<_SYM psyRA_NP JAPP_NP 2012_CD 5_CD >_SYM 
<_SYM Bottom-Line_NN Mentality_NN as_IN an_DT Antecedent_NP of_IN Social_NP Undermining_NP and_CC the_DT Moderating_NP Roles_NP of_IN Core_NP Self-Evaluations_NP and_NP >_SYM <_SYM Conscientiousness_NN >_SYM 
<_SYM Rebecca_NP L_NP ._SENT Greenbaum_NP Mary_NP Bardes_NP Mawritz_NP Gabi_NP Eissa_NP >_SYM 
Abstract_JJ 
We_PP propose_VVP that_IN/that an_DT employee�s_JJ bottom-line_JJ mentality_NN may_MD have_VH an_DT important_JJ effect_NN on_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG behavior_NN in_IN organizations_NNS ._SENT Bottom-line_JJ mentality_NN is_VBZ defined_VVN as_IN 1-dimensional_JJ thinking_NN that_WDT revolves_VVZ around_IN securing_VVG bottom-line_JJ outcomes_NNS to_TO the_DT neglect_NN of_IN competing_VVG priorities_NNS ._SENT Across_IN a_DT series_NN of_IN studies_NNS ,_, we_PP establish_VVP an_DT initial_JJ nomological_JJ network_NN for_IN bottom-line_JJ mentality_NN ._SENT We_PP also_RB develop_VV and_CC evaluate_VV a_DT 4-item_JJ measure_NN of_IN bottom-line_JJ mentality_NN ._SENT In_IN terms_NNS of_IN our_PP$ theoretical_JJ model_NN ,_, we_PP draw_VVP on_IN social-cognitive_JJ theory_NN (_( Bandura_NP ,_, 1977_CD ,_, 1986_CD )_) to_TO propose_VV that_DT supervisor_NN bottom-line_JJ mentality_NN is_VBZ positively_RB related_VVN to_TO employee_NN bottom-line_JJ mentality_NN (_( Hypothesis_NP 1_CD )_) ._SENT On_IN the_DT basis_NN of_IN conceptual_JJ arguments_NNS pertaining_VVG to_TO bottom-line_JJ mentality_NN (_( Callahan_NP ,_, 2004_CD ;_: Wolfe_NP ,_, 1988_CD )_) ,_, we_PP hypothesize_VVP that_IN/that employee_NN bottom-line_JJ mentality_NN is_VBZ positively_RB related_VVN to_TO social_JJ undermining_VVG (_( Hypothesis_NP 2_CD )_) ._SENT We_PP further_RBR predict_VV a_DT moderated-mediation_NN model_NN whereby_WRB the_DT indirect_JJ effect_NN of_IN supervisor_NN bottom-line_JJ mentality_NN on_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG ,_, through_IN employee_NN bottom-line_JJ mentality_NN ,_, is_VBZ moderated_VVN by_IN employee_NN core_NN selfevaluations_NNS and_CC conscientiousness_NN (_( Hypothesis_NP 3_CD )_) ._SENT We_PP collected_VVD multisource_NN field_NN data_NNS to_TO test_VV our_PP$ theoretical_JJ model_NN (_( i.e._FW ,_, focal�supervisor�_JJ coworker_NN triads_NNS ;_: N_NP 113_CD )_) ._SENT Results_NNS from_IN moderated-mediation_NN analyses_NNS provide_VVP general_JJ support_NN for_IN our_PP$ hypotheses_NNS ._SENT Theoretical_JJ and_CC practical_JJ implications_NNS of_IN bottom_JJ linementality_NN and_CC social_JJ undermining_VVG are_VBP discussed_VVN ,_, and_CC areas_NNS for_IN future_JJ research_NN are_VBP identified_VVN ._SENT 
Social_JJ undermining_VVG in_IN the_DT workplace_NN is_VBZ defined_VVN as_IN �behavior_NN intended_VVN to_TO hinder_VV ,_, over_IN time_NN ,_, the_DT ability_NN to_TO establish_VV and_CC maintain_VV positive_JJ interpersonal_JJ relationships_NNS ,_, work-related_JJ success_NN ,_, and_CC favorable_JJ reputation�_NN (_( Duffy_NP ,_, Ganster_NP ,_, &_CC Pagon_NP ,_, 2002_CD ,_, p_NN ._SENT 332_LS )_) ._SENT Examples_NNS of_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG behaviors_NNS include_VV (_( a_DT )_) delaying_VVG the_DT work_NN of_IN coworkers_NNS to_TO make_VV them_PP look_VV bad_JJ or_CC slow_VV them_PP down_RP ,_, (_( b_LS )_) competing_VVG with_IN coworkers_NNS for_IN status_NN and_CC recognition_NN ,_, and_CC (_( c_LS )_) giving_VVG coworkers_NNS incorrect_JJ or_CC misleading_VVG information_NN about_IN the_DT job_NN ._SENT Extant_JJ research_NN has_VHZ shown_VVN that_IN/that social_JJ undermining_VVG is_VBZ related_VVN to_TO unfavorable_JJ outcomes_NNS on_IN the_DT part_NN of_IN victims_NNS and_CC the_DT organization_NN ._SENT Employees_NNS who_WP are_VBP socially_RB undermined_VVN are_VBP more_RBR likely_JJ to_TO experience_VV somatic_JJ complaints_NNS ,_, depression_NN ,_, and_CC reduced_VVN self-efficacy_NN (_( Duffy_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2002_CD ;_: Duffy_NP ,_, Ganster_NP ,_, Shaw_NP ,_, Johnson_NP ,_, &_CC Pagon_NP ,_, 2006_CD )_) ._SENT Victims_NNS are_VBP also_RB more_RBR likely_JJ to_TO engage_VV in_IN behaviors_NNS that_WDT are_VBP undesirable_JJ for_IN the_DT organization_NN (_( e.g._FW ,_, increased_VVD counterproductive_JJ work_NN behaviors_NNS ,_, reduced_VVN job_NN performance_NN )_) ._SENT Despite_IN mounting_VVG evidence_NN of_IN the_DT potentially_RB damaging_JJ effects_NNS of_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG ,_, little_JJ research_NN has_VHZ examined_VVN why_WRB employees_NNS might_MD intentionally_RB try_VV to_TO hinder_VV the_DT success_NN of_IN coworkers_NNS (_( for_IN an_DT exception_NN ,_, see_VVP Duffy_NP ,_, Shaw_NP ,_, Scott_NP ,_, &_CC Tepper_NP ,_, 2006_CD )_) ._SENT By_IN further_RBR investigating_VVG this_DT line_NN of_IN inquiry_NN ,_, organizations_NNS will_MD have_VH a_DT better_JJR understanding_NN of_IN how_WRB to_TO prevent_VV social_JJ undermining_VVG in_IN the_DT workplace_NN ._SENT 
Employees_NNS may_MD engage_VV in_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG because_IN of_IN the_DT way_NN they_PP view_VVP priorities_NNS at_IN work_NN ._SENT Employees_NNS who_WP adopt_VVP a_DT one-dimensional_JJ frame_NN of_IN mind_NN that_WDT revolves_VVZ around_IN bottom-line_JJ outcomes_NNS are_VBP apt_JJ to_TO neglect_VV competing_VVG organizational_JJ priorities_NNS ,_, a_DT phenomenon_NN that_IN/that we_PP refer_VVP to_TO as_RB bottom-line_JJ mentality_NN (_( BLM_NP ;_: Wolfe_NP ,_, 1988_CD )_) ._SENT These_DT employees_NNS tend_VVP to_TO treat_VV every_DT situation_NN as_IN if_IN the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN is_VBZ the_DT only_RB relevant_JJ outcome_NN ._SENT In_IN turn_NN ,_, employees_NNS with_IN BLMs_NP run_VVP the_DT risk_NN of_IN approaching_VVG the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN with_IN a_DT high_JJ level_NN of_IN competiveness�as_NNS if_IN it_PP were_VBD a_DT game_NN to_TO be_VB won_VVN (_( Callahan_NP ,_, 2004_CD ;_: Wolfe_NP ,_, 1998_CD )_) ._SENT When_WRB employees_NNS operate_VVP with_IN a_DT one-dimensional_JJ ,_, win�loss_NN mentality_NN that_WDT revolves_VVZ around_IN bottom-line_JJ outcomes_NNS ,_, they_PP are_VBP inclined_VVN to_TO view_VV anyone_NN as_IN an_DT opponent_NN ._SENT The_DT only_JJ way_NN for_IN them_PP to_TO win_VV is_VBZ to_TO see_VV others_NNS lose_VV ;_: thus_RB ,_, they_PP may_MD feel_VV threatened_VVN by_IN the_DT success_NN of_IN coworkers_NNS ._SENT Accordingly_RB ,_, employees_NNS with_IN BLMs_NP may_MD become_VV so_RB eager_JJ to_TO secure_VV bottom-line_JJ outcomes_NNS that_IN/that they_PP engage_VVP in_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG as_IN a_DT way_NN of_IN helping_VVG coworkers_NNS fail_VVP ._SENT 
Despite_IN conceptual_JJ work_NN that_WDT has_VHZ alluded_VVN to_TO the_DT potentially_RB dysfunctional_JJ nature_NN of_IN bottom-line_JJ thinking_NN (_( Barsky_NP ,_, 2008_CD ;_: Callahan_NP ,_, 2004_CD ;_: Kerr_NP ,_, 1975_CD ;_: Shah_NP ,_, Friedman_NP ,_, &_CC Kruglanski_NP ,_, 2002_CD ;_: Shah_NP &_CC Kruglanski_NP ,_, 2002_CD ;_: Sims_NP ,_, 1992_CD ;_: Sims_NP &_CC Brinkman_NP ,_, 2002_CD ;_: Wolfe_NP ,_, 1988_CD )_) ,_, the_DT idea_NN of_IN a_DT BLM_NP has_VHZ not_RB been_VBN fully_RB integrated_VVN into_IN the_DT organizational_JJ behavior_NN literature_NN ._SENT Although_IN some_DT empirical_JJ research_NN has_VHZ provided_VVN tangential_JJ evidence_NN of_IN an_DT association_NN between_IN bottom-line_JJ thinking_NN and_CC unethical_JJ behavior_NN (_( Schweitzer_NP ,_, Ord��ez_NP ,_, &_CC Douma_NP ,_, 2004_CD ;_: Tenbrunsel_NP &_CC Messick_NP ,_, 1999_CD )_) ,_, BLM_NP ,_, as_IN a_DT construct_NN of_IN interest_NN ,_, has_VHZ not_RB been_VBN fully_RB conceptualized_VVN ,_, nor_CC is_VBZ there_RB an_DT established_VVN measure_NN to_TO capture_VV this_DT phenomenon_NN ._SENT Additionally_RB ,_, it_PP is_VBZ unclear_JJ why_WRB employees_NNS might_MD adopt_VV a_DT BLM_NP in_IN the_DT first_JJ place_NN and_CC whether_IN having_VHG such_PDT a_DT mentality_NN will_MD lead_VV to_TO undesirable_JJ behavior_NN ,_, such_JJ as_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG ._SENT 
To_TO address_VV these_DT gaps_NNS in_IN the_DT literature_NN ,_, we_PP first_RB provide_VVP a_DT conceptualization_NN and_CC definition_NN of_IN BLM_NP ._SENT Second_RB ,_, we_PP draw_VVP on_IN social-cognitive_JJ theory_NN (_( Bandura_NP ,_, 1977_CD ,_, 1986_CD )_) to_TO argue_VV that_IN/that a_DT supervisor_NN 's_POS BLM_NP may_MD prompt_VV employees_NNS to_TO mimic_VV this_DT frame_NN of_IN mind_NN by_IN adopting_VVG a_DT BLM_NP themselves_PP ._SENT Third_JJ ,_, we_PP rely_VVP on_IN conceptual_JJ work_NN pertaining_VVG to_TO BLMs_NP (_( Callahan_NP ,_, 2004_CD ;_: Sims_NP ,_, 1992_CD ;_: Sims_NP &_CC Brinkman_NP ,_, 2002_CD ;_: Wolfe_NP ,_, 1988_CD )_) to_TO argue_VV that_IN/that employees_NNS '_POS BLMs_NNS may_MD foster_VV competitive_JJ ,_, gamelike_JJ thinking_NN that_WDT encourages_VVZ adversarial_NN relationships_NNS among_IN coworkers_NNS ._SENT Accordingly_RB ,_, employees_NNS may_MD engage_VV in_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG as_IN a_DT way_NN of_IN hindering_VVG the_DT success_NN of_IN coworkers_NNS ._SENT Fourth_JJ ,_, we_PP argue_VVP that_IN/that the_DT effects_NNS of_IN BLMs_NP on_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG may_MD vary_VV depending_VVG on_IN employees_NNS '_POS personality_NN characteristics_NNS (_( viz_FW ._SENT ,_, core_JJ self-evaluations_NNS [_SYM CSEs_NPS ]_SYM ,_, conscientiousness_NN )_) ._SENT Fifth_JJ and_CC last_JJ ,_, we_PP further_VVP develop_VV the_DT BLM_NP concept_NN by_IN comparing_VVG it_PP to_TO related_JJ constructs_NNS and_CC by_IN developing_VVG and_CC assessing_VVG a_DT BLM_NP measure_NN ._SENT 
Theoretical_JJ Background_NP and_CC Hypotheses_NP 
Bottom-Line_JJ Mentality_NN :_: Definition_NN and_CC Conceptualization_NN 
The_DT term_NN bottom_NN line_NN is_VBZ informally_RB defined_VVN as_IN �profits_NNS or_CC losses_NNS ,_, as_RB of_IN a_DT business�_NN or_CC �the_JJ basic_JJ or_CC most_RBS important_JJ factor_NN ,_, consideration_NN ,_, meaning_NN ,_, etc.�_NP (_( Webster_NP 's_POS New_NP World_NP College_NP Dictionary_NP ,_, 2000_CD ,_, p_NN ._SENT 172_LS )_) ._SENT Wolfe_NP (_( 1988_CD )_) ,_, too_RB ,_, noted_VVD that_IN/that the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN is_VBZ often_RB referred_VVN to_TO in_IN terms_NNS of_IN financial_JJ consequences_NNS ,_, but_CC in_IN a_DT more_RBR general_JJ sense_NN ,_, it_PP refers_VVZ to_TO whatever_WDT �is_NN worth_NN paying_VVG attention_NN to_TO while_NN everything_NN else_RB is_VBZ discarded�_JJ (_( p_NN ._SENT 145_LS )_) ._SENT Although_IN the_DT interpretation_NN of_IN the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN may_MD be_VB construed_VVN as_IN profits_NNS ,_, the_DT business_NN ,_, or_CC other_JJ bottom-line_JJ outcomes_NNS ,_, the_DT primary_JJ tenet_NN of_IN a_DT BLM_NP aligns_VVZ most_RBS closely_RB with_IN Wolfe_NP 's_POS description_NN of_IN employees_NNS almost_RB exclusively_RB focusing_VVG on_IN a_DT particular_JJ factor_NN or_CC consideration_NN that_WDT is_VBZ identified_VVN as_IN being_VBG most_RBS important_JJ ,_, while_IN the_DT importance_NN of_IN everything_NN else_RB is_VBZ minimized_VVN ._SENT In_IN line_NN with_IN this_DT notion_NN ,_, we_PP specifically_RB define_VV BLM_NP as_IN one-dimensional_JJ thinking_NN that_WDT revolves_VVZ around_IN securing_VVG bottom-line_JJ outcomes_NNS to_TO the_DT neglect_NN of_IN competing_VVG priorities_NNS ._SENT 
