to drink or not to drink; that is the question
TRANSCRIPT
To drink or not to drink; that is the question!Antecedents and consequences of employeebusiness drinking
Meng Shao1& Jibao Gu1
& Jianlin Wu1
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
AbstractDrinking with others is seen as a necessary activity for business negotiations world-wide. However, employee alcohol use in business context is rarely investigated. Thisstudy focuses on employee business drinking (EBD), defined as employee drinkingwith clients for business matters. Based on role theory, the antecedents and conse-quences of EBD are examined using three-wave data obtained from 183 full-timeChinese employees. The results show that the leader business drinking norms andcoworker business drinking norms have positive effects on EBD. Employees with highperformance drinking motives and high alcohol tolerance are more likely to participatein EBD. Furthermore, EBD is positively related to leader-member exchange (LMX),team-member exchange (TMX), and client ties. These results show the drivers andpotentially beneficial effects of EBD and provide important theoretical and practicalimplications.
Keywords Employee business drinking . Business drinking norms . Leader-memberexchange . Team-member exchange . Client ties . Role theory
Employee alcohol use is prevalent worldwide during business events (Frone, 2013).Although it is widely acknowledged that alcohol use has adverse effects on health(Fillmore, Stockwell, Chikritzhs, Bostrom, & Kerr, 2007), such as increasing the risk oforal cancers (Corrao, Bagnardi, Zambon, & La Vecchia, 2004; Fillmore et al., 2007),
Asia Pacific Journal of Managementhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-020-09731-z
* Jianlin [email protected]
Meng [email protected]
Jibao [email protected]
1 School of Management, University of Science and Technology of China, 96 Jinzhai Road, Hefei,Anhui, People’s Republic of China
drinking with clients is often considered an integral part of the job for employeesengaged in intensive client-facing work (Liu, Wang, Bamberger, Shi, & Bacharach,2015). As an article in the New York Times states, “those who don’t drink complain thatthey can’t close a deal, can’t even get into early negotiations because they won’t engagein drinking behaviors” (Quenqua, 2012). Despite the prevalence and importance ofdrinking alcohol during business events, surprisingly few empirical studies haveexplored such behavior. Thus, this study advances our understanding of the antecedentsand consequences of employee alcohol use.
Employee business drinking (EBD) refers to employee drinking with clients forbusiness matters which occurs predominantly outside the workplace, such as drinkingwith clients during business negotiations and drinking with both clients and leaders orcoworkers at dinner parties. As major participants, clients, leaders and coworkers playimportant roles in business drinking events. Because roles represent a central compo-nent for explaining how individuals behave, interact, and coordinate their actions (Katz& Kahn, 1978), this study proposes antecedents and consequences based on role theoryto provide a comprehensive understanding of EBD.
Five independent variables are identified from both the complementary role per-spective and self-perspective as antecedents. Owing to the interdependence of individ-uals within society, individuals in any given role are linked to others and developexpectations about the role behaviors of others and themselves (Lapointe,Vandenberghe, & Boudrias, 2014; Vandenberghe, Bentein, & Panaccio, 2017). Rolesare thus shaped by the behavioral expectations of others and the self (Sluss & Ashforth,2007). This logic suggests that employees’ behaviors, EBD for example, are shaped bybehavioral expectations of both complementary roles and the self. Specifically, em-ployees form perceptions of their role based on expectations of others, their own rolepreference, and their role ability (Graen & Cashman, 1975; Sluss, Van Dick, &Thompson, 2011). Role expectations can appear as norms (Guirguis & Chewning,2005). The leader, the coworker, and the client fill roles that are complementary to theemployee, so we propose that their business drinking norms set an employee’s behav-ioral expectations for complementary roles. From a self-perspective, the employee isalso a “self-sender” (Shivers-Blackwell, 2004) who shapes his or her own role behav-iors (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). As this study focuses on employee drinking behav-iors in the business context, we propose that motives for work-related drinking (i.e.,performance drinking motives) are associated with EBD. Alcohol tolerance is anemployee’s drinking capability and the self-perception of how much he or she candrink. Therefore, we posit performance drinking motives as role preferences andalcohol tolerance as role abilities, which together form an employee’s self-behavioralexpectations in shaping EBD.
Three dependent variables are identified as consequences. Derived from role theory,relationship formation is a role-making process (Graen & Cashman, 1975). We proposethat EBD serves as a channel for interaction among participants and plays an importantrole in developing relationships during events that involve business drinking. More-over, alcohol can relieve stress, decrease anxiety, promote a positive mood, and create acomfortable and familiar atmosphere for interactions, thereby generating positivebonding effects (Greeley & Oei, 1999; Sayette, 1999; Steptoe & Wardle, 1999). Thebonding effects of alcohol are particularly relevant to the development of relationshipsbetween participants who drink together (Engholm, 1991; Rodriguez, Honeycutt, &
M. Shao et al.
Ragland, 2015; Schweitzer & Kerr, 2000). Given that the leader, coworker, and clientserve in complementary roles to the employee and are most likely to participate inbusiness drinking events together, three related patterns of relationships are identifiedfor further exploration: leader-member exchange (LMX), team-member exchange(TMX), and client ties.
