetent, dangerous, or lacking resilience). Drawing on interpersonal emotion regulation motivation theory, we explore whether managers may unintentionally disadvantage employees with mental illness via interpersonal emotion regulation. Our general argument is that managers may perceive that employees with mental illness are less able to regulate negative emotions in challenging situations (e.g., receiving negative performance feedback). This can prompt managers to fear for their employees' well-being and engage in interpersonal emotional regulation by reducing the quality of negative performance feedback that they provide. We also examine whether activating a coaching motive (i.e., enhancing managers' awareness related to the importance of providing all employees with high-quality negative feedback) can overcome these effects. To empirically test our model, we develop and validate scales for our proposed mechanisms: perceived negative emotion regulation inability and fear for well-being. Using samples with managerial experience from the United States and Canada (N = 1,303), we test our hypotheses across three studies. Theoretical and practical implications include recognizing why and how employees with mental illness may face subtle disadvantages in the workplace due to interpersonal emotion regulation, understanding what motivates managers to engage in extrinsic interpersonal emotional regulation for employees with mental illness, and showcasing how reducing the subtle disadvantages employees with mental illness experience may be especially difficult. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

With increasing momentum to hold managers accountable for their failure to act in response to aversive employee experiences, it is critical to develop a conceptual and theoretical understanding of this phenomenon. We introduce perceived employee-directed managerial inaction to capture employees' perceptions that their manager failed to act in response to an aversive event that they experienced despite a perceived duty or obligation for the manager to do so. Drawing on the fundamental social dilemma, we propose that perceived employee-directed managerial inaction is negatively associated with employees' perceptions that their manager is trustworthy, which can prompt detrimental outcomes for managers (withdrawal of manager-directed citizenship behavior, resistance behavior, and negative gossip about the manager) as well as for employees (lower psychological well-being). To investigate what perceived employee-directed managerial inaction is as well as why and how it can impact managers and employees, we develop a conceptualization of this construct, validate a measure, and test our theoretical model using an experiment and two multi-wave surveys. Contributions include answering calls to consider the importance of inactive and undesirable event-based responses, conceptually defining perceived employee-directed managerial inaction, and providing a validated measure to stimulate empirical research for this theoretically and practically important phenomenon. We also showcase why and how perceived employee-directed managerial inaction can have negative implications, including how this can inform employees' generalized perceptions of managers. Overall, we highlight the importance of recognizing that perceived employee-directed managerial inaction is not benign but rather an undesirable response that can negatively impact managers and employees.

Freshwater crayfish are amongst the largest macroinvertebrates and play a keystone role in the ecosystems they occupy. Understanding the global distribution of these animals is often hindered due to a paucity of distributional data. Additionally, non-native crayfish introductions are becoming more frequent, which can cause severe environmental and economic impacts. Management decisions related to crayfish and their habitats require accurate, up-to-date distribution data and mapping tools. Such data are currently patchily distributed with limited accessibility and are rarely up-to-date. To address these challenges, we developed a versatile e-portal to host distributional data of freshwater crayfish and their pathogens (using Aphanomyces astaci, the causative agent of the crayfish plague, as the most prominent example). Populated with expert data and operating in near real-time, World of Crayfish™ is a living, publicly available database providing worldwide distributional data sourced by experts in the field. The database offers open access to the data through specialized standard geospatial services (Web Map Service, Web Feature Service) enabling users to view, embed, and download customizable outputs for various applications. The platform is designed to support technical enhancements in the future, with the potential to eventually incorporate various additional features. This tool serves as a step forward towards a modern era of conservation planning and management of freshwater biodiversity.