Securing_VVG certain_JJ bottom-line_JJ outcomes_NNS is_VBZ normally_RB considered_VVN beneficial_JJ to_TO organizational_JJ profitability_NN (_( Brenner_NP &_CC Molander_NP ,_, 1977_CD ;_: Trevi�o_NP ,_, Brown_NP ,_, &_CC Hartman_NP ,_, 2003_CD ;_: Trevi�o_NP ,_, Hartman_NP ,_, &_CC Brown_NP ,_, 2000_CD )_) and_CC is_VBZ often_RB a_DT prerequisite_NN for_IN employee_NN rewards_NNS (_( Crotts_NP ,_, Dickson_NP ,_, &_CC Ford_NP ,_, 2005_CD ;_: Drucker_NP ,_, 1963_CD ;_: Latham_NP &_CC Locke_NP ,_, 2007_CD ;_: Pringle_NP &_CC Longenecker_NP ,_, 1982_CD )_) ._SENT However_RB ,_, a_DT focus_NN on_IN the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN may_MD become_VV problematic_JJ when_WRB employees_NNS treat_VVP it_PP as_IN if_IN it_PP is_VBZ the_DT only_RB objective_JJ to_TO strive_VV for_IN (_( Wolfe_NP ,_, 1988_CD )_) ._SENT This_DT is_VBZ particularly_RB true_JJ given_VVN that_IN/that organizations_NNS are_VBP multivalent_JJ systems_NNS ._SENT Organizations_NNS have_VHP an_DT interest_NN in_IN upholding_VVG multiple_JJ objectives_NNS and_CC values_NNS that_WDT have_VHP different_JJ effects_NNS on_IN different_JJ stakeholders_NNS ._SENT Yet_RB the_DT adoption_NN of_IN a_DT BLM_NP encourages_VVZ simplistic_JJ thinking_NN whereby_WRB employees_NNS treat_VVP every_DT situation_NN as_RB if_IN only_RB one_CD objective_NN were_VBD relevant_JJ ._SENT In_IN the_DT sole_JJ pursuit_NN of_IN a_DT single_JJ outcome_NN ,_, employees_NNS pay_VVP little_JJ attention_NN to_TO whether_IN their_PP$ actions_NNS have_VHP an_DT effect_NN on_IN competing_VVG organizational_JJ priorities_NNS ._SENT Even_RB the_DT priorities_NNS of_IN producing_VVG high-quality_JJ work_NN and_CC /_SYM or_CC treating_VVG others_NNS properly_RB may_MD become_VV muted_VVN as_IN employees_NNS fixate_VVP on_IN bottom-line_JJ outcomes_NNS ._SENT For_IN example_NN ,_, employees_NNS might_MD become_VV so_RB focused_VVN on_IN meeting_VVG bottom-line_JJ productivity_NN requirements_NNS that_IN/that they_PP cut_VVD corners_NNS without_IN considering_VVG the_DT quality_NN of_IN their_PP$ work_NN or_CC the_DT ethical_JJ consequences_NNS of_IN their_PP$ behaviors_NNS ,_, including_VVG whether_IN their_PP$ behavior_NN could_MD harm_VV another_DT individual_NN (_( e.g._FW ,_, potentially_RB releasing_VVG dangerous_JJ products_NNS to_TO customers_NNS )_) ._SENT 
Furthermore_RB ,_, when_WRB employees_NNS adopt_VVP a_DT BLM_NP in_IN multivalent_JJ situations_NNS ,_, they_PP run_VVP the_DT risk_NN of_IN approaching_VVG the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN as_IN if_IN it_PP were_VBD a_DT game_NN to_TO be_VB won_VVN (_( Wolfe_NP ,_, 1988_CD )_) ._SENT The_DT only_JJ way_NN they_PP can_MD win_VV is_VBZ by_IN securing_VVG the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN ;_: any_DT other_JJ outcome_NN is_VBZ considered_VVN a_DT loss_NN ._SENT In_IN turn_NN ,_, these_DT employees_NNS approach_VVP the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN as_IN if_IN their_PP$ actions_NNS have_VHP limited_VVN consequences�the_RB only_RB relevant_JJ outcome_NN is_VBZ winning_VVG the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN ,_, while_IN the_DT real_JJ consequences_NNS of_IN their_PP$ actions_NNS or_CC the_DT real_JJ people_NNS who_WP may_MD be_VB harmed_VVN remain_VVP psychologically_RB removed_VVN from_IN their_PP$ minds_NNS ._SENT By_IN approaching_VVG the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN with_IN a_DT one-dimensional_JJ ,_, win�lose_JJ mentality_NN ,_, employees_NNS are_VBP apt_JJ to_TO see_VV just_RB about_IN anyone_NN as_IN an_DT opponent_NN who_WP could_MD interfere_VV with_IN bottom-line_JJ attainment_NN ._SENT Thus_RB ,_, an_DT employee_NN 's_POS BLM_NP may_MD foster_VV adversarial_NN relationships_NNS among_IN members_NNS of_IN the_DT organization_NN ._SENT As_IN noted_VVN by_IN Levinson_NP (_( 1970_CD )_) ,_, when_WRB people_NNS place_VVP substantial_JJ emphasis_NN on_IN quantifiable_JJ outcomes_NNS ,_, they_PP tend_VVP to_TO exclude_VV more_RBR subtle_JJ ,_, but_CC equally_RB important_JJ ,_, initiatives_NNS such_JJ as_IN team_NN cohesiveness_NN ._SENT 
Supervisor_NP Bottom-Line_NP Mentality_NP and_CC Employee_NP Bottom-Line_NP Mentality_NP 
An_DT employee_NN 's_POS adoption_NN of_IN a_DT BLM_NP may_MD stem_VV from_IN his_PP$ or_CC her_PP$ supervisor_NN 's_POS BLM_NP ._SENT This_DT notion_NN is_VBZ supported_VVN by_IN Bandura_NP 's_POS (_( 1977_CD ,_, 1986_CD )_) social-cognitive_JJ theory_NN ._SENT Social-cognitive_JJ theory_NN explains_VVZ human_JJ behavior_NN in_IN terms_NNS of_IN observational_JJ learning_NN and_CC emphasizes_VVZ that_IN/that people_NNS learn_VVP through_IN the_DT observation_NN and_CC modeling_NN of_IN behaviors_NNS and_CC attitudes_NNS of_IN others_NNS (_( Bandura_NP ,_, 1977_CD )_) ._SENT The_DT theory_NN further_RBR suggests_VVZ that_IN/that individuals_NNS are_VBP more_RBR likely_JJ to_TO adopt_VV a_DT modeled_VVN behavior_NN if_IN it_PP results_VVZ in_IN outcomes_NNS they_PP value_VVP and_CC /_SYM or_CC if_IN the_DT role_NN model_NN is_VBZ considered_VVN credible_JJ ._SENT 
In_IN the_DT context_NN of_IN organizations_NNS ,_, social-cognitive_JJ theory_NN implies_VVZ that_IN/that subordinates_NNS learn_VVP what_WP is_VBZ expected_VVN of_IN them_PP through_IN vicarious_JJ means_NNS (_( Bandura_NP ,_, 1977_CD ,_, 1986_CD )_) ._SENT They_PP observe_VVP the_DT attitudes_NNS and_CC behaviors_NNS of_IN other_JJ organizational_JJ members_NNS (_( e.g._FW ,_, supervisors_NNS ,_, coworkers_NNS )_) and_CC use_VV this_DT information_NN to_TO construct_VV their_PP$ own_JJ realities_NNS ._SENT Social_JJ influences_NNS serve_VVP as_IN a_DT catalyst_NN for_IN subordinates_NNS to_TO develop_VV and_CC modify_VV their_PP$ beliefs_NNS and_CC values_NNS ._SENT Because_IN of_IN their_PP$ assigned_JJ roles_NNS ,_, supervisors_NNS usually_RB have_VHP a_DT considerable_JJ amount_NN of_IN influence_NN over_IN the_DT attitudes_NNS and_CC behaviors_NNS of_IN their_PP$ subordinates_NNS through_IN this_DT process_NN of_IN observational_JJ learning_NN ._SENT This_DT power_NN to_TO influence_VV subordinates_NNS stems_VVZ from_IN the_DT supervisors_NNS '_POS visibility_NN within_IN the_DT organization_NN (_( i.e._FW ,_, subordinates_NNS '_POS awareness_NN of_IN the_DT supervisor_NN 's_POS power_NN and_CC position_NN )_) and_CC their_PP$ ability_NN to_TO control_VV subordinates_NNS '_POS resources_NNS (_( e.g._FW ,_, rewards_NNS ,_, promotions_NNS ,_, favorable_JJ work_NN assignments_NNS ;_: Hickson_NP ,_, Hinings_NP ,_, Lee_NP ,_, Schneck_NP ,_, &_CC Pennings_NP ,_, 1971_CD ;_: Salancik_NP &_CC Pfeffer_NP ,_, 1978_CD )_) ._SENT These_DT contingencies_NNS of_IN power_NN force_NN subordinates_VVZ to_TO attend_VV to_TO their_PP$ supervisors_NNS '_POS attitudes_NNS and_CC behaviors_NNS and_CC look_VV to_TO their_PP$ supervisors_NNS for_IN cues_NNS on_IN organizational_JJ attitudinal_JJ and_CC behavioral_JJ norms_NNS (_( Berscheid_NP ,_, Graziano_NP ,_, Monson_NP ,_, &_CC Dermer_NP ,_, 1976_CD )_) ._SENT Additionally_RB ,_, supervisors_NNS are_VBP often_RB deemed_VVN as_IN credible_JJ role_NN models_NNS within_IN organizations_NNS (_( Brown_NP ,_, Trevi�o_NP ,_, &_CC Harrison_NP ,_, 2005_CD )_) ,_, which_WDT further_RBR adds_VVZ to_TO the_DT likelihood_NN that_IN/that supervisors_NNS will_MD gain_VV their_PP$ subordinates_NNS '_POS attention_NN ._SENT Thus_RB ,_, employees_NNS direct_VV their_PP$ attention_NN to_TO their_PP$ supervisors_NNS '_POS attitudes_NNS and_CC behaviors_NNS and_CC acquire_VV knowledge_NN regarding_VVG acceptable_JJ work-related_JJ values_NNS ,_, beliefs_NNS ,_, and_CC behaviors_NNS ._SENT 
The_DT notion_NN that_IN/that employees_NNS imitate_VVP their_PP$ supervisors_NNS is_VBZ consistent_JJ with_IN a_DT growing_VVG body_NN of_IN research_NN on_IN trickle-down_JJ models_NNS that_WDT link_VVP the_DT attitudes_NNS and_CC behaviors_NNS of_IN higher_JJR level_NN managers_NNS to_TO employees_NNS '_POS attitudes_NNS and_CC behaviors_NNS through_IN immediate_JJ supervisors_NNS ._SENT This_DT research_NN has_VHZ mainly_RB focused_VVN on_IN how_WRB positive_JJ aspects_NNS of_IN management_NN ,_, such_JJ as_IN charismatic_JJ leadership_NN and_CC ethical_JJ leadership_NN ,_, trickle_VV down_RP from_IN higher_JJR levels_NNS of_IN management_NN to_TO lower_JJR level_NN employees_NNS (_( e.g._FW ,_, Bass_NP ,_, Waldman_NP ,_, Avolio_NP ,_, &_CC Bebb_NP ,_, 1987_CD ;_: Mayer_NP ,_, Kuenzi_NP ,_, Greenbaum_NP ,_, Bardes_NP ,_, &_CC Salvador_NP ,_, 2009_CD )_) ,_, but_CC has_VHZ also_RB recently_RB begun_VVN to_TO examine_VV how_WRB negative_JJ aspects_NNS of_IN leadership_NN ,_, such_JJ as_IN organizational_JJ injustice_NN and_CC the_DT violations_NNS of_IN psychological_JJ contracts_NNS ,_, have_VHP similar_JJ effects_NNS (_( e.g._FW ,_, Aryee_NP ,_, Chen_NP ,_, Sun_NP ,_, &_CC Debrah_NP ,_, 2007_CD ;_: Hoobler_NP &_CC Brass_NP ,_, 2006_CD ;_: Tepper_NP ,_, Duffy_NP ,_, Henle_NP ,_, &_CC Lambert_NP ,_, 2006_CD )_) ._SENT Much_RB of_IN this_DT work_NN draws_VVZ on_IN social-cognitive_JJ theory_NN ,_, as_IN we_PP do_VVP here_RB ,_, suggesting_VVG that_IN/that employees_NNS tend_VVP to_TO engage_VV in_IN observational_JJ learning_NN and_CC mimic_VV their_PP$ supervisors_NNS '_POS attitudes_NNS and_CC behaviors_NNS ._SENT 
When_WRB supervisors_NNS have_VHP BLMs_NP ,_, they_PP give_VVP off_RP cues_NNS suggesting_VVG that_DT bottom-line_JJ attainment_NN is_VBZ more_RBR important_JJ than_IN competing_VVG organizational_JJ priorities_NNS (_( Callahan_NP ,_, 2004_CD ;_: Sims_NP ,_, 1992_CD ;_: Wolfe_NP ,_, 1988_CD )_) ._SENT They_PP also_RB behave_VV in_IN ways_NNS that_WDT support_VVP the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN ._SENT They_PP reinforce_VVP bottom-line_JJ thinking_NN by_IN rewarding_VVG and_CC punishing_VVG employees_NNS accordingly_RB ._SENT In_IN turn_NN ,_, supervisors_NNS '_POS attitudes_NNS and_CC behaviors_NNS concerning_VVG the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN serve_VV as_IN information_NN for_IN subordinates_NNS to_TO create_VV their_PP$ own_JJ rules_NNS and_CC strategies_NNS for_IN dealing_VVG with_IN business_NN situations_NNS ._SENT Subordinates_NNS come_VVP to_TO believe_VV that_IN/that a_DT sole_JJ focus_NN on_IN the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN is_VBZ an_DT appropriate_JJ attitude_NN to_TO possess_VV ._SENT As_IN noted_VVN by_IN Sims_NP and_CC Brinkman_NP (_( 2002_CD )_) ,_, when_WRB supervisors_NNS approach_VVP the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN as_IN if_IN it_PP were_VBD the_DT only_JJ objective_NN worth_NN achieving_VVG ,_, it_PP is_VBZ not_RB long_JJ before_IN employees_NNS think_VVP in_IN this_DT way_NN as_IN well_RB ._SENT Thus_RB ,_, we_PP expect_VVP subordinates_NNS to_TO role-model_NN their_PP$ supervisors_NNS by_IN adopting_VVG their_PP$ supervisors_NNS '_POS BLMs_NNS ._SENT On_IN the_DT basis_NN of_IN these_DT arguments_NNS ,_, we_PP hypothesize_VVP the_DT following_NN :_: 
