The Consequences of Failing to Act: Examining the Importance of Perceived Employee-Directed Managerial Inaction

With increasing momentum to hold managers accountable for their failure to act in response to aversive employee experiences, it is critical to develop a conceptual and theoretical understanding of this phenomenon. We introduce perceived employee-directed managerial inaction to capture employees' perceptions that their manager failed to act in response to an aversive event that they experienced despite a perceived duty or obligation for the manager to do so. Drawing on the fundamental social dilemma, we propose that perceived employee-directed managerial inaction is negatively associated with employees' perceptions that their manager is trustworthy, which can prompt detrimental outcomes for managers (withdrawal of manager-directed citizenship behavior, resistance behavior, and negative gossip about the manager) as well as for employees (lower psychological well-being). To investigate what perceived employee-directed managerial inaction is as well as why and how it can impact managers and employees, we develop a conceptualization of this construct, validate a measure, and test our theoretical model using an experiment and two multi-wave surveys. Contributions include answering calls to consider the importance of inactive and undesirable event-based responses, conceptually defining perceived employee-directed managerial inaction, and providing a validated measure to stimulate empirical research for this theoretically and practically important phenomenon. We also showcase why and how perceived employee-directed managerial inaction can have negative implications, including how this can inform employees' generalized perceptions of managers. Overall, we highlight the importance of recognizing that perceived employee-directed managerial inaction is not benign but rather an undesirable response that can negatively impact managers and employees.