SummaryForgiveness is a valuable conflict management strategy that has numerous benefits in workplace settings (e.g., for employees, team dynamics, dyadic relationships, and organizations). However, important conceptual questions have emerged, especially as scholars have begun to examine forgiveness in the workplace. To better understand these issues, we conduct a critical review and analysis of the extant literature to identify key conceptual issues that are creating challenges for the study of forgiveness in organizational behavior. Building on these insights, we propose that conceptualizing forgiveness as a special case of emotion regulation can provide a strong conceptual and theoretical foundation that can address these challenges. Moreover, we outline how this approach can create exciting new research avenues that can enhance our theoretical understanding of forgiveness (e.g., distinguishing between the processes underlying forgiveness; identifying points of intervention to promote forgiveness; exploring the role of time in forgiveness; examining how context impacts forgiveness). We also identify how this approach can provide novel practical insights into how forgiveness can be facilitated and effectively managed in the workplace.

Although there appears to be a shared understanding of the need for (understanding) care in organizations among both practitioners and scholars, organizational behavior research on care remains fragmented, not least due to a proliferation of, and lack of a clear definition of, different care-related concepts. The purpose of the current symposium is to refocus the debate on the umbrella concept of care by bringing together and showcasing examples of cutting-edge research on how organizations, managers, and employees care and how we can theorize care in relation to other closely related OB concepts, such as organizational justice, psychological contracts, compassion, and benevolence. The papers included in this symposium improve our understanding of care in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, of the different sources of care in organizations and of the potential counterintuitive effects of care and challenge our thinking of organizational justice and care. By acknowledging both the enriching aspects of care and the challenges that can confront caring managers and organizations, this symposium contributes to the present understanding of enactment and expressions of care within organizations and offers practical insights as to how to put employees front and center and create fairly caring – and caringly fair – work environments. Post-pandemic Changes to Employee Needs: Perceptions of Organisational Care in Hybrid Working Author: Anna Czaplewska-Jaffery; - Author: Jacqueline A-M. Coyle-Shapiro; California State U. San Bernardino When Caring Goes Awry: Unintentionally Disadvantaging Employees with Mental Illnesses Author: Tessa Neilson; - Author: Daniel Brady; Wilfrid Laurier U. Author: Laurie Barclay; U. of Guelph Who Cares? Effects of Manager and Co-worker Care on Motivating Workers Author: Karen Hegtvedt; Emory U. Author: Cathryn Johnson; Emory U. Author: Ryan Gibson; U. of New Hampshire Author: Kate Hawks; Emory U. Organizational Justice and Care – Supplementary, Complementary, Antithetical, or Delimitative? Author: Marion Fortin; U. of Toulouse I, Capitole Author: Julia Zwank; SRH Mobile U. Author: Marjo-RIitta Diehl; Aalto U. School of Business

How are individuals affected by their own self-interested unethical behavior? Although self-interested unethical behavior commonly occurs as people attempt to advantage themselves, we argue that this unethical behavior can have deleterious implications for individuals and their social relationships. We propose that engaging in self-interested unethical behavior is positively related to state paranoia—an aversive psychological state. In turn, the social cognitive biases underlying state paranoia can prompt people to misjudge the potential for social threat. This may motivate them to curtail coworker-directed affiliative behavior, thereby inadvertently undermining their social relationships. Our predictions were supported across four studies, including a behavioral study in a controlled environment, a recall study, a field survey in a single organization, and a two-wave survey. Theoretical and practical implications include highlighting the importance of understanding the personal and social consequences of self-interested unethical behavior as well as the impact of state paranoia in the workplace.