This study makes three important contributions to the literature on employee alcoholuse and role theory. First, this study extended the research on employee alcohol use tobusiness drinking context. Employee alcohol use has received attention from scholarsfor decades (Ames, Grube, & Moore, 1997; Liu et al., 2015; Mackey & Perrewé, 2019;McFarlin & Fals-Stewart, 2002). Scholars have mentioned that specifying the drinkingcontext can improve the understanding of the mechanism of antecedents and conse-quences on employee alcohol use (Bacharach, Bamberger, & Sonnenstuhl, 2002;Bennett, Patterson, Reynolds, Wiitala, & Lehman, 2004; Frone, 2013). However, onlya few studies differentiate drinking behavior based on drinking time, such as drinkingduring work time and drinking after work (e.g., Ames & Grube, 1999; Frone, 2013;Moore, Ames, Duke, & Cunradi, 2012). By focusing on employee drinking behaviorsduring business events, this study extends the literature on employee alcohol use.Second, this study tests related antecedents of EBD, which helps develop an under-standing of the drivers of EBD. Prior studies of role theory focus on explaining howworkplace role senders influence employee behaviors in the workplace, such as workengagement (Matta, Scott, Koopman, & Conlon, 2015) and absenteeism (Bamberger &Biron, 2007). This study provides evidence that complementary roles in the workplaceas well as the employee’s self are also role-senders that influence employee rolebehaviors outside the workplace. Third, this study reveals the positive side of employeealcohol use by empirically examining the relationships between EBD and LMX, TMX,and client ties. Previous studies on employee alcohol use mostly focused on its negativeeffects on work-related outcomes (Frone, 2013), while this study presents evidence forthe positive effects (Fig. 1).
Literature review and hypotheses
Role theory
Role theory focuses on one of the most important features of social life: characteristicbehavioral patterns or roles (Biddle, 1986). According to role theory, individuals arepresumed to be members of social positions, and they hold expectations for their ownand others’ behaviors (Biddle, 2013). Role theory suggests that people generally seekto behave in ways that are consistent with how their roles are defined (Huey &Ricciardelli, 2015). Over the past sixty years, researchers have given considerableattention to the ways in which roles affect employees’ behaviors (e.g., Bolino &Turnley, 2005; Jing, Xiaoyan, Bin, Baihe, Wei, Meng, et al., 2018; Vandenbergheet al., 2017).
Role theory defines a ‘role’ as a set of behavioral expectations attached to a positionin an organized set of social relationships (Merton, 1957; Stryker, 2007; Stryker &Burke, 2000). In short, these behavioral expectations specify the meaning and characterof the role. They are cognitive schemas that organize and store information and
To drink or not to drink; that is the question! Antecedents and...
meaning attached to the role and serve as a framework for interpreting behavior (Stets& Burke, 2000; Tepper, Lockhart, & Hoobler, 2001). Thus, employee behaviors areshaped by the expectations of complementary roles (e.g., leader, coworker, or familymember; Huey & Ricciardelli, 2015; Koenig & Eagly, 2014; Isenhour, Stone, Lien,Zhang, Griffeth, & Fried, 2012) and his or her own behavioral expectations (Bommer,Dierdorff, & Rubin, 2007; Matta et al., 2015; McAllister, Kamdar, Morrison, &Turban, 2007).
Previous research uses role theory as a conceptual foundation in explaining thebuilding of different relationships; it is a role-making process (Graen & Cashman,1975; Graen & Scandura, 1987) during which two individuals shape and reinforcedesired roles through interaction (Sluss et al., 2011). Once an employee’s behavioroccurs, his or her role-making process begins and leads to different relationshipsbetween the employee and the role senders (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). For example,the study of Matta et al. (2015) suggested that a leader communicates expectations to agiven follower, and their relationship evolves either into a higher quality LMX or alower quality LMX based on the follower’s responses during the role-making process.
As mentioned before, EBD is an employee behavior affected by complementaryroles and the employees themselves. Meanwhile, EBD is also a channel for roleinteractions that may lead to relationship-related outcomes. Hence, role theory is usedas the conceptual foundation in this study.