Hypothesis_NN 1_CD :_: Supervisor_NP BLM_NP is_VBZ positively_RB related_VVN to_TO employee_NN BLM_NP ._SENT 
Employee_NP Bottom-Line_NP Mentality_NP and_CC Social_NP Undermining_NP 
If_IN employees_NNS with_IN BLMs_NP operate_VVP with_IN one-dimensional_JJ thinking_NN that_WDT revolves_VVZ around_IN bottom-line_JJ outcomes_NNS (_( Wolfe_NP ,_, 1988_CD )_) ,_, then_RB it_PP is_VBZ possible_JJ that_IN/that they_PP attempt_VVP to_TO secure_VV the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN with_IN a_DT high_JJ level_NN of_IN competitiveness_NN ._SENT Employees_NNS with_IN BLMs_NP relentlessly_RB approach_VVP the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN as_IN if_IN it_PP were_VBD the_DT only_JJ objective_NN worth_NN attaining_VVG ._SENT In_IN turn_NN ,_, these_DT employees_NNS may_MD be_VB willing_JJ to_TO engage_VV in_IN any_DT action_NN that_WDT brings_VVZ them_PP closer_JJR to_TO securing_VVG the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN ,_, with_IN little_JJ consideration_NN given_VVN to_TO the_DT residual_JJ effects_NNS that_WDT may_MD ensue_VV ._SENT In_IN such_JJ instances_NNS ,_, securing_VVG the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN is_VBZ treated_VVN as_RB if_IN it_PP were_VBD a_DT game_NN to_TO be_VB won_VVN ,_, while_IN any_DT other_JJ outcome_NN is_VBZ considered_VVN a_DT loss_NN ._SENT 
One_CD problem_NN with_IN approaching_VVG the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN in_IN terms_NNS of_IN winning_VVG versus_CC losing_VVG is_VBZ that_IN/that any_DT other_JJ person_NN may_MD be_VB construed_VVN as_IN a_DT potential_JJ opponent_NN capable_JJ of_IN impeding_VVG bottom-line_JJ success_NN (_( Callahan_NP ,_, 2004_CD )_) ._SENT Indeed_RB ,_, Wolfe_NP (_( 1988_CD )_) noted_VVD that_IN/that BLMs_NP may_MD foster_VV significant_JJ rivalry_NN among_IN organizational_JJ members_NNS ._SENT Employees_NNS with_IN BLMs_NP are_VBP apt_JJ to_TO believe_VV that_IN/that the_DT organization_NN must_MD have_VH winners_NNS and_CC losers_NNS ._SENT These_DT employees_NNS tend_VVP to_TO believe_VV that_IN/that another_DT 's_VBZ success_NN puts_VVZ them_PP in_IN the_DT losing_VVG category_NN ._SENT For_IN them_PP to_TO win_VV ,_, they_PP must_MD attain_VV bottom-line_JJ outcomes_NNS while_IN others_NNS fail_VVP to_TO do_VV so�their_NN success_NN and_CC others_NNS '_POS success_NN cannot_MD coexist_VV ._SENT 
Consequently_RB ,_, employees_NNS with_IN BLMs_NP may_MD approach_VV their_PP$ work_NN with_IN a_DT winner_NN takes_VVZ all_DT mentality_NN (_( Callahan_NP ,_, 2004_CD )_) ._SENT Rather_RB than_IN cooperating_VVG with_IN colleagues_NNS to_TO ensure_VV bottom-line_JJ success_NN ,_, these_DT employees_NNS tend_VVP to_TO believe_VV that_IN/that whoever_WP contributes_VVZ most_JJS to_TO the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN is_VBZ the_DT winner_NN ,_, thus_RB destroying_VVG the_DT notion_NN that_IN/that everyone_NN is_VBZ in_IN this_DT together_RB ._SENT When_WRB employees_NNS compete_VVP ,_, rather_RB than_IN cooperate_VV ,_, with_IN coworkers_NNS in_IN a_DT race_NN to_TO secure_VV bottom-line_JJ outcomes_NNS ,_, their_PP$ competitiveness_NN may_MD drive_VV them_PP to_TO take_VV actions_NNS that_WDT move_VVP beyond_IN an_DT initial_JJ desire_NN to_TO see_VV coworkers_NNS fail_VV (_( Wolfe_NP ,_, 1988_CD )_) ._SENT As_IN noted_VVN by_IN Wolfe_NP (_( 1988_CD )_) ,_, employees_NNS who_WP adopt_VVP one-dimensional_JJ thinking_NN that_WDT revolves_VVZ around_IN bottom-line_JJ outcomes_NNS are_VBP �a_NN short_JJ step_NN away_RB from_IN wanting_VVG others_NNS to_TO fail�_NN to_TO actually_RB helping_VVG them_PP fail_VVP by_IN undermining_VVG their_PP$ efforts_NNS ,_, withholding_VVG information_NN ,_, or_CC making_VVG them_PP look_VVP bad�_NN (_( p_NN ._SENT 149_LS )_) ._SENT Thus_RB ,_, an_DT employee_NN 's_POS sole_JJ pursuit_NN of_IN bottom-line_JJ outcomes_NNS may_MD come_VV at_IN the_DT expense_NN of_IN others_NNS within_IN the_DT organization_NN (_( Sims_NP ,_, 1992_CD ;_: Sims_NP &_CC Brinkman_NP ,_, 2002_CD )_) ._SENT Given_VVN that_IN/that the_DT success_NN of_IN coworkers_NNS ,_, in_IN particular_JJ ,_, may_MD be_VB viewed_VVN as_IN an_DT obstacle_NN to_TO overcome_VV in_IN pursuit_NN of_IN one_CD 's_POS own_JJ bottom-line_JJ achievement_NN ,_, we_PP expect_VVP employees_NNS with_IN BLMs_NP to_TO intentionally_RB try_VV to_TO hinder_VV the_DT success_NN of_IN coworkers_NNS by_IN engaging_VVG in_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG (_( e.g._FW ,_, providing_VVG coworkers_NNS with_IN incorrect_JJ or_CC misleading_VVG information_NN ,_, delaying_VVG work_NN to_TO make_VV coworkers_NNS look_VV bad_JJ or_CC slow_VV them_PP down_RP ,_, competing_VVG with_IN coworkers_NNS for_IN status_NN and_CC recognition_NN )_) ._SENT On_IN the_DT basis_NN of_IN these_DT arguments_NNS ,_, we_PP hypothesize_VVP the_DT following_NN :_: 
Hypothesis_NN 2_CD :_: Employee_NP BLM_NP is_VBZ positively_RB related_VVN to_TO social_JJ undermining_VVG ._SENT 
The_DT Moderating_JJ Role_NN of_IN Personality_NP 
In_IN accordance_NN with_IN social-cognitive_JJ theory_NN (_( Bandura_NP ,_, 1977_CD ,_, 1986_CD )_) ,_, the_DT effect_NN of_IN supervisor_NN BLM_NP on_IN employee_NN social_JJ undermining_VVG is_VBZ expected_VVN to_TO occur_VV through_IN role-modeling_NN processes_NNS that_WDT encourage_VVP employees_NNS to_TO adopt_VV their_PP$ supervisors_NNS '_POS BLM_NP ._SENT Yet_RB the_DT role_NN of_IN employee_NN BLM_NP in_IN the_DT relationship_NN between_IN supervisor_NN BLM_NP and_CC social_JJ undermining_VVG may_MD vary_VV depending_VVG on_IN employees_NNS '_POS personality_NN characteristics_NNS that_WDT dictate_VVP how_WRB they_PP approach_VVP the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN ._SENT In_IN particular_JJ ,_, employees_NNS who_WP are_VBP high_JJ in_IN CSEs_NNS and_CC conscientiousness_NN may_MD have_VH the_DT confidence_NN and_CC work_NN ethic_NN to_TO rely_VV on_IN their_PP$ own_JJ merit_NN in_IN securing_VVG bottom-line_JJ outcomes_NNS ,_, whereas_IN those_DT who_WP score_VVP low_JJ on_IN these_DT factors_NNS may_MD have_VH stronger_JJR tendencies_NNS to_TO engage_VV in_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG as_IN a_DT way_NN of_IN making_VVG themselves_PP look_VVP better_JJR in_IN terms_NNS of_IN bottom-line_JJ success_NN ._SENT 
First_RB ,_, CSE_NP is_VBZ a_DT higher_JJR order_NN personality_NN trait_NN indicated_VVN by_IN four_CD individual_JJ characteristics_NNS including_VVG (_( a_DT )_) self-esteem_NN ,_, (_( b_LS )_) locus_NN of_IN control_NN ,_, (_( c_LS )_) generalized_VVN self-efficacy_NN ,_, and_CC (_( d_LS )_) emotional_JJ stability_NN (_( Judge_NP ,_, 2009_CD ;_: Judge_NP ,_, Erez_NP ,_, Bono_NP ,_, &_CC Thoresen_NP ,_, 2003_CD ;_: Judge_NP ,_, Locke_NP ,_, &_CC Durham_NP ,_, 1997_CD )_) ._SENT CSE_NP ,_, as_IN a_DT broad_JJ latent_JJ construct_NN ,_, unifies_VVZ the_DT psychological_JJ mechanisms_NNS inherent_JJ in_IN each_DT trait_NN to_TO capture_VV a_DT person_NN 's_POS general_JJ self-regard_NN (_( Judge_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2003_CD )_) ._SENT It_PP serves_VVZ as_IN a_DT basic_JJ assessment_NN of_IN one_CD 's_POS worthiness_NN ,_, effectiveness_NN ,_, and_CC confidence_NN across_IN situations_NNS ._SENT People_NNS high_JJ in_IN CSE_NNS tend_VVP to_TO think_VV highly_RB of_IN themselves_PP ,_, believe_VVP in_IN their_PP$ ability_NN to_TO complete_VV tasks_NNS ,_, and_CC have_VH a_DT strong_JJ sense_NN of_IN personal_JJ control_NN over_IN their_PP$ lives_NNS ._SENT Conversely_RB ,_, people_NNS who_WP are_VBP low_JJ in_IN CSE_NNS tend_VVP to_TO see_VV themselves_PP as_IN unworthy_NN compared_VVN to_TO others_NNS (_( Judge_NP &_CC Hurst_NP ,_, 2007_CD )_) ._SENT They_PP tend_VVP to_TO focus_VV on_IN their_PP$ failures_NNS and_CC shortcomings_NNS and_CC believe_VVP they_PP have_VHP little_JJ control_NN over_IN their_PP$ lives_NNS ._SENT 
As_IN a_DT result_NN of_IN variations_NNS in_IN self-confidence_NN ,_, an_DT employee_NN 's_POS level_NN of_IN CSE_NP may_MD strengthen_VV or_CC weaken_VV the_DT relationship_NN between_IN employee_NN BLM_NP and_CC social_JJ undermining_VVG ._SENT Those_DT high_NN in_IN CSE_NP should_MD believe_VV that_IN/that they_PP are_VBP worthy_JJ and_CC capable_JJ of_IN securing_VVG the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN based_VVN on_IN their_PP$ own_JJ merit_NN ._SENT Extant_JJ research_NN suggests_VVZ that_IN/that people_NNS who_WP are_VBP high_JJ in_IN CSE_NNS tend_VVP to_TO be_VB confident_JJ in_IN their_PP$ own_JJ agency_NN in_IN handling_VVG life_NN 's_POS challenges_NNS (_( Judge_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2003_CD ;_: Judge_NP ,_, Locke_NP ,_, Durham_NP ,_, &_CC Kluger_NP ,_, 1998_CD )_) ._SENT Their_PP$ positive_JJ sense_NN of_IN self-worth_NN leads_VVZ them_PP to_TO believe_VV that_IN/that they_PP will_MD be_VB successful_JJ regardless_RB of_IN impeding_VVG obstacles_NNS (_( Kammeyer-Mueller_NP ,_, Judge_NP ,_, &_CC Scott_NP ,_, 2009_CD )_) ._SENT In_IN turn_NN ,_, those_DT high_NN in_IN CSE_NP should_MD feel_VV less_RBR threatened_VVN by_IN the_DT success_NN of_IN coworkers_NNS and_CC should_MD be_VB less_RBR concerned_JJ that_IN/that coworkers_NNS will_MD hinder_VV their_PP$ own_JJ bottom-line_JJ success_NN ._SENT Because_IN they_PP are_VBP confident_JJ in_IN their_PP$ own_JJ agency_NN in_IN attaining_VVG bottom-line_JJ outcomes_NNS ,_, they_PP are_VBP less_RBR likely_JJ to_TO find_VV it_PP necessary_JJ to_TO hinder_VV a_DT coworker_NN 's_POS success_NN for_IN the_DT purpose_NN of_IN making_VVG their_PP$ own_JJ bottom_JJ line_NN look_NN better_RBR ._SENT Thus_RB ,_, high_JJ levels_NNS of_IN CSE_NNS are_VBP expected_VVN to_TO weaken_VV the_DT positive_JJ relationship_NN between_IN employee_NN BLM_NP and_CC social_JJ undermining_VVG ._SENT 
In_IN contrast_NN ,_, those_DT low_NN in_IN CSE_NNS tend_VVP to_TO doubt_VV their_PP$ performance_NN and_CC feel_VV powerless_JJ in_IN high-pressure_JJ situations_NNS (_( Judge_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 1997_CD )_) ._SENT A_DT one-dimensional_JJ focus_NN on_IN the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN may_MD pose_VV as_IN a_DT high-pressure_JJ situation_NN whose_WP$ outcome_NN they_PP have_VHP little_JJ confidence_NN in_IN obtaining_VVG by_IN solely_RB relying_VVG on_IN their_PP$ own_JJ merit_NN ._SENT This_DT may_MD be_VB particularly_RB true_JJ given_VVN that_IN/that they_PP see_VVP themselves_PP as_IN victims_NNS of_IN their_PP$ environments_NNS (_( Judge_NP ,_, Erez_NP ,_, &_CC Bono_NP ,_, 1998_CD ;_: Judge_NP &_CC Hurst_NP ,_, 2007_CD )_) ._SENT Rather_RB than_IN having_VHG confidence_NN that_IN/that they_PP can_MD overcome_VV obstacles_NNS pertaining_VVG to_TO bottom-line_JJ achievement_NN ,_, they_PP are_VBP likely_JJ to_TO conclude_VV that_IN/that their_PP$ success_NN depends_VVZ on_IN external_JJ factors_NNS ,_, such_JJ as_IN coworkers_NNS failing_VVG ._SENT Extant_JJ research_NN has_VHZ also_RB demonstrated_VVN that_IN/that people_NNS low_JJ in_IN CSE_NNS tend_VVP to_TO assume_VV the_DT worst_JJS when_WRB confronted_VVN with_IN challenges_NNS (_( Judge_NP &_CC Hurst_NP ,_, 2007_CD )_) ._SENT Accordingly_RB ,_, they_PP may_MD be_VB more_RBR likely_JJ to_TO conclude_VV that_IN/that coworkers_NNS will_MD oust_VV them_PP from_IN the_DT winning_JJ position_NN of_IN attaining_VVG bottom-line_JJ success_NN ._SENT As_IN a_DT result_NN of_IN low_JJ confidence_NN ,_, powerlessness_NN ,_, and_CC pessimistic_JJ attitudes_NNS ,_, when_WRB focused_VVN on_IN the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN ,_, those_DT low_NN in_IN CSE_NN may_MD be_VB more_RBR likely_JJ than_IN those_DT high_NN in_IN CSE_NN to_TO believe_VV that_IN/that the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN can_MD only_RB be_VB achieved_VVN by_IN making_VVG others_NNS look_VVP bad_JJ ._SENT Thus_RB ,_, low_JJ levels_NNS of_IN CSE_NNS are_VBP expected_VVN to_TO strengthen_VV the_DT relationship_NN between_IN employee_NN BLM_NP and_CC social_JJ undermining_VVG ._SENT 