This symposium aims to provide new perspectives and directions on forgiveness in organizations and extend research on forgiveness’ predictors and consequences with four papers focusing on two core questions. First, this symposium seeks to unveil key “upstream” barriers to forgiveness. It features papers on why people are reluctant to apologize in certain cultures and how employees are affected by their own inability to forgive, in particular, in the face of an expressed apology by transgressors at work. The second major goal of this symposium is to advance the limited knowledge of boundary conditions and uncover new factors that moderate the “downstream” effects and effectiveness of forgiveness, including papers on factors such as incongruence between felt and expressed forgiveness that moderate the impact of forgiveness for the forgiving individual and both the bright and dark sides of leader forgiveness in shaping followers’ responses in organizations. Furthermore, these four papers illustrate how a variety of methodological approaches (e.g., field study, experiment, panel data, large-scale language analyses) can be used to answer research questions regarding forgiveness as well as concomitant apology. Lastly, our symposium features a prominent scholar in this field of knowledge, offering theoretical and practical insights through interactive discussion to advance our understanding of forgiveness, spark new research directions, and ultimately move the research on workplace forgiveness forward with synergistic perspectives. Honor and the Reluctance to Apologize Presenter: Ying Lin; Stanford Graduate School of Business Presenter: Michele Gelfand; Stanford Graduate School of Business Presenter: Nava Caluori; U. of Virginia Presenter: Bastian Weitz; Stanford Graduate School of Business When Apologies Make Things Worse: The Interactive Effects of Inability to Forgive and Apology Presenter: Maria Francisca Saldanha; UCP - Católica Lisbon School of Business & Economics Presenter: Annika Hillebrandt; Ted Rogers School of Management, Toronto Metropolitan U. Presenter: Carlos Ferreira Peralta; U. Católica Portuguesa Presenter: Daniel Brady; Wilfrid Laurier U. The Authenticity of (In)Congruence Between Felt and Expressed Forgiveness Presenter: Seoin Yoon; Texas A&M U. Presenter: Shawn T. McClean; U. of Oklahoma Price College of Business Presenter: Bret Bradley; U. of Oklahoma When Leaders Forgive: Is Forgiveness Always Divine? Presenter: Hsuan-Che Huang; Sauder School of Business, U. of British Columbia Presenter: Jonathan Evans; U. of British Columbia Presenter: Trevor Spoelma; U. of New Mexico

Managing negative situations is a critical task for managers and organizations, especially since doing so effectively is imperative for “creating a better world” (Academy of Management, 2021). However, there are numerous obstacles that can challenge managers. Our symposium gathers an international panel of scholars from Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, Germany, New Zealand, Portugal, The Netherlands, and the United States that leverages diverse perspectives and methodologies to (a) assess what influences managers’ decisions to pursue punishment (vs. procedural justice) when they handle ambiguous allegations of harm, (b) how managerial inaction can be detrimental for employees and managers, (c) how procedural justice issues can influence managers conducting layoffs, (d) how anticipatory moral emotions affect managerial behaviors in “necessary evil” tasks, and (e) how managers can effectively deliver bad news. Following the paper presentations, Dr. Robert Bies will conclude the symposium with an engaging interactive discussion that highlights key insights and future research directions. By showcasing theoretical and practical insights into how managers and organizations can more effectively manage negative situations, we aim to fulfill the Academy of Management’s objective to “create a better world” through responsible management. Procedural Justice and Safety Trade-Offs in Ambiguous Allegations of Harm Presenter: Maja Graso; U. of Otago Presenter: Karl Aquino; U. of British Columbia Presenter: Fan Xuan Chen; U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Presenter: Jeroen Camps; Thomas More Presenter: Nicole Strah; Purdue U. Presenter: Kees Van Den Bos; Utrecht U. “In”action Speaks Louder Than Words: Examining the Importance of Managerial Inaction Presenter: Christine Chi Hye Hwang; U. of Guelph Presenter: Daniel Brady; Wilfrid Laurier U. Out of Control? The Effect of Procedural Justice on Managers’ Experiences of Layoffs Presenter: Abiola Sarnecki; Wiesbaden Business School Presenter: Marjo-RIitta Diehl; Aalto U. School of Business Presenter: David Leonard Patient; Vlerick Business School You Gotta Feel What You Gotta Do: Necessary Evils, Anticipatory Emotions, and Responses Presenter: Julia Zwank; EBS U. of Business and Law Presenter: Francesco Sguera; UCP - Católica Lisbon School of Business & Economics Presenter: Marjo-RIitta Diehl; Aalto U. School of Business We Need to Talk: Enhancing the Effectiveness of Bad News Delivery Presenter: Claudia Christina Kitz; U. of Klagenfurt, Austria Presenter: Laurie Barclay; U. of Guelph Presenter: Heiko Breitsohl; U. of Klagenfurt, Austria