Antecedents of EBD
Norms in social behaviors provide vicarious learning experiences with regard to theinitiation and maintenance of behaviors (Wang, Liu, Zhan, & Shi, 2010), and norms ofalcohol use provide guidance on how, when, and where to drink (Liu et al., 2015).Specifically, business drinking norms are one’s beliefs and perceptions regarding thelegitimacy of drinking alcohol for business encounters with clients. Positive businessdrinking norms presume that the expectation of drinking with clients is legitimate, oreven expected, at business events. Leader drinking norms, coworker drinking norms,and client drinking norms are likely to be highly accessible and expressed as observablepatterns of behaviors (Liu et al., 2015). These drinking norms set up expectations andprovide important social information about effective and adaptable drinking behaviorsat business events (Griskevicius, Cialdini, & Goldstein, 2008; Schultz, Nolan, Cialdini,Goldstein, & Griskevicius, 2007).
Based on role theory, employees who reject role senders may cause roleconflicts and feel stress, so they tend to conform to roles that induce confor-mity among participants (Luvison & Cummings, 2017). Indeed, research hasconfirmed a strong link between perceived norms and alcohol use (Borsari &Carey, 2001).
Leader and coworkers are important role senders who establish expectations for anemployee at work (Hauge, Einarsen, Knardahl, Lau, Notelaers, & Skogstad, 2011;Seers, 1989). We suggest that an employee perceives the business drinking norms ofhis or her leader and coworkers through daily interactions. An employee who perceiveshigh levels of leader or coworker business drinking norms is more likely to regarddrinking with clients as an encouraged behavior during business events. A high level ofleader or coworker business drinking norms suggests that drinking with clients is an
M. Shao et al.
effective way to remain in conformity with the leader or coworkers. With such aperception, the employee may perform more EBD.
Hypothesis 1 Leader business drinking norms are positively related to EBD.Hypothesis 2 Coworker business drinking norms are positively related to EBD.
Client plays an important role in an employee’s career success and is an indispensablerole during business events (Liu et al., 2015). Specifically, client business drinkingnorms are critical for employees and observable at business events. A high level ofclient business drinking norms suggests that the client deems drinking as a legitimate oreven expected part of normal business events. When an employee perceives a highlevel of client business drinking norms, he or she may take drinking with the client tobe an important means of enhancing client satisfaction and, in turn, job performance.Therefore, employees may be motivated to perform more EBD.
Hypothesis 3 Client business drinking norms are positively related to EBD.
Scholars have argued that people’s drinking behaviors are strongly affected by themotivations for drinking that they endorse (Wicki, Kuntsche, & Gmel, 2010; Fisher,Fried, & Anushko, 2007; Ames, Duke, Moore, & Cunradi, 2009). Performancedrinking motives, known as drinking to enhance performance, imply the expectationthat one may use alcohol to achieve performance enhancement (Liu et al., 2015).Previous studies also show that self-expectations account for a major part of reasoningbehind one’s behavior (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964).
We propose that performance drinking motives drive EBD. According to roletheory, self-expectations of behavior contain beliefs about how an individual shouldbehave in his or her role and what behaviors would fulfill responsibilities and furtherhis or her interests (Shivers-Blackwell, 2004). Employees with high performancedrinking motives hold the implicit expectation that drinking behaviors would resultin positive work-related outcomes, such as improvement in tasks, goal accomplish-ment, and the building of better business relationships (Liu et al., 2015). Theseemployees are more willing to drink with clients, or do so more voluntarily, duringbusiness events than employees with low performance drinking motives. Hence, wesuggest that an employee with high performance drinking motives is likely to performmore EBD.
Hypothesis 4 Performance drinking motives are positively related to EBD.
Alcohol tolerance is the maximum amount of alcohol (in beer, wine, or liquor)a person can consume until he or she is physically incapable of drinking anymore (Engs & Hanson, 1994). Alcohol tolerance is identified as the firstcriterion for alcohol consumption (Vogel-Sprott, 1992). In this study, alcoholtolerance reflects an employee’s capability to drink during business drinkingevents (i.e., role ability) and self-perceptions about how much he or she candrink. Past research confirms that employees with greater capacity perform at ahigher level of this role behavior (Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Morgeson, Delaney-Klinger, & Hemingway, 2005).
To drink or not to drink; that is the question! Antecedents and...
Based on role theory, an employee’s capability to perform a particular behavior is acritical variable (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). A high level of capability raises an individ-ual’s feeling of control and the perceived likelihood of success (Parker, Williams, &Turner, 2006). Thus, for the same amount of alcohol, different employees responddifferently based on their tolerance (Treistman & Martin, 2009). Employees with ahigher alcohol tolerance can perform longer-lasting drinking behaviors than employeeswith a lower alcohol tolerance can. More specifically, employees with a lower tolerancemay become intoxicated faster, which can result in self-behavioral costs, such asdysfunctional behavior (Roche, Pidd, Berry, & Harrison, 2008). However, employeeswith a higher alcohol tolerance might be able to perform more appropriate businessdrinking behaviors, such as taking care of the clients and livening the atmosphere.Compared with an employee with a lower tolerance, an employee with a higher alcoholtolerance shows higher capability of drinking with the clients, perceives lower self-behavioral cost and has more opportunities to be invited by his or her clients, leader, orcoworkers to participate in business drinking events. Hence, we suggest that employeeswith high alcohol tolerance will perform more EBD.