Second_RB ,_, conscientiousness_NN is_VBZ a_DT personality_NN trait_NN that_WDT captures_VVZ a_DT person_NN 's_POS tendency_NN to_TO be_VB hardworking_VVG ,_, efficient_JJ ,_, organized_JJ ,_, self-disciplined_JJ ,_, and_CC dutiful_JJ (_( Costa_NP &_CC McCrae_NP ,_, 1992_CD ;_: Goldberg_NP ,_, 1990_CD )_) ._SENT Extant_JJ research_NN has_VHZ shown_VVN that_IN/that a_DT person_NN 's_POS level_NN of_IN conscientiousness_NN affects_VVZ how_WRB he_PP or_CC she_PP approaches_VVZ his_PP$ or_CC her_PP$ job_NN (_( Barrick_NP ,_, Mount_NP ,_, &_CC Strauss_NP ,_, 1993_CD ;_: Demerouti_NP ,_, 2006_CD )_) ._SENT Those_DT high_NN in_IN conscientiousness_NN are_VBP harder_JJR workers_NNS (_( Mount_NP &_CC Barrick_NP ,_, 1998_CD )_) ._SENT They_PP tend_VVP to_TO be_VB persistent_JJ when_WRB faced_VVN with_IN challenges_NNS ._SENT Research_NP also_RB suggests_VVZ that_IN/that they_PP consider_VV it_PP their_PP$ duty_NN to_TO do_VV the_DT right_JJ thing_NN and_CC abide_VV by_IN ethical_JJ principles_NNS (_( Colquitt_NP ,_, Scott_NP ,_, Judge_NP ,_, &_CC Shaw_NP ,_, 2006_CD ;_: McFerran_NP ,_, Aquino_NP ,_, &_CC Duffy_NP ,_, 2010_CD ;_: Moon_NP ,_, 2001_CD )_) ._SENT However_RB ,_, those_DT low_NN in_IN conscientiousness_NN tend_VVP to_TO approach_VV their_PP$ work_NN in_IN a_DT less_RBR scrupulous_JJ manner_NN (_( Moon_NP ,_, 2001_CD )_) ._SENT Extant_JJ research_NN has_VHZ shown_VVN that_IN/that they_PP tend_VVP to_TO procrastinate_VV and_CC have_VHP weaker_JJR self-discipline_NN when_WRB it_PP comes_VVZ to_TO fulfilling_VVG work_NN responsibilities_NNS (_( Renn_NP ,_, Allen_NP ,_, &_CC Huning_NP ,_, 2011_CD ;_: Steel_NP ,_, 2007_CD )_) ._SENT They_PP are_VBP also_RB less_RBR concerned_VVN about_RB whether_IN their_PP$ work_NN adheres_VVZ to_TO ideal_JJ standards_NNS (_( Moon_NP ,_, 2001_CD )_) ._SENT 
As_IN a_DT result_NN of_IN an_DT employee_NN 's_POS level_NN of_IN conscientiousness_NN influencing_VVG his_PP$ or_CC her_PP$ approach_NN to_TO the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN ,_, conscientiousness_NN may_MD moderate_VV the_DT relationship_NN between_IN employee_NN BLM_NP and_CC social_JJ undermining_VVG ._SENT Employees_NNS high_JJ in_IN conscientiousness_NN are_VBP expected_VVN to_TO think_VV carefully_RB about_RB how_WRB to_TO achieve_VV bottom-line_JJ outcomes_NNS ._SENT Research_NP suggests_VVZ that_IN/that their_PP$ high_JJ level_NN of_IN self-discipline_NN allows_VVZ them_PP to_TO work_VV smarter_RBR and_CC harder_RBR in_IN attaining_VVG desired_VVN outcomes_NNS (_( Mount_NP &_CC Barrick_NP ,_, 1998_CD )_) ._SENT In_IN turn_NN ,_, employees_NNS high_JJ in_IN conscientiousness_NN are_VBP expected_VVN to_TO stay_VV the_DT course_NN when_WRB it_PP comes_VVZ to_TO bottom-line_JJ attainment_NN ._SENT Their_PP$ sense_NN of_IN deliberation_NN ,_, efficiency_NN ,_, and_CC hard_JJ work_NN should_MD allow_VV them_PP to_TO achieve_VV bottom-line_JJ success_NN without_IN having_VHG to_TO resort_VV to_TO social_JJ undermining_VVG to_TO make_VV themselves_PP look_VV better_RBR ._SENT Additionally_RB ,_, extant_JJ research_NN has_VHZ shown_VVN that_IN/that those_DT high_NN in_IN conscientiousness_NN approach_VVP their_PP$ work_NN with_IN integrity_NN and_CC attention_NN to_TO ethical_JJ principles_NNS (_( J_NP ._SENT Hogan_NP &_CC Ones_NP ,_, 1997_CD ;_: Horn_NP ,_, Nelson_NP ,_, &_CC Brannick_NP ,_, 2004_CD ;_: McFerran_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2010_CD ;_: Murphy_NP &_CC Lee_NP ,_, 1994_CD )_) ._SENT They_PP also_RB consider_VV it_PP their_PP$ duty_NN to_TO care_VV about_IN the_DT welfare_NN of_IN others_NNS (_( Moon_NP ,_, 2001_CD )_) ._SENT Thus_RB ,_, when_WRB focused_VVN on_IN the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN ,_, employees_NNS high_JJ in_IN conscientiousness_NN may_MD be_VB less_RBR likely_JJ to_TO hinder_VV another_DT 's_VBZ success_NN for_IN the_DT purpose_NN of_IN enhancing_VVG their_PP$ own_JJ bottom-line_JJ outcomes_NNS ._SENT In_IN line_NN with_IN this_DT notion_NN ,_, we_PP expect_VVP high_JJ levels_NNS of_IN conscientiousness_NN to_TO weaken_VV the_DT positive_JJ relationship_NN between_IN employee_NN BLM_NP and_CC social_JJ undermining_VVG ._SENT 
In_IN contrast_NN ,_, those_DT low_NN in_IN conscientiousness_NN should_MD be_VB less_RBR likely_JJ to_TO approach_VV the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN with_IN an_DT action_NN plan_NN in_IN place_NN ._SENT Despite_IN being_VBG focused_VVN on_IN bottom-line_JJ outcomes_NNS ,_, their_PP$ lack_NN of_IN self-discipline_NN and_CC tendency_NN to_TO be_VB inefficient_JJ may_MD make_VV it_PP difficult_JJ for_IN them_PP to_TO achieve_VV the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN based_VVN on_IN their_PP$ own_JJ merit_NN ._SENT Furthermore_RB ,_, research_NN has_VHZ shown_VVN that_IN/that those_DT low_NN in_IN conscientiousness_NN do_VVP not_RB work_VV as_IN hard_JJ and_CC are_VBP more_RBR likely_JJ to_TO procrastinate_VV (_( Mount_NP ,_, 1998_CD ;_: Renn_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2011_CD ;_: Steel_NP ,_, 2007_CD )_) ._SENT A_DT person_NN who_WP is_VBZ unorganized_JJ ,_, undisciplined_JJ ,_, and_CC inefficient_JJ and_CC who_WP waits_VVZ until_IN the_DT last_JJ minute_NN may_MD respond_VV to_TO the_DT pressure_NN of_IN bottom-line_JJ attainment_NN by_IN seeking_VVG alternative_NN means_VVZ to_TO make_VV him-_NN or_CC herself_PP look_VVP better_RBR ._SENT In_IN particular_NN ,_, such_PDT a_DT person_NN may_MD have_VH stronger_JJR tendencies_NNS to_TO conclude_VV that_IN/that the_DT only_JJ way_NN to_TO appear_VV successful_JJ is_VBZ by_IN hindering_VVG the_DT success_NN of_IN coworkers_NNS ._SENT This_DT may_MD be_VB particularly_RB true_JJ given_VVN that_IN/that those_DT low_NN in_IN conscientiousness_NN are_VBP not_RB as_RB likely_JJ to_TO act_VV in_IN accordance_NN with_IN their_PP$ conscience_NN (_( Costa_NP &_CC McCrae_NP ,_, 1992_CD ;_: Goldberg_NP ,_, 1992_CD ;_: R_NN ._SENT Hogan_NP &_CC Blake_NP ,_, 1996_CD )_) ._SENT Research_NP suggests_VVZ that_IN/that they_PP are_VBP not_RB as_RB attentive_JJ to_TO moral_JJ duties_NNS (_( Colquitt_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2006_CD ;_: McFerran_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2010_CD ;_: Moon_NP ,_, 2001_CD )_) ._SENT Accordingly_RB ,_, they_PP may_MD have_VH stronger_JJR tendencies_NNS to_TO handle_VV bottom-line_JJ pressure_NN by_IN engaging_VVG in_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG without_IN giving_VVG much_JJ thought_NN to_TO the_DT harm_NN they_PP are_VBP causing_VVG coworkers_NNS ._SENT Thus_RB ,_, we_PP expect_VVP low_JJ levels_NNS of_IN conscientiousness_NN to_TO strengthen_VV the_DT positive_JJ relationship_NN between_IN employee_NN BLM_NP and_CC social_JJ undermining_VVG ._SENT 
We_PP have_VHP noted_VVN that_IN/that employee_NN BLM_NP is_VBZ expected_VVN to_TO serve_VV as_IN the_DT process_NN through_IN which_WDT supervisor_NN BLM_NP is_VBZ related_VVN to_TO employee_NN social_NN undermining_VVG (_( through_IN observational_JJ learning_NN ;_: Bandura_NP ,_, 1977_CD ,_, 1986_CD )_) ._SENT Assuming_VVG that_DT low_JJ (_( high_JJ )_) levels_NNS of_IN CSE_NN and_CC conscientiousness_NN strengthen_VVP (_( weaken_VV )_) the_DT positive_JJ relationship_NN between_IN employee_NN BLM_NP and_CC social_JJ undermining_VVG ,_, we_PP expect_VVP these_DT personality_NN characteristics_NNS to_TO conditionally_RB influence_VV the_DT strength_NN of_IN the_DT indirect_JJ relationship_NN between_IN supervisor_NN BLM_NP and_CC social_JJ undermining_VVG ._SENT In_IN effect_NN ,_, we_PP expect_VVP low_JJ (_( high_JJ )_) levels_NNS of_IN CSE_NN and_CC conscientiousness_NN to_TO strengthen_VV (_( weaken_VV )_) the_DT likelihood_NN that_IN/that employee_NN BLM_NP explains_VVZ the_DT relationship_NN between_IN supervisor_NN BLM_NP and_CC social_JJ undermining_VVG ._SENT Thus_RB ,_, to_TO complete_VV our_PP$ theoretical_JJ model_NN ,_, we_PP predict_VVP a_DT pattern_NN of_IN moderated_VVN mediation_NN among_IN our_PP$ study_NN variables_NNS as_RB shown_VVN in_IN Figure_NP 1._CD On_IN the_DT basis_NN of_IN the_DT theoretical_JJ arguments_NNS provided_VVN in_IN support_NN of_IN Hypotheses_NP 1_CD and_CC 2_CD and_CC the_DT moderator_NN arguments_NNS provided_VVN above_IN ,_, we_PP specifically_RB hypothesize_VVP :_: 
Hypothesis_NN 3_CD :_: Employee_NN CSEs_NNS and_CC conscientiousness_NN moderate_VVP the_DT strength_NN of_IN the_DT indirect_JJ relationship_NN between_IN supervisor_NN BLM_NP and_CC social_JJ undermining_VVG via_IN employee_NN BLM_NP ,_, such_JJ that_IN/that the_DT mediated_VVN relationship_NN is_VBZ stronger_JJR (_( weaker_JJR )_) when_WRB employee_NN CSEs_NNS and_CC conscientiousness_NN are_VBP low_JJ (_( high_JJ )_) ._SENT 
Method_NN 
Sample_NP and_CC Procedure_NP 
We_PP collected_VVD data_NNS from_IN focal_JJ employees_NNS ,_, their_PP$ coworkers_NNS ,_, and_CC their_PP$ immediate_JJ supervisors_NNS from_IN various_JJ organizations_NNS located_VVN in_IN the_DT southeastern_JJ United_NP States_NPS in_IN industries_NNS including_VVG hospitality_NN ,_, retail_JJ ,_, accounting_NN ,_, education_NN ,_, manufacturing_NN ,_, banking_NN ,_, and_CC food_NN service_NN ._SENT We_PP administered_VVD surveys_NNS via_IN the_DT Internet_NN ._SENT Students_NNS were_VBD asked_VVN to_TO serve_VV as_IN organizational_JJ contacts_NNS in_IN exchange_NN for_IN extra_JJ credit_NN ._SENT These_DT students_NNS recruited_VVD a_DT working_VVG adult_NN (_( defined_VVN as_IN working_VVG 20_CD hr_NN per_IN week_NN or_CC more_JJR )_) who_WP was_VBD willing_JJ to_TO serve_VV as_IN a_DT participant_NN (_( focal_JJ employee_NN )_) ._SENT The_DT focal_JJ employee_NN then_RB asked_VVD his_PP$ or_CC her_PP$ supervisor_NN and_CC a_DT coworker_NN to_TO fill_VV out_RP the_DT supervisor_NN and_CC coworker_NN surveys_NNS ,_, respectively_RB ._SENT A_DT number_NN of_IN researchers_NNS have_VHP used_VVN similar_JJ approaches_NNS when_WRB collecting_VVG data_NN (_( e.g._FW ,_, Grant_NP &_CC Mayer_NP ,_, 2009_CD ;_: Lee_NP &_CC Allen_NP ,_, 2002_CD ;_: Mayer_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2009_CD ;_: Morgeson_NP &_CC Humphrey_NP ,_, 2006_CD ;_: Piccolo_NP ,_, Greenbaum_NP ,_, Den_NP Hartog_NP ,_, &_CC Folger_NP ,_, 2010_CD ;_: Skarlicki_NP &_CC Folger_NP ,_, 1997_CD )_) ._SENT 