What motivates managers to deliver bad news in a just manner and why do some managers fail to treat recipients of bad news with dignity and respect? Given the importance of delivering bad news in a just manner, answering these questions is critical to promote justice in the workplace. Drawing on appraisal theories of emotions, we propose that people with higher core self-evaluations may be less likely to deliver bad news in an interpersonally just manner. This is because these actors are more likely to appraise the delivery of bad news as a situation in which they have high coping potential and are therefore less likely to experience anxiety. However, we propose that anxiety can be important for propelling the enactment of interpersonal justice. We test our predictions across three studies (with four samples of full-time managers and employees). Theoretical and practical contributions include enhancing our understanding of who is motivated to enact interpersonal justice, why they are motivated to do so, and how to enhance justice in the workplace. Our findings also challenge the assumption that negative emotions are necessarily dysfunctional for the enactment of interpersonal justice and instead highlight the facilitative role of anxiety in this context.

SummaryUnfair situations are a reality of organizational life. Although managers are typically advised to enact justice (i.e., adhere to justice rules) to mitigate negative employee reactions to unfair situations, the subjective nature of fairness suggests that employees may still react negatively to managers, regardless of managers' adherence to justice rules. Integrating fairness theory with social role theory, we propose that prescriptive gender stereotypes can differentially influence employees' reactions toward female (versus male) managers in the aftermath of unfair situations. Across two studies, female (versus male) managers were especially likely to experience diminished legitimacy in the aftermath of unfair situations, regardless of their adherence to justice rules. Moreover, these effects were especially likely to emerge for situations that reflected isolated versus ongoing issues. In turn, diminished legitimacy prompted negative employee behaviors that can detract from managerial effectiveness (e.g., withdrawal of manager‐directed citizenship behaviors, enhanced negative gossip about the manager, and increased resistance behaviors). Theoretical and practical contributions include recognizing the importance of broadening focus beyond adherence to justice rules to understand employees' reactions and managers' experiences, acknowledging the impact of gender in the context of fairness, and highlighting that upward‐directed gender bias may contribute to the (un)intentional undermining of female managers.

Many of society’s pressing challenges — conflict, discrimination, well-being — can be linked to injustice within organizations. Effectively addressing workplace injustice requires scholars to broaden our understanding of what it means to “do justice” in organizations. In this symposium, we aim to “broaden our sight” (Academy of Management, 2020) by bringing together a diverse panel of leading scholars who are tackling critical questions related to the obstacles and challenges associated with fostering justice and fairness in the workplace. Using disparate methodologies (e.g., experiments, field studies, interviews) and theoretical frameworks (e.g., appraisal theory, fairness theory, goal prioritization, moral disengagement), our presenters provide insight into (a) the situational factors that can impact whether managers act justly, (b) who is likely to enact justice and the role of emotions in the process of enactment, (c) how managers make sense of having acted unjustly, (d) how perceptions of unfairness can stem from a mismatch between the amount of trust one desires and receives, and (e) the process by which managers are personally blamed and held accountable for unfair situations. The symposium will conclude with an interactive discussion that highlights key themes and directions for future research as well as practical insights into how managers and organizations might promote fairer workplaces by encouraging justice enactment among managers and effectively managing fairness for employees. Are Managers Strategic About Behaving Fairly? Subordinate Uncertainty and Manager Fairness Enactment Presenter: Midori Nishioka; U. of Waterloo Presenter: James W. Beck; U. of Waterloo Presenter: Ramona Bobocel; U. of Waterloo Understanding Interpersonal Justice Enactment by Integrating the ‘Who’ and the ‘Why’ Presenter: Annika Hillebrandt; Ted Rogers School of Management, Ryerson U. Presenter: Maria Francisca Saldanha; UCP - Católica Lisbon School of Business & Economics Presenter: Daniel Brady; Wilfrid Laurier U. Quo Vadis? Three Moral Journeys of Justice Enactment During Organizational Change Presenter: Julia Zwank; EBS Presenter: Marjo-RIitta Diehl; EBS International U. Presenter: Marion Fortin; U. of Toulouse I, Capitole Under, Over, or “Just Right”? The Fairness of (In)congruence Between Trust Wanted and Trust Received Presenter: Michael Baer; Arizona State U. Presenter: Emma Laier Frank; U. of Georgia Presenter: Fadel Khalil Matta; U. of Georgia Presenter: Margaret M. Luciano; Arizona State U. Presenter: Edward McClain Wellman; Arizona State U. Gendered Blame and its Implications for Managers in the Aftermath of Unfair Situations Presenter: Christianne Varty; Wilfrid Laurier U. Presenter: Laurie Barclay; Wilfrid Laurier U. Presenter: Daniel Brady; Wilfrid Laurier U.