Hypothesis 5 Alcohol tolerance is positively related to EBD.
Consequences of EBD
Role theory states that the development of relationships (e.g., LMX, TMX) is a role-making process (Matta et al., 2015; Seers, 1989). This role-making process aims toincrease mutual trust and exchange benefits between individuals (Sluss et al., 2011).Business drinking events offer opportunities for interactions between participants.When people drink together, alcohol can offer an atmosphere that allows differentroles to interact with one another in more cordial and personal ways (Schweitzer &Kerr, 2000). As mentioned above, alcohol can generate positive bonding effects byreducing anxiety and creating a comfortable atmosphere. This bonding effect of alcoholcan positively contribute to the development of relationships (Schweitzer & Kerr, 2000;Shell, 1999). Therefore, we suggest that EBD helps employees facilitate relationshipswith related role-senders (i.e., LMX, TMX, client ties).
LMX and TMX are dyadic relationships that are developed or negotiated over timethrough a series of exchanges or interactions between employees and their leader andcoworkers (Bauer & Green, 1996). Because the time and resources of all parties arelimited (Green, Anderson, & Shivers, 1996), an employee develops different types ofexchange relationships with his or her leader and coworkers. Some relationships evolveinto high-quality exchanges, typified by high levels of mutual trust and respect, whileothers are of lower quality and based primarily on the formal employment contract(Bauer & Green, 1996). A key component in building a high-quality exchangerelationship appears to be the development of interpersonal trust within the relationshipthat goes beyond the formal employment contract (Dienesch & Liden, 1986).
Engagement in business drinking events with one’s leader and/or coworkers is anactivity beyond the formal employment contract. Rotunda and O'farrell (1997) suggestthat drinking is a channel through which trust and relational cohesion can be built. Thebonding effect of alcohol can provide a comfortable environment for role interactions
M. Shao et al.
during business drinking events. Therefore, business drinking events offer a channel foran employee to engage in role interactions, and alcohol provides a comfortableenvironment for such role interactions. In turn, an employee who drinks at businessevents is more likely to evolve high-quality exchanges with his or her leader andcoworkers.
Hypothesis 6 EBD is positively related to LMX.Hypothesis 7 EBD is positively related to TMX.
A tie represents the strength of relationships, the amount of time spent, and thecommunication frequency between individuals (Chiu, Hsu, & Wang, 2006). An em-ployee who drinks with clients during business events has more opportunities to spendtime, communicate, and build personal ties with clients. The comfortable environmentcreated by drinking alcohol offers the employee a chance to develop relationships withclients (Schweitzer & Kerr, 2000). Hence, we suggest that an employee who drinkswith clients at business events is more likely to build and improve his or her client ties.
Hypothesis 8 EBD is positively related to client ties.
Method
Participants and procedures
Data in this study were collected in Central China. Twenty organizations, mostly fromtraditional manufacturing, business services (e.g., tourism, bank, and insurance), con-struction and real estate, and high-tech (e.g., biopharmacy, communication, and elec-tronics) industries, were selected from “Yellow Pages” directories. To improve theresponse rate, support was received from the industrial and commercial bureaus of localgovernments. An officer helped contact the human resources department of these firmsand asked whether they were willing to participate in the study. The survey wasconducted only at firms that showed interest. In the end, three of the twenty firmsselected failed to be contacted, and two firms refused to participate in the study. Four ofthe remaining fifteen firms that agreed to participate in the study were real estate andconstruction firms, five were from commerce and trading industries, three were tech-nology firms, and three were traditional manufacturing firms. Nine firms were state-owned, and six were private enterprises. The sample consisted of 183 full-timeemployees. The median age was 31, 62% were male, and 64% were married.
Measures
Measurement scales were adopted from the literature. Following the procedures oftranslation and back-translation (Brislin, 1986), all English-language scales were firsttranslated into Chinese and then back into English by different experts from the schoolof management at one of the leading universities in China. This process can help avoidsemantic discrepancies in the English and Chinese versions of the scales. A pilot testwas conducted with 10 full-time employees whose responses were excluded from thefinal study. During the process, we checked each item with pilot test participants to
To drink or not to drink; that is the question! Antecedents and...
ensure that every question could be accurately understood. In view of the specificresearch context, certain items were modified to make the scales more appropriate. Asdescribed below, relevant variables were measured at an initial time (time 1), after onemonth (time 2), and after two months (time 3).
Leader business drinking norms (time 1) A five-item veteran peers’ alcohol-use normsscale adapted from Liu et al. (2015) was adjusted for this variable by changing “myteam” to “my leader”. Each participant rated his or her agreement with four statementson a scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Sample items included “Myleader often drinks alcohol with the clients” and “Drinking alcohol together is animportant part of the interactions between my leader and the clients.” The scale wasscored by averaging the ratings across statements.
