Employee–supervisor political skill congruence and work outcomes: The mediating role of leader–member exchange quality

This study aims to investigate the effect of employee–supervisor political skill congruence on the quality of leader–member exchange (LMX), which in turn influences employees' job satisfaction and turnover intention. For this purpose, two survey studies were conducted. The first study examined the relationship between employee–supervisor political skill congruence and LMX using multi-source data collected from 287 employee–supervisor dyads. The second study examined the indirect effect of congruence in political skill on work outcomes through LMX by using time-lagged multi-source data collected from 142 employee–supervisor dyads. The findings indicate that compared with incongruence, congruence in political skill is associated with higher employee-rated LMX. Moreover, among dyads with congruent political skills, congruence at high levels of political skill is associated with higher employee-rated LMX compared with congruence at low levels of political skill. Moreover, in case of incongruency, low employee–high supervisor political skill combination was related to higher supervisor-rated LMX compared with high employee–low supervisor political skill combination. Lastly, employee–supervisor political skill congruency indirectly influences job satisfaction and turnover intention through employee-rated LMX. This research significantly contributes to the political skill literature by examining potential consequences of employee–supervisor congruence in political skill in the workplace.     

So why can’t you intend to drink the toxin?

In this paper I revisit Gregory Kavka’s Toxin Puzzle and propose a novel solution to it. Like some previous accounts, mine postulates a tight link between intentions and reasons but, unlike them, in my account these are motivating rather than normative reasons, i.e. reasons that explain (rather than justify) the intended action. I argue that sensitivity to the absence of possible motivational explanations for the intended action is constitutive of deliberation-based intentions. Since ordinary rational agents display this sensitivity, when placed in the toxin scenario they will believe that there is no motivational explanation for actually drinking the toxin and this is why they can’t form the intention to drink it in the first place. I thus argue that my Motivating-Explanatory Reason Principle correctly explains the toxin puzzle, thereby revealing itself as a genuine metaphysical constraint on intentions. I also explore at length the implications of my account for the nature of intention and rational agency.