Employees engaging in wrongs is an unfortunate workplace reality that can prove costly for organizations. Although research has shown that individuals respond destructively to such behavior, emerging work has shown that some turn the other cheek and react in a kindhearted manner (e.g., forgive, reconcile). The literature is still in its infancy; we do not have a full understanding of when and why people react in a kindhearted manner, and what the consequences are of these kindhearted reactions to organizations. This symposium addresses this research agenda by: (1) examining different antecedents of kindhearted reactions, such as features of the wrongdoing (e.g., seriousness, intentionality), individual factors of individuals engaging in the kindhearted reaction (e.g., perspective taking, narcissism), situational factors (e.g., climate, power), and different types of wrongdoing (e.g., abusive supervision, misconduct) that influence kindhearted reactions; (2) identifying different types of kindhearted reactions (e.g., coworker protective behavior, forgiveness, leniency); (3) highlighting behavioral strategies and psychological mechanisms (e.g., gossip, unfairness) that explain how kindhearted reactions influence outcomes; (4) exploring distal consequences of kindhearted reactions, such as emotions, perceptions, and behaviors; and (5) uncovering moderators (i.e., offender need, gender, mindfulness) that influence the impact of kindhearted reactions on downstream outcomes.

Pathogens of the silkworm Bombyx mori reduce silk crop quality and quantity, causing significant economic losses to silkworm rearers and the silk industry globally. In order to combat microbial diseases at the agricultural level, it is informative to characterize the host immune responses activated during infection in environmentally controlled conditions. While conventional silkworm rearing is dependent on the seasonality of mulberry trees, in the field of scientific research, recent developments such as artificial diets have resulted in consistent and controlled rearing conditions throughout the year. In this chapter, we describe protocols to perform oral infection experiments in a simplified germ-free silkworm model, reared on artificial diet. Also, we provide simple assays to monitor the activation of the immune response after oral infection, including the evaluation of the pathogen passage from the gut into the hemolymph, the change in the number of hemocytes, the actual rate of melanization, and the antimicrobial activity kinetics of the hemolymph during infection. These standardized protocols will enable the reporting of comparable datasets for B. mori host-pathogen interaction among research groups.