Coworker business drinking norms (time 1) A five-item veteran peers’ alcohol-usenorms scale adapted from Liu et al. (2015) was adjusted for this variable by changing“my team” to “my coworkers”. Each participant rated his or her agreement with fourstatements on a scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Sample itemsincluded, “My coworker often drinks alcohol with the clients” and “Drinking alcoholtogether is an important part of the interactions between my coworker and the clients.”We scored the scale by averaging the ratings across statements.
Client business drinking norms (time 1) A four-item client alcohol-use norms scaleadapted from Liu et al. (2015) was adjusted for this variable by changing “our client” to“my clients”. Each participant rated his or her agreement with four statements on ascale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Sample items included “Myclients often drink alcohol during business meetings” and “For my clients, drinkingalcohol is an important way to strengthen business relationships.” The scale was scoredby averaging the ratings across statements.
Performance drinking motives (time 1) The five-item measure of performance motivesfor alcohol use was adopted for this study (Liu et al., 2015). Participants reported whenand how often they drank alcohol for the reasons stated. Options were between 1 =never and 5 = always. Sample items included “to do my job better” and “for the benefitof my organization.” The scale was scored by averaging the ratings across statements.
Alcohol tolerance (time 1) The three-item alcohol tolerance measure was adopted fromEngs, Slawinska, and Hanson (1991). Participants chose the average quantity of threedifferent types of alcohol they could consume at any time, with options ranging from1 = less than 1 liquor pot to 5 = over 6 liquor pots, with a liquor pot defined as 12 oz. ofbeer, 4 oz. of wine, or 1 oz. of liquor. The three items referred to beer, wine, and liquor.The scale was scored by averaging the ratings across statements.
EBD (time 2) Consistent with the study of Liu et al. (2015), which uses frequency tomeasure employees’ drinking behavior, frequency is also used in this study to presentEBD. Participants reported how frequently they drank with clients for business mattersin the past month (such business drinking events usually include leader and/or co-workers) with options ranging from 1 = never to 5 = almost every day.
M. Shao et al.
LMX (time 3) The seven-item LMX measure was adopted from Graen and Uhl-Bien(1995). Each participant rated his or her agreement with four statements on a scale from1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Sample items included “My leader under-stands my job problems and needs” and “My leader can recognize my potential.” Thescale was scored by averaging the ratings across statements.
TMX (time 3) The ten-item TMX measure adopted from Seers, Petty, and Cashman(1995) was used. Each participant rated his or her agreement with four statements on ascale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Sample items included “Otherteam members can recognize my potential” and “Other team members can understandmy problems and needs.” The scale was scored by averaging the ratings acrossstatements.
Client ties (time 3) The four-item social interaction ties measure adopted fromChiu et al. (2006) was adjusted for this variable by changing “my othermember” to “my client”. Each participant rated his or her agreement with fourstatements on a scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Sampleitems included “I maintain close social relationships with clients” and “I spenda lot of time interacting with clients.” The scale was scored by averaging theratings across statements.
Control variables We statistically controlled for possible alternative explanations byincluding relevant control variables, including participants’ gender, age, marital status,industry and firm size, all of which could be related to employee alcohol use, assuggested in the literature (Frone, 2013; Wang et al., 2010).
Procedure
Data were collected at three time points at one-month intervals. This reduced bias incommon methods (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).
Time 1 With specific explanations of this study given to the human resources depart-ment, the online questionnaire was sent to one human resources employee ineach firm. The human resources departments were informed that the question-naires were only suitable for employees who frequently interacted with clients(e.g., sales or public relations departments). In total, 281 questionnaire re-sponses were received at Time 1. Each online questionnaire had an introductionat the beginning explaining that the participation was completely voluntary. Theintroduction also explained the purpose of the study and emphasized theimportance of conscientious and truthful responses. Participants were asked toprovide their email address or QQ number at all three time points so that wecould match the corresponding questionnaires.
Time 2 One month later, the same 281 respondents who participated at Time 1 wereasked to complete a questionnaire regarding their alcohol consumption during businessdrinking events. After two days, a total of 249 completed questionnaires were received;
To drink or not to drink; that is the question! Antecedents and...
hence, the effective overall response rate was 89%. Excluding 29 samples that couldnot be matched with Time 1 data, 220 questionnaire responses were valid at Time 2.
Time 3 One month after Time 2, the same 220 respondents were requested to completeanother questionnaire about their relationships with their leaders, coworkers, andclients. After two days, a total of 192 completed questionnaires were received, withan effective overall response rate of 77%. Excluding 9 responses that could not bematched with Time 2 data, the final data collected were based on responses from 183full-time employees.