Similar_JJ to_TO Judge_NP ,_, Scott_NP ,_, and_CC Ilies_NNS (_( 2006_CD )_) ,_, we_PP took_VVD a_DT number_NN of_IN steps_NNS to_TO ensure_VV that_IN/that the_DT surveys_NNS were_VBD completed_VVN by_IN the_DT correct_JJ sources_NNS ._SENT First_RB ,_, when_WRB introducing_VVG the_DT study_NN ,_, we_PP emphasized_VVD the_DT importance_NN of_IN integrity_NN in_IN the_DT scientific_JJ process_NN ._SENT We_PP told_VVD the_DT participants_NNS that_IN/that it_PP was_VBD essential_JJ for_IN the_DT focal_JJ employee_NN ,_, coworker_NN ,_, and_CC supervisor_NN respondents_NNS to_TO fill_VV out_RP the_DT correct_JJ surveys_NNS ._SENT Second_RB ,_, when_WRB participants_NNS submitted_VVD their_PP$ on-line_JJ surveys_NNS ,_, time_NN stamps_NNS and_CC IP_NP addresses_NNS were_VBD recorded_VVN ._SENT We_PP examined_VVD these_DT data_NNS to_TO ensure_VV that_IN/that the_DT surveys_NNS were_VBD submitted_VVN at_IN different_JJ times_NNS and_CC with_IN different_JJ IP_NP addresses_NNS ._SENT We_PP invited_VVD 395_CD students_NNS to_TO serve_VV as_IN organizational_JJ contacts_NNS ._SENT We_PP received_VVD responses_NNS from_IN 147_CD focal_JJ employees_NNS ,_, 142_CD coworkers_NNS ,_, and_CC 135_CD supervisors_NNS ._SENT After_IN matching_VVG data_NNS across_IN all_DT three_CD sources_NNS ,_, we_PP had_VHD usable_JJ data_NNS from_IN 113_CD focal�coworker�supervisor_NN triads_NNS ,_, for_IN an_DT overall_JJ response_NN rate_NN of_IN 29_CD %_NN ._SENT 
Focal_JJ employee_NN respondents_NNS were_VBD 48.3_CD %_NN male_NN and_CC 50.3_CD %_NN female_NN ,_, and_CC 1.4_CD %_NN did_VVD not_RB indicate_VV their_PP$ sex_NN ._SENT Focal_JJ employees_NNS were_VBD 6.8_CD %_NN African_NP American_NP ,_, 8.8_CD %_NN Asian_NP American_NP ,_, 58.5_CD %_NN Caucasian_NN ,_, 15.6_CD %_NN Latino_NP /_SYM a_DT ,_, 6.1_CD %_NN Hispanic_JJ ,_, 1.4_CD %_NN Native_NP American_NP ,_, 1.4_CD %_NN biracial_JJ ,_, and_CC 1.4_CD %_NN other_JJ ._SENT Focal_JJ employees_NNS were_VBD 59_CD %_NN employed_VVN part-time_RB ,_, were_VBD 41_CD %_NN employed_VVN full-time_RB ,_, had_VHD an_DT average_JJ age_NN of_IN 25.37_CD years_NNS (_( SD_NP =_SYM 8.17_CD )_) ,_, and_CC had_VHD an_DT average_NN of_IN 3_CD years_NNS of_IN experience_NN with_IN their_PP$ organization_NN (_( SD_NP =_SYM 4.15_CD )_) ._SENT 
Coworker_NN respondents_NNS were_VBD 46.4_CD %_NN male_NN and_CC 53.6_CD %_NN female_NN ._SENT Coworkers_NNS were_VBD 5.8_CD %_NN African_NP American_NP ,_, 5.1_CD %_NN Asian_NP American_NP ,_, 64.5_CD %_NN Caucasian_NN ,_, 9.4_CD %_NN Latino_NP /_SYM a_DT ,_, 8.0_CD %_NN Hispanic_JJ ,_, 1.4_CD %_NN Native_NP American_NP ,_, 3.6_CD %_NN biracial_JJ ,_, and_CC 2.2_CD %_NN other_JJ ._SENT Coworker_NN respondents_NNS were_VBD 30.4_CD %_NN employed_VVN part-time_RB ,_, were_VBD 69.6_CD %_NN employed_VVN full-time_RB ,_, had_VHD an_DT average_JJ age_NN of_IN 30.79_CD years_NNS (_( SD_NP =_SYM 11.77_CD )_) ,_, and_CC had_VHD an_DT average_NN of_IN 4.39_CD years_NNS of_IN organizational_JJ tenure_NN (_( SD_NP =_SYM 5.93_CD )_) ._SENT 
Supervisor_NN respondents_NNS were_VBD 59.1_CD %_NN male_NN and_CC 40.9_CD %_NN female_NN ._SENT Supervisors_NNS were_VBD 7.3_CD %_NN African_NP American_NP ,_, 5.8_CD %_NN Asian_NP American_NP ,_, 65.0_CD %_NN Caucasian_NN ,_, 12.4_CD %_NN Latino_NP /_SYM a_DT ,_, 4.4_CD %_NN Hispanic_JJ ,_, 1.5_CD %_NN Native_NP American_NP ,_, 0.7_CD %_NN biracial_JJ ,_, and_CC 2.9_CD %_NN other_JJ ._SENT Supervisor_NN respondents_NNS were_VBD 2.9_CD %_NN employed_VVN part-time_RB ,_, were_VBD 97.1_CD %_NN employed_VVN full-time_RB ,_, had_VHD an_DT average_JJ age_NN of_IN 38.68_CD years_NNS (_( SD_NP =_SYM 10.13_CD )_) ,_, and_CC had_VHD an_DT average_NN of_IN 9.41_CD years_NNS of_IN organizational_JJ tenure_NN (_( SD_NP =_SYM 8.42_CD )_) ._SENT 
The_DT focal_JJ employee_NN survey_NN contained_VVD measures_NNS of_IN the_DT focal_JJ respondent_NN 's_POS BLM_NP ,_, CSEs_NP ,_, conscientiousness_NN ,_, demographics_NNS ,_, and_CC negative_JJ affectivity_NN and_CC agreeableness_NN as_IN controls_NNS ._SENT The_DT coworker_NN survey_NN contained_VVD measures_NNS of_IN the_DT focal_JJ employee_NN 's_POS social_JJ undermining_VVG and_CC demographics_NNS ._SENT The_DT supervisor_NN survey_NN contained_VVD measures_NNS of_IN the_DT supervisor_NN 's_POS BLM_NP ,_, demographics_NNS ,_, and_CC the_DT focal_JJ employee_NN 's_POS job_NN performance_NN as_IN a_DT control_NN ._SENT 
Measures_NNS 
Supervisor_NN bottom-line_JJ mentality_NN 
A_DT series_NN of_IN studies_NNS was_VBD undertaken_VVN to_TO examine_VV the_DT nomological_JJ network_NN for_IN BLM_NP and_CC to_TO develop_VV and_CC evaluate_VV a_DT brief_NN ,_, four-item_NN measure_NN (_( see_VV the_DT Appendix_NN )_) ._SENT Accordingly_RB ,_, supervisor_NN BLM_NP was_VBD measured_VVN using_VVG the_DT items_NNS created_VVN for_IN this_DT purpose_NN ._SENT Supervisor_NN respondents_NNS rated_VVD their_PP$ own_JJ BLM_NP by_IN indicating_VVG how_WRB much_JJ they_PP agreed_VVD with_IN the_DT BLM_NP items_NNS as_RB shown_VVN in_IN the_DT Appendix_NP (_( 1_CD =_SYM strongly_RB disagree_VVP ,_, 7_CD =_SYM strongly_RB agree_VVP ;_: a_DT =_SYM .92_CD )_) ._SENT 
Employee_NP bottom-line_JJ mentality_NN 
Employee_NP BLM_NP was_VBD also_RB measured_VVN using_VVG the_DT four-item_JJ BLM_NP measure_NN that_WDT was_VBD developed_VVN and_CC evaluated_VVN as_IN described_VVN in_IN the_DT Appendix_NN ._SENT Focal_JJ employees_NNS rated_VVD their_PP$ own_JJ BLM_NP by_IN indicating_VVG how_WRB much_JJ they_PP agreed_VVD with_IN the_DT BLM_NP statements_NNS (_( 1_CD =_SYM strongly_RB disagree_VVP ,_, 7_CD =_SYM strongly_RB agree_VVP ;_: a_DT =_SYM .86_CD )_) ._SENT 
Core_NN self-evaluations_NNS 
CSEs_NNS were_VBD assessed_VVN by_IN the_DT focal_JJ employees_NNS with_IN 12_CD items_NNS from_IN Judge_NP et_FW al._FW 's_POS (_( 2003_CD )_) scale_NN ._SENT Sample_NN items_NNS include_VVP �I_NNS am_VBP confident_JJ I_PP get_VVP success_NN I_PP deserve_VVP in_IN life_NN ,_, �_JJ �When_NN I_PP try_VVP ,_, I_PP generally_RB succeed_VV ,_, �_NN and_CC �I_NNS am_VBP capable_JJ of_IN coping_VVG with_IN most_JJS of_IN my_PP$ problems.�_JJ Responses_NNS for_IN these_DT items_NNS were_VBD made_VVN on_IN a_DT 7-point_JJ response_NN scale_NN from_IN 1_CD =_SYM strongly_RB disagree_VVP to_TO 7_CD =_SYM strongly_RB agree_VVP (_( a_DT =_SYM .87_CD )_) ._SENT 
Conscientiousness_NN 
Conscientiousness_NN was_VBD assessed_VVN by_IN the_DT focal_JJ respondents_NNS with_IN eight_CD items_NNS (_( Saucier_NP ,_, 1994_CD )_) from_IN Goldberg_NP 's_POS (_( 1992_CD )_) measure_NN of_IN the_DT Big_NP Five_CD personality_NN traits_NNS ._SENT Focal_JJ respondents_NNS indicated_VVD how_WRB accurately_RB a_DT number_NN of_IN characteristics_NNS described_VVD them_PP ,_, including_VVG �systematic_JJ ,_, �_JJ �practical_JJ ,_, �_JJ and_CC �efficient.�_JJ Responses_NNS to_TO these_DT items_NNS were_VBD made_VVN on_IN a_DT 7-point_JJ response_NN scale_NN from_IN 1_CD =_SYM extremely_RB inaccurate_JJ to_TO 7_CD =_SYM extremely_RB accurate_JJ (_( a_DT =_SYM .81_CD )_) ._SENT 
Social_JJ undermining_VVG 
Coworkers_NNS rated_VVD how_WRB strongly_RB they_PP agreed_VVD that_IN/that the_DT focal_JJ employee_NN engages_VVZ in_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG toward_IN coworkers_NNS (_( 1_CD =_SYM strongly_RB disagree_VVP ,_, 7_CD =_SYM strongly_RB agree_VVP )_) ._SENT We_PP slightly_RB adapted_VVD Duffy_NP et_FW al._FW 's_POS (_( 2002_LS )_) 13-item_JJ social_JJ undermining_VVG scale_NN for_IN this_DT purpose_NN ._SENT Sample_NN items_NNS include_VVP �How_NN much_RB do_VVP you_PP agree_VVP that_IN/that the_DT employee_NN intentionally�_NN (_( a_DT )_) delays_NNS work_VVP to_TO make_VV coworkers_NNS look_VV bad_JJ or_CC to_TO slow_VV them_PP down_RP ,_, (_( b_LS )_) does_VVZ not_RB give_VV coworkers_NNS as_IN much_JJ help_NN as_IN he_PP or_CC she_PP promised_VVD ,_, and_CC (_( c_LS )_) gives_VVZ coworkers_NNS incorrect_JJ or_CC misleading_VVG information_NN about_IN the_DT job�_NN (_( a_DT =_SYM .96_CD )_) ._SENT 
Control_NN variables_NNS 
To_TO establish_VV incremental_JJ validity_NN of_IN BLM_NP ,_, we_PP included_VVD a_DT number_NN of_IN control_NN variables_NNS when_WRB testing_VVG our_PP$ theoretical_JJ model_NN ._SENT The_DT negative_JJ valence_NN associated_VVN with_IN a_DT BLM_NP could_MD be_VB partially_RB capturing_VVG an_DT employee_NN 's_POS negative_JJ predisposition_NN ._SENT Thus_RB ,_, we_PP included_VVD measures_NNS of_IN negative_JJ affectivity_NN and_CC (_( low_JJ )_) agreeableness_NN in_IN our_PP$ model_NN to_TO decrease_VV the_DT likelihood_NN that_IN/that the_DT relationship_NN between_IN employee_NN BLM_NP and_CC social_JJ undermining_VVG is_VBZ confounded_VVN by_IN these_DT individual_JJ differences_NNS ._SENT This_DT is_VBZ consistent_JJ with_IN other_JJ deviance-based_JJ research_NN that_WDT has_VHZ included_VVN personality_NN measures_NNS and_CC mood_NN predispositions_NNS as_IN control_NN variables_NNS because_IN of_IN the_DT influence_NN they_PP could_MD have_VH on_IN social_JJ interactions_NNS at_IN work_NN and_CC employee_NN outcomes_NNS (_( e.g._FW ,_, Duffy_NP et_CC al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2002_CD ;_: Mitchell_NP &_CC Ambrose_NP ,_, 2007_CD ;_: Thau_NP ,_, Bennett_NP ,_, Mitchell_NP ,_, &_CC Marrs_NP ,_, 2009_CD ;_: Zellars_NP ,_, Tepper_NP ,_, &_CC Duffy_NP ,_, 2002_CD )_) ._SENT 
Focal_JJ employees_NNS rated_VVD their_PP$ negative_JJ affectivity_NN by_IN responding_VVG to_TO 10_CD items_NNS from_IN Watson_NP and_CC Clark_NP 's_POS (_( 1984_LS )_) negative_JJ affectivity_NN scale_NN ._SENT They_PP responded_VVD to_TO items_NNS that_WDT included_VVD feeling_VVG �guilt_JJ ,_, �_JJ �hostility_NN ,_, �_NN and_CC �upset�_JJ (_( 1_CD =_SYM very_RB slightly_RB or_CC not_RB at_IN all_DT ,_, 7_CD =_SYM very_RB much_JJ ;_: a_DT =_SYM .87_CD )_) ._SENT Focal_JJ employees_NNS also_RB rated_VVN their_PP$ agreeableness_NN by_IN responding_VVG to_TO eight_CD items_NNS (_( Saucier_NP ,_, 1994_CD )_) from_IN Goldberg_NP 's_POS (_( 1992_CD )_) measure_NN of_IN the_DT Big_NP Five_CD personality_NN ._SENT Focal_JJ respondents_NNS indicated_VVD how_WRB accurately_RB a_DT number_NN of_IN characteristics_NNS described_VVD them_PP ,_, including_VVG �cooperative_JJ ,_, �_JJ �rude�_NN (_( reverse-coded_JJ )_) ,_, and_CC �sympathetic�_JJ (_( 1_CD =_SYM extremely_RB inaccurate_JJ ,_, 7_CD =_SYM extremely_RB accurate_JJ ;_: a_DT =_SYM .81_CD )_) ._SENT 
Because_IN extant_JJ research_NN has_VHZ demonstrated_VVN that_DT CSE_NN and_CC conscientiousness_NN are_VBP related_VVN to_TO job_NN performance_NN (_( Barrick_NP &_CC Mount_NP ,_, 1991_CD ;_: Judge_NP &_CC Bono_NP ,_, 2001_CD )_) ,_, the_DT variance_NN associated_VVN with_IN job_NN performance_NN and_CC each_DT of_IN the_DT personality_NN variables_NNS may_MD confound_VV the_DT moderating_VVG roles_NNS of_IN CSE_NN and_CC conscientiousness_NN in_IN our_PP$ theoretical_JJ model_NN ._SENT To_TO account_VV for_IN this_DT potential_JJ confounding_VVG effect_NN ,_, we_PP included_VVD interactions_NNS between_IN employee_NN job_NN performance_NN and_CC CSE_NN and_CC between_IN employee_NN job_NN performance_NN and_CC conscientiousness_NN as_IN controls_NNS in_IN each_DT of_IN the_DT respective_JJ moderated-mediation_NN analyses_NNS ._SENT Supervisors_NNS rated_VVD the_DT focal_JJ employee_NN 's_POS job_NN performance_NN by_IN responding_VVG to_TO six_CD items_NNS adapted_VVN from_IN Alper_NP ,_, Tjosvold_NP ,_, and_CC Law_NP 's_POS (_( 2000_CD )_) performance_NN scale_NN ._SENT Sample_NN items_NNS include_VVP �Is_NNS concerned_VVN about_IN the_DT quality_NN of_IN his_PP$ /_SYM her_PP$ work�_NN and_CC �Puts_JJ considerable_JJ effort_NN into_IN his_PP$ /_SYM her_PP$ job�_NN (_( 1_CD =_SYM strongly_RB disagree_VVP ,_, 7_CD =_SYM strongly_RB agree_VVP ;_: a_DT =_SYM .94_CD )_) ._SENT 
