Article Preview
TopIntroduction
In highly competitive organizations, only a few star employees receive high expectations, and they obtain a vast array of work resources and promising opportunities. In contrast, most employees are less favored, known as underdog expectations (UEs), referring to an individual’s perception that he or she is seen as unlikely to succeed by others (Nurmohamed, 2020). UEs are prevalent in contemporary organizations, particularly in intensified competition and involution environments. In recent years, scholars have sparked interest in UEs. Xue et al. (2022) proposed that as an adverse event, UEs can elicit negative emotions among employees, leading to passive attitudes and behaviors, such as feedback avoidance behaviors and work disengagement. Loi et al. (2022) and Schmader et al. (2008) also identified this issue from self-determination theory and stereotypes perspectives. However, Nurmohamed et al. (2020) offered contrasting insights, suggesting that UEs can also motivate employees to think about how to challenge prevailing perceptions and prove others wrong, subsequently enhancing work engagement and improving performance. Given the divergent findings in existing research, our research aimed to delve deeper into the effects of UEs on employees’ work status, questioning whether UEs contribute to work alienation (WA) or foster increased work engagement (WE).
The two-mode model of self-regulation theory offers a comprehensive framework to understand how individuals respond to work events. This theory posits that individuals process information through two distinct systems: the reflexive and the reflective. The reflexive system operates automatically and habitually, enabling quick responses without taxing cognitive resources. In contrast, the reflective system involves slower, deliberate cognitive processes that offer greater flexibility at the expense of more cognitive resources. The response to events depends on the dominant system (Carver et al., 2013). Self-control behavior results from the interaction between impulsivity and reflection (Cheng et al., 2019; Smith & DeCoster, 2000). Therefore, we adopt the two-mode model of self-regulation theory as a theoretical foundation to elucidate the mechanisms through which UEs affect employees’ work status. In particular, work rumination, defined as the inclination to contemplate work-related issues and events outside of work hours (Cropley & Zijlstra, 2011), can be categorized into two types: affective rumination (AR) and problem-solving pondering (PSP) (Cropley et al., 2012). Notably, researchers have demonstrated that work events can effectively influence work rumination (Wang et al., 2013). Accordingly, consistent with the two-mode model of self-regulation theory, we propose that UEs, as an adverse work event, trigger both reflexive and reflective systems simultaneously, resulting in the two types of work rumination.
On the one hand, when the reflexive system dominates, employees are likely to engage in AR, focusing on the negative emotions and disfavored status caused by UEs, depleting self-resources and ultimately leading to work alienation (WA). On the other hand, when the reflective system dominates, individuals are more inclined to engage in PSP, rationally analyzing reasons behind UEs, considering how to enhance their abilities, and changing unfavorable treatment, which fosters work engagement (WE). In sum, we adopt the two-mode model of self-regulation theory to examine the essential mediating role work rumination plays in the relationship between UEs and employees’ work status.