Results
Confirmatory factor analyses
Structural equation modeling with AMOS 21 was implemented to test the convergentand discriminant validity of the investigated variables. The distinctiveness of the eightvariables (leader business drinking norms, coworker business drinking norms, clientbusiness drinking norms, performance drinking motives, alcohol tolerance, LMX,TMX, and client ties) was examined by contrasting an 8-factor model against one 7-factor model, one 6-factor model, one 5-factor model, one 4-factor model, and one 1-factor model. As shown in Table 1, the hypothesized eight-factor structure produced anacceptable fit to the data (χ2/df = 1.79, RMSEA = .07, IFI = .91, TLI = .90 andCFI = .91). Compared with any alternative measurement models, the hypothesizedfactor structure fit the data better. As shown in Table 2, Cronbach’s alpha valuesranged from .86 to .96, indicating that all scales had acceptable reliability, all scales’loadings were higher than the .60 criterion, and AVE ranged from .54 to .87, above the.50 criterion. These results indicated that the convergent validity of our measurementinstrument was acceptable.
Leader business drinking norms
Coworker business drinking
norms
Client business drinking norms
Performance drinking motives
Alcohol tolerance
Employee business drinking TMX
LMX
Client ties
Fig. 1 Theoretical model
M. Shao et al.
Descriptive statistics
The means, standard deviations, and correlations for all scales are summarizedin Table 3. As shown in Table 3, leader business drinking norms, coworkerbusiness drinking norms, and client business drinking norms were positivelyassociated with EBD (r = .47, p < .01; r = .53, p < .01; r = .42, p < .01, respec-tively), and performance drinking motives and alcohol tolerance were positivelyassociated with EBD (r = .51, p < .01 and r = .52, p < .01, respectively). EBDshowed significantly positive correlations with LMX, TMX, and client ties(respectively, r = .19, p < .01; r = .19, p < .01; r = .38, p < .01). These resultsprovided initial support for all of the hypotheses.
Table 1 Results of confirmatory factor analyses
Model χ2/df RMSEA IFI TLI CFI
Eight factor model 1.79 0.07 0.91 0.90 0.91
Seven factor model1 2.60 0.09 0.82 0.80 0.82
Six factor model2 2.98 0.10 0.78 0.75 0.77
Five factor model3 3.57 0.12 0.71 0.68 0.70
Four-factor model4 3.71 0.12 0.69 0.66 0.69
One factor model 6.00 0.16 0.46 0.43 0.46
Note: RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, IFI = incremental fit index, TLI = Tucker-Lewisindex, CFI = comparative fit index. LBDN= Leader business drinking norms, CoBDN=Coworker businessdrinking norms, CBDN=Client business drinking norms, PDM= Performance drinking motives, AT =Alco-hol tolerance, LMX=Leader-member exchange, TMX=Team-member exchange, CT= Client ties1 : LBDN and PDM combined2 : LBDN, CBDN and PDM combined3 : LBDN, CBDN, CoBDN and PDM combined4 : LBDN, CBDN, CoBDN and PDM combined; LMX and TMX combined
Table 2 Loadings, cronbach’s alpha (α), composite reliability, and average variance extracted (AVE)
Loading Cronbach’s α Composite reliability AVE
EBD – – – –
Leader business drinking norms 0.86–0.94 0.95 0.97 0.85
Coworker business drinking norms 0.89–0.94 0.96 0.97 0.87
Client business drinking norms 0.89–0.93 0.93 0.95 0.82
Performance drinking motives 0.77–0.92 0.91 0.94 0.74
Alcohol tolerance 0.87–0.93 0.89 0.94 0.83
LMX 0.66–0.81 0.88 0.91 0.59
TMX 0.70–0.85 0.86 0.89 0.54
Client ties 0.84–0.85 0.90 0.93 0.76
Note: EBD is a single-item measure
To drink or not to drink; that is the question! Antecedents and...
Table3
Means,standarddeviation,
andintercorrelatio
nsof
allvariables
Variables
Mean
SD1
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
14
Individual-levelV
ariables
1.Gendera
1.4
.52
2.Age
b2.6
.65
−.20**
3.Maritalstatus
c1.66
.50
−.22**
.49**
4.Industry
d2.30
1.13
−.05
.10
.09
5.Firm
size
e2.43
1.34
−.10
.13
.05
−.30**
6.Leaderbusiness
drinking
norm
s3.5
.93
.05
.12
.07
−.11
.06
7.Cow
orkerbusiness
drinking
norm
s3.5
.84
−.07
.21**
.08
−.06
−.01
.65**
8.Client
business
drinking
norm
s3.6
.72
−.01
.11
−.01
−.07
.08
.67**
.64**
9.Performance
drinking
motives
3.2
.89
−.24**
.23**
.12
−.01
.05
.41**
.56**
.54**
10.A
lcohol
tolerance
2.1
1.23
−.33**
.10
.14
−.09
.12
.30**
.35**
.31**
.50**
11.E
BD
1.6
.64
−.24**
.25**
.16*
−.09
.13
.47**
.53**
.42**
.51**
.52**
12.L
MX
3.6
.56
−.22**
.13
.07
.06
.06
.12
.12
.16*
.20**
.26*
.19**
13.T
MX
3.7
.41
−.05
.13
.06
−.11
.01
.28**
.17*
.25**
.26**
.31*
.19*
.61**
14.C
lient
ties
3.2
.74
.02
.23**
.15*
−.13
−.04
.26**
.31**
.21**
.36**
.23**
.38**
.23**
.33**
N=183*p
<.05;
**p<.01
aGender:1=Male;2=Female
bAge:1=20
andbelow;2=21–30;
3=31–40;
4=41–50;
5=51
andabove
cMaritalstatus:1=Single;2=Married;3=Divorce
orother
dIndustry:1=State-ow
ned;
2=Private;3=Fo
reign-invested/jointventure;4=Governm
entagency;5=Pu
blicinstitu
tions;6=other
eFirm
size:1=below
200;
2=200–500;