We_PP also_RB included_VVD the_DT focal_JJ employee_NN 's_POS organizational_JJ position_NN as_IN a_DT control_NN variable_NN ._SENT An_DT employee_NN 's_POS bottom_JJ line_NN may_MD be_VB different_JJ depending_VVG on_IN whether_IN he_PP or_CC she_PP is_VBZ a_DT nonmanagement_NN employee_NN ,_, supervisor_NN ,_, middle_JJ manager_NN ,_, or_CC senior_JJ manager_NN ._SENT For_IN example_NN ,_, nonmanagement_NN employees_NNS might_MD be_VB more_RBR likely_JJ to_TO think_VV about_IN the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN in_IN terms_NNS of_IN their_PP$ own_JJ success_NN ,_, whereas_IN senior-level_JJ managers_NNS might_MD be_VB more_RBR likely_JJ to_TO think_VV about_IN the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN in_IN terms_NNS of_IN the_DT entire_JJ organization_NN 's_POS success_NN ._SENT Thus_RB ,_, we_PP controlled_VVD for_IN organizational_JJ position_NN because_IN it_PP could_MD affect_VV whether_IN an_DT employee_NN 's_POS bottom-line_JJ success_NN depends_VVZ on_IN the_DT success_NN of_IN coworkers_NNS ,_, which_WDT could_MD affect_VV the_DT likelihood_NN of_IN engaging_VVG in_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG ._SENT Focal_JJ employees_NNS indicated_VVN whether_IN they_PP were_VBD nonmanagement_NN ,_, line_NN management_NN ,_, middle_JJ management_NN ,_, senior_JJ management_NN ,_, or_CC other_JJ ._SENT Sixty-eight_NN percent_NN were_VBD nonmanagement_NN ,_, 14_CD %_NN line_NN management_NN ,_, 10_CD %_NN middle_JJ management_NN ,_, 3_CD %_NN senior_JJ management_NN ,_, and_CC 5_CD %_NN other_JJ ._SENT 
Results_NNS 
Measurement_NN Model_NP Results_NNS 
To_TO examine_VV the_DT distinctiveness_NN of_IN the_DT study_NN variables_NNS ,_, we_PP conducted_VVD confirmatory_JJ factor_NN analyses_NNS with_IN maximum-likelihood_JJ estimation_NN in_IN LISREL_NP 8.8_CD (_( J�reskog_NP &_CC S�rbom_NP ,_, 2006_CD )_) ._SENT The_DT measurement_NN model_NN consisted_VVN of_IN eight_CD factors_NNS :_: supervisor_NN BLM_NP ,_, employee_NN BLM_NP ,_, social_JJ undermining_VVG ,_, CSE_NP ,_, conscientiousness_NN ,_, negative_JJ affectivity_NN ,_, agreeableness_NN ,_, and_CC job_NN performance_NN ._SENT We_PP randomly_RB combined_VVD items_NNS for_IN the_DT social_JJ undermining_VVG ,_, CSE_NP ,_, conscientiousness_NN ,_, negative_JJ affectivity_NN ,_, and_CC agreeableness_NN measures_NNS to_TO create_VV parcels_NNS to_TO maintain_VV a_DT favorable_JJ indicator-to-sample_NN size_NN ratio_NN (_( e.g._FW ,_, Bagozzi_NP &_CC Edwards_NP ,_, 1998_CD ;_: Bagozzi_NP &_CC Heatherton_NP ,_, 1994_CD )_) ._SENT The_DT results_NNS indicated_VVD the_DT eight-factor_NN model_NN provided_VVD a_DT good_JJ fit_NN of_IN the_DT data_NNS (_( see_VV Table_NP 1_CD )_) ._SENT 
We_PP compared_VVD the_DT eight-factor_NN model_NN to_TO seven_CD alternative_NN models_NNS ._SENT The_DT first_JJ seven-factor_NN model_NN had_VHD the_DT items_NNS of_IN supervisor_NN and_CC employee_NN BLM_NP loading_NN on_IN the_DT same_JJ factor_NN ._SENT The_DT second_JJ seven-factor_NN model_NN had_VHD the_DT items_NNS of_IN supervisor_NN BLM_NP and_CC employee_NN job_NN performance_NN (_( both_CC rated_VVN by_IN the_DT supervisor_NN )_) loading_NN on_IN the_DT same_JJ factor_NN ._SENT The_DT six-factor_NN model_NN had_VHD the_DT items_NNS of_IN employee_NN BLM_NP ,_, CSE_NP ,_, and_CC conscientiousness_NN (_( all_RB rated_VVN by_IN the_DT focal_JJ employee_NN )_) loading_NN on_IN the_DT same_JJ factor_NN ._SENT The_DT four-factor_NN model_NN had_VHD the_DT items_NNS of_IN employee_NN BLM_NP ,_, CSE_NP ,_, and_CC conscientiousness_NN and_CC the_DT employee-rated_JJ control_NN variables_NNS (_( negative_JJ affectivity_NN ,_, agreeableness_NN )_) loading_NN on_IN the_DT same_JJ factor_NN ._SENT The_DT three-factor_NN model_NN was_VBD the_DT same_JJ as_IN the_DT four-factor_NN model_NN except_IN that_WDT the_DT items_NNS of_IN supervisor_NN BLM_NP and_CC employee_NN job_NN performance_NN (_( rated_VVN by_IN the_DT supervisor_NN )_) were_VBD set_VVN to_TO load_VV on_IN one_CD factor_NN ._SENT The_DT two-factor_NN model_NN was_VBD the_DT same_JJ as_IN the_DT three-factor_NN model_NN except_IN that_DT social_JJ undermining_VVG was_VBD added_VVN to_TO the_DT supervisor_NN BLM_NP and_CC job_NN performance_NN factor_NN ._SENT The_DT one-factor_NN model_NN had_VHD all_DT items_NNS loading_VVG onto_IN one_CD factor_NN ._SENT A_DT change_NN in_IN the_DT chi-square_NN test_NN indicated_VVD the_DT eight-factor_NN model_NN produced_VVD a_DT significant_JJ improvement_NN in_IN chi-squares_NNS over_IN the_DT alternative_JJ models_NNS (_( see_VV Table_NP 1_CD )_) ._SENT 
Descriptive_JJ Statistics_NPS 
The_DT means_NNS ,_, standard_JJ deviations_NNS ,_, and_CC intercorrelations_NNS among_IN the_DT study_NN variables_NNS are_VBP presented_VVN in_IN Table_NP 2._CD 
Tests_NNS of_IN Hypotheses_NP 
We_PP tested_VVD the_DT entire_JJ moderated-mediation_NN model_NN using_VVG a_DT method_NN described_VVN by_IN Preacher_NP ,_, Rucker_NP ,_, and_CC Hayes_NP (_( 2007_CD )_) ._SENT We_PP utilized_VVD an_DT SPSS_NP macro_NN created_VVN by_IN Preacher_NP et_CC al_NP ._SENT (_( 2007_CD )_) to_TO run_VV regression_NN equations_NNS to_TO estimate_VV mediator_NN variable_NN and_CC dependent_JJ variable_JJ models_NNS ._SENT The_DT mediator_NN variable_NN models_NNS regressed_VVD the_DT mediator_NN (_( employee_NN BLM_NP )_) onto_IN the_DT independent_JJ variable_NN (_( supervisor_NN BLM_NP )_) and_CC the_DT controls_NNS ._SENT The_DT dependent_JJ variable_JJ models_NNS regressed_VVD the_DT dependent_JJ variable_NN (_( social_JJ undermining_VVG )_) onto_IN the_DT independent_JJ variable_NN ,_, the_DT mediator_NN ,_, the_DT controls_NNS ,_, the_DT moderators_NNS (_( CSEs_NP ,_, conscientiousness_NN )_) ,_, and_CC the_DT interactions_NNS of_IN the_DT moderators_NNS with_IN the_DT mediator_NN variable_NN ._SENT We_PP ran_VVD these_DT analyses_NNS two_CD times_NNS ,_, once_RB for_IN each_DT moderator_NN ._SENT 
The_DT results_NNS for_IN all_DT hypotheses_NNS are_VBP presented_VVN in_IN Tables_NP 3_CD and_CC 4._CD Consistent_NN with_IN Hypotheses_NP 1_CD and_CC 2_CD ,_, supervisor_NN BLM_NP was_VBD positively_RB related_VVN to_TO employee_NN BLM_NP (_( B_NP =_SYM 0.22_CD ,_, p_NN <_SYM .01_CD )_) ,_, and_CC employee_NN BLM_NP was_VBD positively_RB related_VVN to_TO social_JJ undermining_VVG for_IN the_DT model_NN with_IN CSEs_NP (_( B_NP =_SYM 1.10_CD ,_, p_NN <_SYM .01_CD )_) and_CC conscientiousness_NN (_( B_NP =_SYM 1.28_CD ,_, p_NN <_SYM .001_CD )_) ._SENT To_TO find_VV support_NN for_IN Hypothesis_NP 3_CD ,_, we_PP first_RB examined_VVD the_DT moderating_VVG role_NN of_IN CSE_NP (_( B_NP =_SYM -0.19_CD ,_, p_NN <_SYM .01_CD )_) and_CC conscientiousness_NN (_( B_NP =_SYM -0.22_CD ,_, p_NN <_SYM .01_CD )_) on_IN the_DT relationship_NN between_IN employee_NN BLM_NP and_CC social_JJ undermining_VVG ._SENT The_DT results_NNS suggest_VVP that_IN/that CSE_NN and_CC conscientiousness_NN moderate_VVP the_DT relationship_NN between_IN employee_NN BLM_NP and_CC social_JJ undermining_VVG ._SENT Next_RB ,_, we_PP examined_VVD the_DT conditional_JJ indirect_JJ effects_NNS of_IN supervisor_NN BLM_NP on_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG through_IN employee_NN BLM_NP at_IN three_CD values_NNS of_IN employee_NN CSE_NNS and_CC conscientiousness_NN (_( one_CD standard_NN deviation_NN below_IN the_DT mean_NN ,_, the_DT mean_NN ,_, and_CC one_CD standard_JJ deviation_NN above_IN the_DT mean_NN )_) ._SENT As_IN shown_VVN in_IN Tables_NP 3_CD and_CC 4_CD ,_, the_DT conditional_JJ indirect_JJ effects_NNS were_VBD significantly_RB different_JJ from_IN zero_CD at_IN one_CD standard_JJ deviation_NN below_IN the_DT mean_NN and_CC became_VVD progressively_RB weaker_JJR and_CC nonsignificant_NN at_IN the_DT mean_NN and_CC one_CD standard_JJ deviation_NN above_IN the_DT mean_NN ._SENT These_DT results_NNS indicate_VVP support_NN for_IN Hypothesis_NP 3_CD ,_, such_JJ that_IN/that the_DT indirect_JJ effects_NNS of_IN supervisor_NN BLM_NP on_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG through_IN employee_NN BLM_NP were_VBD stronger_JJR at_IN low_JJ levels_NNS of_IN employee_NN CSE_NNS and_CC conscientiousness_NN but_CC were_VBD weaker_JJR and_CC not_RB statistically_RB significant_JJ when_WRB the_DT moderators_NNS were_VBD high_JJ ._SENT The_DT regions_NNS of_IN significance_NN for_IN the_DT indirect_JJ effect_NN of_IN supervisor_NN BLM_NP on_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG at_IN the_DT levels_NNS of_IN the_DT moderators_NNS are_VBP shown_VVN in_IN Figures_NP 2_CD and_CC 3._CD 
To_TO provide_VV further_JJR support_NN for_IN Hypothesis_NP 3_CD ,_, we_PP examined_VVD the_DT form_NN of_IN the_DT interactions_NNS to_TO confirm_VV that_IN/that they_PP are_VBP consistent_JJ with_IN the_DT hypothesized_VVN pattern_NN ._SENT We_PP plotted_VVD the_DT interactions_NNS with_IN low_JJ values_NNS at_IN one_CD standard_JJ deviation_NN below_IN the_DT mean_NN ,_, values_NNS at_IN the_DT mean_NN ,_, and_CC high_JJ values_NNS at_IN one_CD standard_JJ deviation_NN above_IN the_DT mean_NN ._SENT As_IN shown_VVN in_IN Figures_NP 4_CD and_CC 5_CD ,_, the_DT role_NN of_IN employee_NN BLM_NP onto_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG is_VBZ stronger_JJR (_( weaker_JJR )_) at_IN low_JJ (_( high_JJ )_) levels_NNS of_IN CSE_NN and_CC conscientiousness_NN ._SENT The_DT simple_JJ slopes_NNS of_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG onto_IN employee_NN BLM_NP with_IN low_JJ employee_NN CSE_NN ,_, t_NN (_( 109_CD )_) =_SYM 3.39_CD ,_, p_NN <_SYM .01_CD ,_, and_CC conscientiousness_NN ,_, t_NN (_( 109_CD )_) =_SYM 3.95_CD ,_, p_NN <_SYM .01_CD ,_, were_VBD positive_JJ and_CC statistically_RB significant_JJ ,_, whereas_IN the_DT slopes_NNS of_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG onto_IN employee_NN BLM_NP with_IN high_JJ employee_NN CSE_NN ,_, t_NN (_( 109_CD )_) =_SYM -0.65_CD ,_, ns_NNS ,_, and_CC conscientiousness_NN ,_, t_NN (_( 109_CD )_) =_SYM -1.34_CD ,_, ns_NN ,_, were_VBD not_RB statistically_RB significant_JJ ._SENT 
Discussion_NN 
