In this dissertation, I theorize on how gaslighting manifests in managerial and organizational settings. I discuss the process of gaslighting and how the use of various manipulation tactics manifests between people in organizations over time. I take three distinctive approaches to study this complex phenomenon. First, using a rich case study, I develop new theory to explain how one notorious child molester was able to sustain a career for decades while assaulting hundreds of children and young women. In doing so, I introduce the concept of gaslighting which previously has only been rigorously applied to intimate interpersonal relationships in domestic (e.g., at home) settings. In essay 2, I expand on the individual level theory developed in essay 1 to develop a more generalized theory of gaslighting in organizations. I situate gaslighting within a nomological net of related constructs and illustrate how gaslighting is a unique construct with different antecedents and consequences that occurs in organizations more often than it should. In my final essay, I build on one of the propositions developed in essay 2 and empirically test what antecedents are likely to influence whether or not a firm is accused of gaslighting on Twitter. Through doing so, I find …

Team psychological safety fosters interpersonal risk-taking and constructive debate. Yet, how psychological safety develops in diverse teams needs to be explained. I apply collective regulatory lenses to shed light on how collective prevention focus (status quo) and collective promotion focus (growth) uniquely affect team psychological safety. I believe promotion focus makes it easier to attain psychological safety, while prevention focus makes it harder. Under a collective promotion lens, teams seek growth. Under a collective prevention lens, teams desire protection and not making things any worse. A pilot study of 76 students in 17 student project teams provided initial support for individual relationships in my model. In Study 2, an experiment, I manipulated team regulatory foci in three tasks (building towers, selling a house, negotiating a salary). I did not find significant mean group differences in psychological safety between promotion (n = 17) and prevention (n = 15) teams; yet, promotion teams experienced greater team viability in the final activity. In Study 3, I employed an experimental vignette method that suggested leadership conditions (e.g., leader humility vs transactional leadership) created differences in regulatory foci and subsequent differences in psychological safety with 343 working professionals in 7 scenarios.

In a society fixated on leaders, where does that leave followers? Followership highlights the follower in the leadership process, examines who are followers, and explores how and why people follow. Much of the existing literature on followership has focused on classifying followers into follower types. However, less is known about why an employee might enact a particular follower role. The purpose of this dissertation is to understand how leaders influence the likelihood that followers to enact a particular follower role orientation, either coproducing or passive. Specifically, this research contributes to understanding the impact of transformational leadership on follower motivation and follower role orientation. An additional contribution of this dissertation is to establish the theoretical mechanism that explains the connection between leader behavior and follower role orientation by integrating self-determination theory (SDT) into the process of followership. Through SDT, we gain understanding of the origins of these roles by explaining their underlying motivation. Study 1 consisted of sequential experiments with a between-subject design that used distinct vignettes for transformational leadership and work-based need satisfaction. Findings support the causal relationship between transformational leadership and follower needs satisfaction; however, the casual relationship between follower need satisfaction and follower role orientation was not significant. …