3=500–1000;4=above100
M. Shao et al.
Hypothesis testing
The hypotheses were tested using multiple regression models. Eight models wereestimated to test the hypotheses. Model 1, Model 3, Model 5, and Model 7 took onlythe control variables into consideration. Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 predicted that leaderbusiness drinking norms, coworker business drinking norms, and client businessdrinking norms were positively related to EBD (see Model 2 in Table 4). The resultssupported hypotheses 1 and 2 (β= .21, p < .05; β = .21, p < .05) but not hypothesis 3(β = −.04, n.s.). Hypotheses 4 and 5 predicted that performance drinking motives andalcohol tolerance were positively related to EBD. Model 2 in Table 4 shows the resultsrelevant to these hypotheses: performance drinking motives and alcohol tolerance bothhad a significant positive relationship to EBD (β = .15, p < .05; β = .28, p < .001).
Hypotheses 6, 7, and 8 predicted that EBD was positively related to LMX, TMX,and client ties. Table 5 shows the results relevant to these hypotheses in Models 4, 6,and 8, indicating that LMX, TMX, and client ties were all significantly positivelyrelated to EBD (β = .13, .05 < p < .10; β = .17, p < .01; β = .38, p < .001), which sup-ported hypotheses 6, 7 and 8.
Discussion
Based on role theory, this study aims to specify the business context of employeealcohol use and identify the antecedents and consequences of EBD. Overall, the
Table 4 Results of the relationship between antecedents and EBD
Model 1 Model 2
EBD (time2)
Control variables
Gender −.19* −.10Age .19* .09
Marital status .02 .00
Industry −.01 .07
Firm size .08 .08
Independent variables
Leader business drinking norms – .21*
Coworker business drinking norms – .21*
Client business drinking norms – −.04Performance drinking motives – .15*
Alcohol tolerance – .28***
R2 .11 .47
Adjusted R2 .09 .45
Change R2 .11 .37
F 4.36** 15.62***
N = 183. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
To drink or not to drink; that is the question! Antecedents and...
findings support most of the hypotheses. From a complementary role perspective,leader business drinking norms and coworker business drinking norms are found tobe significant antecedents of EBD. From the self-perspective, performance drinkingmotives and alcohol tolerance are found to drive EBD in a positive way. As predicted,EBD is also found to have a significant and positive influence on employees’ LMX,TMX, and client ties. In contrast to the hypothesis, there is no significant relationshipfound between client business drinking norms and EBD. A possible reason is that therelationship between client business drinking norms and EBD was assessed with a one-month interval. The employee’s client might have changed after one month.
Theoretical implications
The findings have several theoretical implications. The first major contribution of thisstudy is extending prior research on employee alcohol use to the context of businessdrinking. Employee alcohol use is a complex issue, and failure to account for thecomplicated context of drinking behaviors gives rise to confusion and ambiguity inresearch (Frone, 2013). Scholars have noticed the importance of context in employeealcohol use (Bennett et al., 2004; Frone, 2013) and proposed that specifying thedrinking context helps uncover the underlying mechanisms of employee alcohol use(Bacharach et al., 2002; Bennett et al., 2004; Frone, 2013). Previous studies either havenot specified the drinking context of employee alcohol use (e.g., Berry, Pidd, Roche, &Harrison, 2007) or have focused on different times, such as defining workplace alcoholuse as the consumption of alcohol just before or during one’s formal work hours (e.g.,Ames & Grube, 1999; Frone, 2013; Moore et al., 2012). We specified the businesscontext of employee alcohol use, which allows the research to focus on understandingthe phenomenon of “employee drinking during business events” and investigating theantecedents and consequences of EBD. Hence, this study extends previous literature on
Table 5 Results of the relationship between EBD and consequences
Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model7 Model 8
LMX TMX Client ties
Control variables
Gender −.21** −.18* −.02 .02 .08 .16*
Age .10 .08 .14 .11 .23** .16*
Marital status −.02 −.03 −.01 −.02 .05 .05
Industry −.01 −.00 −.11 −.11 −.11 −.11Firm size .03 .01 −.04 −.05 −.10 −.13Independent variables
EBD – .13+ – .17* – .38***
R2 .06 .08 .03 .06 .08 .20
Adjusted R2 .03 .04 .01 .03 .05 .18
Change R2 .06 .02 .03 .02 .08 .13
F 2.24+ 2.38* 1.05 2.25* 2.86* 7.42***
N = 183. .05 <+p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
M. Shao et al.
employee alcohol use by providing a new perspective and demonstrates the importanceof context in researching employee alcohol use.