The_DT present_JJ research_NN offers_VVZ a_DT novel_JJ theoretical_JJ perspective_NN by_IN introducing_VVG BLM_NP as_IN a_DT potential_JJ antecedent_NN of_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG in_IN organizations_NNS ._SENT In_IN particular_JJ ,_, we_PP have_VHP drawn_VVN on_IN social-cognitive_JJ theory_NN (_( Bandura_NP ,_, 1977_CD ,_, 1986_CD )_) and_CC arguments_NNS pertaining_VVG to_TO BLM_NP (_( Callahan_NP ,_, 2004_CD ;_: Wolfe_NP ,_, 1988_CD )_) to_TO explain_VV how_WRB supervisor_NN and_CC employee_NN BLMs_NP may_MD trigger_VV employees_NNS to_TO engage_VV in_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG behavior_NN ._SENT Furthermore_RB ,_, we_PP have_VHP contributed_VVN to_TO the_DT social_JJ undermining_VVG literature_NN by_IN explaining_VVG when_WRB BLM_NP may_MD be_VB related_VVN to_TO social_JJ undermining_VVG by_IN examining_VVG the_DT role_NN of_IN personality_NN in_IN mitigating_VVG /_SYM strengthening_VVG this_DT relationship_NN ._SENT More_RBR specifically_RB ,_, we_PP have_VHP identified_VVN CSEs_NNS and_CC conscientiousness_NN as_IN personality_NN traits_NNS that_WDT may_MD alter_VV the_DT way_NN employees_NNS approach_VVP the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN and_CC thus_RB moderate_VV the_DT effect_NN of_IN BLM_NP on_IN employees_NNS '_POS social_JJ undermining_VVG behavior_NN ._SENT In_IN introducing_VVG our_PP$ model_NN ,_, we_PP have_VHP also_RB contributed_VVN to_TO the_DT literature_NN by_IN further_JJR refining_NN the_DT BLM_NP construct_NN ._SENT Additionally_RB ,_, we_PP have_VHP introduced_VVN an_DT initial_JJ nomological_JJ network_NN for_IN BLM_NP and_CC have_VHP developed_VVN and_CC evaluated_VVN a_DT brief_JJ BLM_NP measure_NN ._SENT 
Implications_NNS for_IN Theory_NP 
Social-cognitive_JJ theory_NN (_( Bandura_NP ,_, 1977_CD ,_, 1986_CD )_) suggests_VVZ that_IN/that employees_NNS may_MD alter_VV their_PP$ values_NNS and_CC beliefs_NNS to_TO align_VV with_IN those_DT of_IN a_DT credible_JJ role_NN model_NN ._SENT By_IN the_DT nature_NN of_IN their_PP$ assigned_VVN role_NN as_IN boss_NN ,_, supervisors_NNS are_VBP often_RB deemed_VVN credible_JJ role_NN models_NNS within_IN organizations_NNS (_( Brown_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2005_CD )_) ._SENT Thus_RB ,_, employees_NNS look_VVP to_TO their_PP$ supervisors_NNS to_TO learn_VV what_WP is_VBZ expected_VVN of_IN them_PP in_IN terms_NNS of_IN both_DT attitudes_NNS and_CC behaviors_NNS ._SENT Supervisors_NNS who_WP are_VBP preoccupied_VVN with_IN the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN may_MD communicate_VV this_DT frame_NN of_IN mind_NN to_TO subordinates_NNS ._SENT Supervisors_NNS may_MD engage_VV in_IN behaviors_NNS that_WDT serve_VVP to_TO maintain_VV the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN ,_, such_JJ as_IN rewarding_VVG and_CC punishing_VVG employee_NN behavior_NN in_IN favor_NN of_IN maintaining_VVG the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN ._SENT In_IN turn_NN ,_, employees_NNS may_MD develop_VV their_PP$ own_JJ BLMs_NP ._SENT 
Conceptual_JJ arguments_NNS pertaining_VVG to_TO BLM_NP provided_VVD the_DT theoretical_JJ basis_NN for_IN explaining_VVG the_DT positive_JJ and_CC significant_JJ relationship_NN between_IN employee_NN BLM_NP and_CC social_JJ undermining_VVG ._SENT Wolfe_NP (_( 1988_CD )_) noted_VVD that_IN/that BLMs_NP create_VV a_DT sense_NN of_IN tunnel_NN vision_NN in_IN which_WDT the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN is_VBZ the_DT only_JJ value_NN to_TO be_VB considered_VVN ._SENT When_WRB employees_NNS approach_VVP the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN as_IN if_IN it_PP were_VBD the_DT only_JJ objective_NN to_TO strive_VV for_IN ,_, they_PP run_VVP the_DT risk_NN of_IN treating_VVG bottom-line_JJ attainment_NN as_IN if_IN it_PP were_VBD a_DT game_NN to_TO be_VB won_VVN ._SENT By_IN thinking_VVG with_IN a_DT one-dimensional_JJ ,_, win�lose_JJ mentality_NN ,_, employees_NNS may_MD become_VV psychologically_RB removed_VVN from_IN the_DT real_JJ consequences_NNS of_IN their_PP$ behaviors_NNS ._SENT They_PP may_MD pay_VV little_JJ attention_NN to_TO whether_IN their_PP$ actions_NNS harm_VVP other_JJ people_NNS ;_: instead_RB ,_, their_PP$ primary_JJ focus_NN is_VBZ on_IN winning_VVG ._SENT Such_PDT a_DT mentality_NN is_VBZ apt_JJ to_TO breed_VV a_DT high_JJ level_NN of_IN competiveness_NN whereby_WRB just_RB about_IN anyone_NN is_VBZ seen_VVN as_IN a_DT potential_JJ opponent_NN (_( Callahan_NP ,_, 2004_CD ;_: Sims_NP ,_, 1992_CD ;_: Sims_NP &_CC Brinkman_NP ,_, 2002_CD ;_: Wolfe_NP ,_, 1988_CD )_) ._SENT For_IN an_DT employee_NN with_IN a_DT BLM_NP to_TO win_VV ,_, the_DT employee_NN must_MD see_VV others_NNS lose_VV ._SENT Accordingly_RB ,_, the_DT employee_NN may_MD view_VV the_DT success_NN of_IN coworkers_NNS as_IN threatening_VVG to_TO his_PP$ or_CC her_PP$ own_JJ bottom-line_JJ success_NN ._SENT Thus_RB ,_, employees_NNS with_IN BLMs_NP may_MD intentionally_RB try_VV to_TO hinder_VV the_DT success_NN of_IN coworkers_NNS by_IN engaging_VVG in_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG ._SENT 
We_PP have_VHP further_RBR contributed_VVN to_TO the_DT literature_NN by_IN determining_VVG how_WRB and_CC when_WRB supervisor_NN BLM_NP is_VBZ related_VVN to_TO social_JJ undermining_VVG ._SENT This_DT relationship_NN is_VBZ explained_VVN by_IN role-modeling_NN processes_NNS whereby_WRB employees_NNS adopt_VV their_PP$ supervisor_NN 's_POS BLM_NP and_CC an_DT employee_NN 's_POS BLM_NP subsequently_RB encourages_VVZ him_PP or_CC her_PP$ to_TO engage_VV in_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG ._SENT However_RB ,_, an_DT employee_NN 's_POS BLM_NP may_MD be_VB less_RBR likely_JJ to_TO mediate_VV this_DT relationship_NN in_IN some_DT cases_NNS ._SENT In_IN particular_JJ ,_, employees_NNS '_POS level_NN of_IN CSEs_NNS and_CC conscientiousness_NN may_MD capture_VV variations_NNS in_IN how_WRB employees_NNS approach_VVP the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN ._SENT Those_DT high_NN in_IN CSE_NN and_CC conscientiousness_NN are_VBP expected_VVN to_TO approach_VV the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN by_IN relying_VVG on_IN their_PP$ own_JJ agency�those_JJ high_NN in_IN CSE_NNS tend_VVP to_TO be_VB more_RBR confident_JJ ,_, and_CC those_DT high_NN in_IN conscientiousness_NN tend_VVP to_TO work_VV harder_JJR and_CC uphold_VV integrity�thus_NN making_VVG them_PP less_RBR likely_JJ to_TO engage_VV in_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG as_IN a_DT way_NN of_IN improving_VVG the_DT appearance_NN of_IN their_PP$ own_JJ bottom_NN line_NN ._SENT Conversely_RB ,_, as_IN a_DT result_NN of_IN low_JJ confidence_NN ,_, powerlessness_NN ,_, and_CC pessimism_NN (_( i.e._FW ,_, low_JJ CSE_NN )_) and_CC a_DT tendency_NN to_TO be_VB unorganized_JJ ,_, to_TO be_VB undisciplined_JJ ,_, and_CC to_TO procrastinate_VV (_( i.e._FW ,_, low_JJ conscientiousness_NN )_) ,_, those_DT focused_VVN on_IN the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN and_CC low_JJ in_IN these_DT characteristics_NNS are_VBP expected_VVN to_TO have_VH stronger_JJR tendencies_NNS to_TO engage_VV in_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG as_IN a_DT way_NN of_IN making_VVG themselves_PP appear_VVP more_RBR successful_JJ ._SENT In_IN this_DT way_NN ,_, we_PP have_VHP contributed_VVN to_TO the_DT literature_NN by_IN demonstrating_VVG that_IN/that not_RB all_DT employees_NNS who_WP adopt_VVP a_DT supervisor_NN 's_POS BLM_NP will_MD pursue_VV the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN by_IN engaging_VVG in_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG ._SENT Rather_RB ,_, the_DT role_NN of_IN employee_NN BLM_NP in_IN explaining_VVG the_DT relationship_NN between_IN supervisor_NN BLM_NP and_CC social_JJ undermining_VVG is_VBZ stronger_JJR (_( weaker_JJR )_) when_WRB levels_NNS of_IN CSE_NN and_CC conscientiousness_NN are_VBP low_JJ (_( high_JJ )_) ._SENT 
Furthermore_RB ,_, we_PP have_VHP contributed_VVN to_TO the_DT social_JJ undermining_VVG literature_NN by_IN examining_VVG relevant_JJ antecedents_NNS ._SENT Although_IN some_DT research_NN has_VHZ examined_VVN the_DT consequences_NNS of_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG (_( Crossley_NP ,_, 2009_CD ;_: Duffy_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2002_CD ;_: Duffy_NP ,_, Ganster_NP ,_, et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2006_CD )_) ,_, comparatively_RB less_JJR research_NN has_VHZ focused_VVN on_IN the_DT antecedents_NNS of_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG (_( for_IN an_DT exception_NN ,_, see_VVP Duffy_NP ,_, Shaw_NP ,_, et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2006_CD )_) ._SENT Extant_JJ research_NN has_VHZ shown_VVN that_IN/that social_JJ undermining_VVG can_MD have_VH dire_JJ consequences_NNS in_IN terms_NNS of_IN employees_NNS '_POS psychological_JJ health_NN and_CC well-being_NN and_CC organizational_JJ productivity_NN (_( Duffy_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2002_CD )_) ._SENT Thus_RB ,_, it_PP is_VBZ important_JJ to_TO understand_VV factors_NNS that_WDT may_MD be_VB associated_VVN with_IN employees_NNS engaging_VVG in_IN undermining_VVG behavior_NN ._SENT Our_PP$ research_NN suggests_VVZ that_IN/that BLM_NP ,_, a_DT construct_NN that_WDT has_VHZ received_VVN little_JJ empirical_JJ attention_NN in_IN the_DT literature_NN ,_, may_MD serve_VV as_IN an_DT antecedent_NN of_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG ._SENT 
Implications_NNS for_IN Practice_NP 
Organizations_NNS should_MD be_VB aware_JJ that_IN/that employees_NNS may_MD emulate_VV their_PP$ supervisors_NNS '_POS BLMs_NNS ._SENT Although_IN this_DT may_MD seem_VV beneficial_JJ in_IN terms_NNS of_IN attaining_VVG desired_VVN outcomes_NNS (_( e.g._FW ,_, profit_NN maximization_NN )_) ,_, it_PP can_MD also_RB be_VB quite_RB dysfunctional_JJ ._SENT It_PP is_VBZ particularly_RB important_JJ for_IN supervisors_NNS to_TO emphasize_VV that_DT appropriate_JJ behavior_NN is_VBZ a_DT necessary_JJ bottom-line_JJ expectation_NN ._SENT This_DT goes_VVZ along_RP with_IN initiatives_NNS related_VVN to_TO a_DT triple_JJ bottom_NN line_NN (_( i.e._FW ,_, a_DT concern_NN for_IN social_JJ ,_, environmental_JJ ,_, and_CC financial_JJ performance_NN )_) that_WDT emphasizes_VVZ managing_VVG responsibly_RB as_RB well_RB as_RB profitably_RB (_( Waddock_NP ,_, Bodwell_NP ,_, &_CC Graves_NP ,_, 2002_CD )_) ._SENT 
Organizations_NNS should_MD also_RB be_VB aware_JJ that_IN/that employees_NNS with_IN BLMs_NP may_MD engage_VV in_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG ._SENT Social_JJ undermining_VVG can_MD have_VH dire_JJ consequences_NNS for_IN those_DT involved_JJ (_( Duffy_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2002_CD )_) and_CC can_MD be_VB quite_RB costly_JJ to_TO organizations_NNS (_( Tepper_NP ,_, 2007_CD )_) ._SENT Therefore_RB ,_, organizations_NNS should_MD communicate_VV to_TO employees_NNS that_IN/that even_RB though_IN the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN is_VBZ important_JJ ,_, so_RB is_VBZ the_DT way_NN in_IN which_WDT it_PP is_VBZ achieved_VVN ._SENT Ethical_JJ leaders_NNS ,_, for_IN example_NN ,_, care_NN about_IN maintaining_VVG the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN (_( Trevi�o_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2000_CD )_) ,_, yet_RB they_PP define_VV success_NN not_RB just_RB by_IN results_NNS but_CC also_RB by_IN the_DT way_NN results_NNS are_VBP obtained_VVN (_( Brown_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2005_CD )_) ._SENT Thus_RB ,_, organizations_NNS may_MD be_VB able_JJ to_TO avoid_VV negative_JJ outcomes_NNS associated_VVN with_IN BLMs_NP by_IN employing_VVG leaders_NNS who_WP enforce_VVP ethical_JJ compliance_NN while_IN also_RB working_VVG to_TO attain_VV bottom-line_JJ outcomes_NNS ._SENT 
Limitations_NNS and_CC Future_JJ Directions_NNS 
