A new voice in China

No Abstract Available

It\u27s Not Me, It\u27s Not You, It\u27s Us! An Empirical Examination of Relational Attributions

It has recently been suggested that attribution theory expand its locus of causality dimension beyond internal and external attributions to include relational (i.e., interpersonal) attributions (Eberly, Holley, Johnson, & Mitchell, 2011). The current investigation was designed to empirically focus on relationship dynamics, specifically where 1 member of the relationship receives negative performance-related feedback. We use quantitative and qualitative data from 7 samples (5 samples for scale validation in Study 1 and 2 for hypothesis testing in Studies 2 and 3) that provide empirical support for the existence and impact of relational attributions. Our findings identify the circumstances under which relational attributions are likely to be formed and indicate that relational attributions are related to relational improvement behaviors, particularly when employees are of the same sex as their relationship partner and perceive sufficient time and energy to engage in relational improvement efforts. A personal attribute, relational self, contrary to expectations, did not moderate the link between relational attributions and improvement behaviors. These findings make an important contribution to attribution theory by providing evidence for the criticality of relational attributions within interdependent work relationships

The Impact of Leader Trustworthiness on Employee Voice and Performance in China

Using a sample of 488 employees from a large information technology firm in mainland China, this article examines the relationships between leader trustworthiness, employee voice, and supervisor-rated employee performance, as well as individual employee perceptions of organizational attitudes toward uncertainty. Drawing from social cognitive theory, as well as from the literatures on leader trustworthiness and employee voice, this article explores the mediating mechanism of employee voice within the leader trustworthiness–employee performance relationship. Within this Chinese context, employee voice was found to partially mediate the positive relationship between leader trustworthiness and employee performance ratings. Employee perceptions of organizational attitudes toward uncertainty were also found to strengthen the mediated relationship. Implications and limitations are discussed

The Influence of Abusive Supervision and Job Embeddedness on Citizenship and Deviance

This paper draws from the turnover and emotions literatures to explore how job embeddedness, in the context of abusive supervision, can impact job frustration, citizenship withdrawal, and employee deviance. Results indicate that employees with abusive supervisors were more likely to be frustrated with their jobs and engage in more deviance behaviors. And yet, the relationship between abusive supervision and job frustration was moderated by job embeddedness such that the relationship was weaker and negative for those higher in job embeddedness and stronger and positive for those lower in job embeddedness. In other words, contrary to our original predictions, individuals who were more embedded in their jobs with an abusive supervisor were actually less likely to experience job frustration or engage deviance behaviors. Important implications for management research and practice are discussed

Beyond Internal and External: A Dyadic Theory of Relational Attributions

Attribution theory argues that people assess the locus of causality of achievement relevant events as either internal or external. Given the frequency of interpersonal interactions in organizations, we posit that a third category—relational attributions— may be used. Drawing on relational perspectives, we lay the conceptual foundation and develop a dyadic theory of relational attributions, proposing their antecedents and linking them to relationship-focused behaviors, which influence the quality of interpersonal links within organizations

Efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies, sotrovimab and BRII-196 plus BRII-198, for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (TICO): a randomised controlled trial

We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19. In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978. Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50–72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74–1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67–1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74–1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68–1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91–1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88–1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90. Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Spee