Recent societal movements (e.g., #MeToo and #TimesUp initiatives) and high profile misconduct cases have highlighted the importance of effectively addressing interpersonal transgressions, unethical and abusive behavior, and discrimination within the workplace. Given the pervasive and damaging impact that these misdeeds can have throughout the organization, it is critical to ensure that perpetrators are held accountable and that the aftermath is effectively managed. However, this also raises questions related to when forgiveness, reintegration, and/or redemption may be appropriate as well as how these processes can be facilitated or hindered. In this symposium, we bring together an international panel of leading scholars to explore these critical questions. Drawing upon a variety of methodologies (e.g., experiments, field studies) and theoretical frameworks (e.g., emotion regulation, social identity theory, judgment-making, postmodernism), our presenters shed light on (a) how emotion regulation may underlie forgiveness processes, (b) when members of victim groups feel empowered to engage in dialogue around reconciliation, (c) how judgment processes can influence observers‘ decisions about whether transgressors are worthy of redemption and reintegration, and (d) the process that leaders must go through to create a

After decades of domination by social exchange theory and its focus on a manager-centered perspective, fairness scholars have recently issued numerous calls to shift attention towards understanding employees’ subjective “lived through” experiences and in situ responses to unfair events. Using appraisal theories, we argue that focusing on the employee’s perspective highlights the importance of emotions in fairness experiences. Further, this emphasis creates opportunities for novel insights regarding the emotions that are likely to be relevant, the constructive responses that can emerge from unfairness, and the interplay between unfair events and entity fairness judgments. Using a daily diary study with event sampling, we highlight the importance of anger and anxiety in understanding how individuals experience and react to unfair events. Results indicated that anger elicited counterproductive work behaviors whereas anxiety initiated problem prevention behaviors (i.e., a sub-dimension of proactive work behavior). Further, by engaging in problem prevention behaviors, employees can positively influence their subsequent overall fairness judgments. Experiences of an unfair event can also be shaped by individuals’ preexisting overall fairness judgments, such that pre-existing overall fairness judgments are negatively associated with anger but positively associated with anxiety. Implications for theory and practice are discussed, including the influential role of emotions for fairness experiences, how employees’ own behaviors can influence subsequent overall fairness judgments, the interplay between unfair events and entity judgments, and ensuring that fairness is effectively managed on a daily basis.

Despite decades of research from other academic fields arguing that gossip is an important and potentially functional behavior, organizational research has largely assumed that gossip is malicious talk. This has resulted in the proliferation of gossip items in deviance scales, effectively subsuming workplace gossip research into deviance research. In this paper, the authors argue that organizational research has traditionally considered only a very narrow subset of workplace gossip, focusing almost exclusively on extreme negative cases which are not reflective of typical workplace gossip behavior. Instead of being primarily malicious, typical workplace gossip can be either positive or negative in nature and may serve important functions. It is therefore recommended that workplace gossip be studied on its own, independent of deviance. To facilitate this, the authors reconceptualize the workplace gossip construct and then develop a series of general-purpose English- and Chinese-language workplace gossip scales. Using 8 samples (including qualitative, multisource, multiwave, and multicultural data), the authors demonstrate the construct validity, reliability, cross-cultural measurement invariance, and acceptable psychometric properties of the workplace gossip scales. Relationships are demonstrated between workplace gossip and a variety of other organizational variables and processes, including uncertainty, emotion validation, self-esteem, norm enforcement, networking, influence, organizational justice, performance, deviance, and turnover. Future directions in workplace gossip research are discussed.

While international commercial arbitration is widely regarded as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism to litigation in national courts, those courts are frequently engaged in the review arbitral awards in the context of annulment as well as recognition and enforcement. A key purpose of this review is to ensure that the arbitral procedure is consistent with the fundamental principles of natural justice. These principles find their origin in the general principles of law common to civilised nations, and their application is mandated by both the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law. This paper argues that the content of these principles should be ‘internationalised’. That is, it is both appropriate and desirable that domestic courts, irrespective of the jurisdiction in which they happen to be sitting, apply the basic rules of natural justice in uniform way. It is submitted that this would not only result in a consistent and therefore reliable recognition and enforcement regime, but would also contribute to the success and increased adoption of international arbitration as a key alternative dispute resolution mechanism.