One_CD limitation_NN of_IN our_PP$ study_NN is_VBZ that_IN/that it_PP was_VBD cross-sectional_JJ ,_, and_CC thus_RB ,_, we_PP could_MD not_RB determine_VV the_DT direction_NN of_IN causality_NN among_IN the_DT variables_NNS ._SENT Our_PP$ conceptualization_NN of_IN the_DT relationships_NNS of_IN interest_NN is_VBZ consistent_JJ with_IN research_NN on_IN trickle-down_JJ models_NNS of_IN leadership_NN (_( e.g._FW ,_, Aryee_NP et_CC al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2007_CD ;_: Mayer_NP et_NP al_NP ._SENT ,_, 2009_CD )_) ._SENT In_IN addition_NN ,_, research_NN has_VHZ suggested_VVN that_IN/that due_JJ to_TO formal_JJ power_NN and_CC authority_NN being_VBG associated_VVN with_IN higher_JJR organizational_JJ positions_NNS ,_, the_DT likely_JJ causal_JJ direction_NN is_VBZ that_IN/that supervisor_NN attitudes_NNS predict_VVP employee_NN attitudes_NNS (_( e.g._FW ,_, Yukl_NP ,_, 1998_CD )_) ._SENT However_RB ,_, it_PP is_VBZ possible_JJ that_IN/that attitudes_NNS in_IN organizations_NNS may_MD also_RB flow_VV in_IN an_DT upward_JJ direction_NN ,_, with_IN employee_NN attitudes_NNS predicting_VVG supervisor_NN attitudes_NNS (_( Yukl_NP &_CC Falbe_NP ,_, 1990_CD ,_, 1991_CD )_) ._SENT Future_JJ research_NN that_WDT examines_VVZ the_DT relationship_NN between_IN supervisor_NN and_CC employee_NN BLMs_NP longitudinally_RB is_VBZ needed_VVN to_TO explore_VV the_DT causal_JJ direction_NN of_IN this_DT relationship_NN ._SENT 
Additionally_RB ,_, another_DT alternative_JJ explanation_NN for_IN the_DT relationship_NN between_IN supervisor_NN and_CC employee_NN BLMs_NP lies_VVZ in_IN the_DT attraction�selection�attrition_NN (_( ASA_NP )_) process_NN (_( Schneider_NP ,_, 1987_CD ;_: Schneider_NP ,_, Goldstein_NP ,_, &_CC Smith_NP ,_, 1995_CD )_) ._SENT The_DT ASA_NP framework_NN suggests_VVZ that_IN/that (_( a_DT )_) potential_JJ employees_NNS are_VBP attracted_VVN to_TO organizations_NNS with_IN cultures_NNS that_WDT match_VVP their_PP$ personalities_NNS ,_, (_( b_LS )_) organizations_NNS tend_VVP to_TO select_VV job_NN applicants_NNS whose_WP$ personalities_NNS fit_VVP with_IN the_DT organizational_JJ culture_NN ,_, and_CC (_( c_LS )_) employees_NNS who_WP do_VVP not_RB fit_VV with_IN the_DT culture_NN will_MD voluntarily_RB or_CC involuntarily_RB leave_VV the_DT organization_NN ._SENT Hence_RB ,_, this_DT process_NN suggests_VVZ that_IN/that supervisors_NNS with_IN BLMs_NP may_MD be_VB more_RBR likely_JJ to_TO select_VV applicants_NNS who_WP already_RB possess_VVP orientations_NNS toward_IN the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN ._SENT Our_PP$ understanding_NN of_IN the_DT relationship_NN between_IN supervisor_NN and_CC employee_NN BLMs_NP would_MD benefit_VV from_IN longitudinal_JJ studies_NNS that_WDT account_VVP for_IN the_DT ASA_NP process_NN by_IN assessing_VVG the_DT BLMs_NP of_IN new_JJ employees_NNS before_IN prolonged_JJ exposure_NN to_TO their_PP$ supervisors_NNS ._SENT 
Another_DT limitation_NN of_IN our_PP$ study_NN is_VBZ that_IN/that we_PP did_VVD not_RB explicitly_RB measure_VV the_DT mechanisms_NNS through_IN which_WDT supervisor_NN BLM_NP is_VBZ related_VVN to_TO employee_NN BLM_NP ._SENT We_PP have_VHP drawn_VVN on_IN social-cognitive_JJ theory_NN and_CC trickle-down_NN models_NNS of_IN leadership_NN to_TO suggest_VV that_IN/that employees_NNS imitate_VVP the_DT attitudes_NNS of_IN their_PP$ supervisors_NNS ._SENT However_RB ,_, we_PP did_VVD not_RB measure_VV any_DT role-modeling_NN mediators_NNS to_TO confirm_VV that_IN/that this_DT is_VBZ the_DT underlying_VVG process_NN of_IN this_DT relationship_NN ._SENT Furthermore_RB ,_, there_EX could_MD be_VB alternative_JJ mechanisms_NNS that_WDT account_VVP for_IN the_DT positive_JJ relationship_NN between_IN supervisor_NN and_CC employee_NN BLM_NP ._SENT Perhaps_RB ,_, when_WRB supervisors_NNS have_VHP BLMs_NP ,_, these_DT mentalities_NNS contribute_VVP to_TO an_DT organizational_JJ environment_NN in_IN which_WDT the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN is_VBZ seen_VVN as_IN the_DT most_RBS important_JJ priority_NN ._SENT Thus_RB ,_, subordinates_NNS perceive_VVP that_IN/that their_PP$ organization_NN has_VHZ a_DT strong_JJ bottom-line_JJ orientation_NN ._SENT They_PP recognize_VVP that_IN/that other_JJ organizational_JJ members_NNS are_VBP preoccupied_VVN with_IN the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN and_CC tailor_VV their_PP$ attitudes_NNS accordingly_RB ,_, adopting_VVG a_DT BLM_NP themselves_PP ._SENT Our_PP$ understanding_NN of_IN the_DT trickle-down_JJ effects_NNS of_IN supervisor_NN BLMs_NP would_MD benefit_VV from_IN future_JJ research_NN that_WDT examines_VVZ relevant_JJ mediators_NNS ._SENT 
Additionally_RB ,_, future_JJ research_NN would_MD benefit_VV from_IN an_DT examination_NN of_IN moderators_NNS of_IN the_DT proposed_VVN trickle-down_NN relationship_NN ._SENT For_IN example_NN ,_, employees_NNS may_MD be_VB more_RBR likely_JJ to_TO adopt_VV a_DT supervisor_NN 's_POS BLM_NP if_IN they_PP strongly_RB identify_VVP with_IN the_DT supervisor_NN ,_, experience_NN moral_JJ disengagement_NN in_IN the_DT workplace_NN ,_, and_CC do_VVP not_RB internalize_VV morality_NN as_IN part_NN of_IN their_PP$ identities_NNS ._SENT Moreover_RB ,_, employees_NNS may_MD be_VB less_RBR likely_JJ to_TO adopt_VV a_DT supervisor_NN 's_POS BLM_NP if_IN they_PP can_MD easily_RB change_VV supervisors_NNS or_CC leave_VV the_DT organization_NN ._SENT Future_JJ research_NN would_MD benefit_VV from_IN exploring_VVG these_DT potential_JJ moderators_NNS ._SENT 
Future_JJ research_NN would_MD also_RB benefit_VV from_IN further_RBR examining_VVG the_DT nomological_JJ network_NN of_IN BLM_NP ._SENT In_IN addition_NN to_TO examining_VVG our_PP$ theoretical_JJ model_NN ,_, we_PP began_VVD to_TO establish_VV the_DT nomological_JJ network_NN of_IN BLM_NP by_IN examining_VVG its_PP$ association_NN with_IN elements_NNS of_IN goal_NN setting_NN ,_, performance_NN orientation_NN (_( see_VV the_DT Appendix_NN )_) ,_, and_CC individual_JJ difference_NN variables_NNS (_( viz_FW ._SENT ,_, negative_JJ affectivity_NN ,_, agreeableness_NN )_) ._SENT However_RB ,_, future_JJ research_NN should_MD investigate_VV the_DT association_NN between_IN BLM_NP ,_, rewards_NNS (_( Kerr_NP ,_, 1975_CD )_) ,_, and_CC a_DT focus_NN on_IN business_NN decisions_NNS (_( Tenbrunsel_NP &_CC Messick_NP ,_, 1999_CD )_) ._SENT Kerr_NP (_( 1975_CD )_) discussed_VVD the_DT folly_NN of_IN rewarding_VVG one_CD behavior_NN while_IN hoping_VVG for_IN another_DT ._SENT By_IN solely_RB rewarding_VVG bottom-line_JJ outcomes_NNS and_CC merely_RB hoping_VVG for_IN ethical_JJ compliance_NN ,_, organizations_NNS may_MD inadvertently_RB encourage_VV unethical_JJ behavior_NN ._SENT Certain_JJ business_NN decisions_NNS may_MD be_VB associated_VVN with_IN employees_NNS focusing_VVG on_IN what_WP is_VBZ best_JJS for_IN the_DT business_NN without_IN considering_VVG ethical_JJ implications_NNS (_( Tenbrunsel_NP &_CC Messick_NP ,_, 1999_CD ;_: Tenbrunsel_NP &_CC Smith-Crowe_NP ,_, 2008_CD )_) ._SENT Additionally_RB ,_, future_JJ research_NN should_MD examine_VV additional_JJ consequences_NNS of_IN BLM_NP ._SENT It_PP could_MD be_VB that_IN/that BLM_NP is_VBZ associated_VVN with_IN lying_VVG ,_, cheating_NN ,_, financial_JJ fraud_NN ,_, and_CC producing_VVG low-quality_NN ,_, dangerous_JJ products_NNS ._SENT 
Wolfe_NP (_( 1988_CD )_) conceptualized_VVD BLM_NP in_IN terms_NNS of_IN �one_NN 's_POS own_JJ assigned_JJ bottom_NN line�_NN (_( p_NN ._SENT 149_LS )_) ._SENT Given_VVN that_DT employees_NNS '_POS assigned_VVN bottom_NN lines_NNS are_VBP expected_VVN to_TO vary_VV ,_, there_EX may_MD be_VB differences_NNS in_IN how_WRB employees_NNS approach_VVP the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN ._SENT Employees_NNS in_IN management_NN positions_NNS ,_, for_IN example_NN ,_, may_MD be_VB more_RBR likely_JJ to_TO have_VH assigned_VVN bottom_JJ lines_NNS that_WDT are_VBP contingent_JJ on_IN their_PP$ subordinates_NNS '_POS performance_NN ._SENT In_IN turn_NN ,_, they_PP may_MD be_VB less_RBR likely_JJ to_TO treat_VV employees_NNS poorly_RB because_IN they_PP depend_VVP on_IN them_PP for_IN rewards_NNS ._SENT Employees_NNS may_MD also_RB think_VV about_IN the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN in_IN terms_NNS of_IN individual_NN ,_, group_NN ,_, or_CC organizational_JJ success_NN depending_VVG on_IN reward_NN interdependence_NN and_CC individualistic_JJ versus_CC collectivistic_JJ cultures_NNS ._SENT It_PP would_MD be_VB interesting_JJ to_TO see_VV how_WRB team_NN members_NNS treat_VVP one_PP another_DT when_WRB they_PP collectively_RB possess_VVP a_DT BLM_NP ._SENT It_PP could_MD be_VB that_IN/that team_NN members_NNS do_VVP not_RB perceive_VV intrateam_JJ social_JJ undermining_VVG but_CC that_IN/that they_PP do_VVP perceive_VV interteam_NN social_JJ undermining_VVG ._SENT 
Furthermore_RB ,_, future_JJ research_NN may_MD benefit_VV from_IN identifying_VVG a_DT person_NN 's_POS specific_JJ bottom_JJ line_NN when_WRB examining_VVG the_DT effects_NNS of_IN a_DT BLM_NP ._SENT In_IN our_PP$ research_NN ,_, we_PP remained_VVD nonspecific_JJ regarding_VVG a_DT person_NN 's_POS specific_JJ bottom_JJ line_NN because_IN we_PP were_VBD primarily_RB interested_JJ in_IN the_DT underlying_VVG mentality_NN of_IN the_DT respondents_NNS (_( as_RB captured_VVN by_IN a_DT BLM_NP )_) ._SENT However_RB ,_, depending_VVG on_IN the_DT particular_JJ research_NN question_NN ,_, there_EX may_MD be_VB value_NN in_IN specifically_RB identifying_VVG the_DT most_RBS important_JJ factor_NN that_IN/that employees_NNS pay_VVP attention_NN to_TO in_IN terms_NNS of_IN the_DT bottom_JJ line_NN ,_, whether_IN it_PP is_VBZ profits_NNS ,_, the_DT business_NN ,_, or_CC their_PP$ own_JJ bottom-line_JJ outcomes_NNS ._SENT Thus_RB ,_, future_JJ research_NN would_MD benefit_VV from_IN further_RBR investigating_VVG the_DT measurement_NN of_IN BLM_NP ,_, with_IN a_DT focus_NN on_IN assessing_VVG a_DT variety_NN of_IN BLM_NP items_NNS and_CC asking_VVG participants_NNS to_TO describe_VV how_WRB they_PP understand_VVP each_DT of_IN the_DT items_NNS ._SENT 
Conclusion_NN 
Business_NN scholars_NNS have_VHP argued_VVN that_IN/that there_EX could_MD be_VB problems_NNS with_IN simplistic_JJ thinking_NN that_WDT revolves_VVZ around_IN bottom-line_JJ outcomes_NNS (_( Callahan_NP ,_, 2004_CD ;_: Jones_NP ,_, 1991_CD ;_: Kerr_NP ,_, 1975_CD ;_: Levinson_NP ,_, 1970_CD ;_: Sims_NP ,_, 1992_CD ;_: Sims_NP &_CC Brinkman_NP ,_, 2002_CD ;_: Tenbrunsel_NP &_CC Messick_NP ,_, 1999_CD ;_: Wolfe_NP ,_, 1988_CD )_) ._SENT In_IN an_DT effort_NN to_TO fully_RB understand_VV this_DT phenomenon_NN ,_, we_PP examined_VVD the_DT nomological_JJ network_NN of_IN a_DT BLM_NP ._SENT Our_PP$ results_NNS support_VVP the_DT notion_NN that_IN/that in_IN some_DT cases_NNS ,_, a_DT BLM_NP can_MD be_VB dysfunctional_JJ in_IN that_IN/that it_PP may_MD be_VB an_DT antecedent_NN of_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG ._SENT In_IN light_NN of_IN the_DT potentially_RB high_JJ costs_NNS associated_VVN with_IN social_JJ undermining_VVG ,_, we_PP find_VVP this_DT research_NN particularly_RB important_JJ for_IN both_DT theory_NN and_CC practice_NN ._SENT 