Second, this study identified antecedents of EBD based on role theory, whichprovides insights into the formation of EBD. We examined the relationship betweenrole sender expectations and employee drinking behaviors from both the perspective ofcomplementary roles and the self-perspective. From the perspective of complementaryroles, the findings demonstrate that leader business drinking norms and coworkerbusiness drinking norms are positively related to EBD. These results endorse the basicpremise of role theory, which is that employees’ behaviors are shaped by the behavioralexpectations of complementary roles (Sluss & Ashforth, 2007). Furthermore, the resultssupport Frone’s (2009) identification of the need to explore the relationship betweenworkplace substance use norms within work groups and employee alcohol use. In termsof self-perspective, this study shows that employees’ performance drinking motivesand alcohol tolerance are positively related to EBD. The finding of a positive effect ofperformance drinking motives on employee alcohol use is consistent with previousfindings by Liu et al. (2015). Moreover, the linkage between alcohol tolerance andalcohol use has been established in the medical domain (Hiltunen, 1997; Marczinski &Fillmore, 2009; Vogel-Sprott, 1992), and this study suggests that the same correlationexists in the organizational domain. In addition, unlike other studies that focus on howworkplace role senders influence employee behaviors in the workplace (e.g., Mattaet al., 2015; Whitaker, Dahling, & Levy, 2007), this study provides evidence to suggestthat workplace role senders’ expectations may also influence employee behaviorsperformed outside the workplace.
Empirical evidence for the positive effect of EBD on LMX, TMX, and client ties isalso provided in this study, which is the first to empirically test the positive work-relatedconsequences of employee alcohol use. Due to the negative effects of alcohol on humanhealth, previous research on the consequences of employee alcohol use mainly focuseson dysfunctional outcomes such as hangovers (Moore et al., 2012), job absenteeism(Bacharach, Bamberger & Biron, 2010), leaving work early (Frone, 2013), and jobinjuries (Mangione, Howland, Amick, Cote, Lee, Bell, & Levine, 1999). This studyexplored the positive effects of employee alcohol use from an interpersonal relationshipperspective. Thus, its results may provide a clue to answer the question “why doesemployee drinking remain prevalent at business events worldwide?” The results alsosupport the argument of Engholm (1991), Schweitzer and Kerr (2000), and Rodriguezet al. (2015), who suggested that drinking helps facilitate relationships.
Consistent with the idea of Matta et al. (2015) and Seers (1989), a positivecorrelation between EBD and LMX, TMX, and client ties also provides evidence thatrelationship formation is a role-making process and employees build relationshipsthrough role interactions. Furthermore, in studies of LMX formation, scholars tend toexplore variables such as characteristics of the relationship (e.g., Schyns, Paul, Mohr, &Blank, 2005), leader characteristics (e.g., Nahrgang, Morgeson, & Ilies, 2009), andfollower characteristics (e.g., Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012). Instudies of TMX formation, scholars explored variables such as organizational justice(e.g., Srivastava & Singh, 2015), emotional intelligence (e.g., Schmidt, 2006), andworkplace friendship (e.g., Herman, Dasborough, & Ashkanasy, 2008). Hence, thefindings of this study identify a new kind of employee behavior that can facilitate thedevelopment of their work relationships.
To drink or not to drink; that is the question! Antecedents and...
Practical implications
It is found that employees’ alcohol tolerance significantly influences their businessdrinking behaviors. Organizations can learn about a person’s alcohol tolerance whenrecruiting for departments that involve frequent interactions with clients. For example,sales departments may require employees to frequently drink with clients to close dealsor build good relationships. Employees with a higher alcohol tolerance are moresuitable for such positions and may be able to enhance department performance withtheir better capacity to build relationships with clients.
The adverse effects of alcohol on health, such as increased risk of oral cancers(Fillmore et al., 2007), and on the organization, such as dysfunctional work behaviors(Moore, Grunberg, & Greenberg, 2000), must also be considered. On the whole, employ-ee alcohol use is a complex phenomenon and a double-edged sword for both employeesand organizations. In organizations, moderate business drinking norms are needed. Thesignificant relationships between leader and coworker business drinking norms and EBDimply that employees are likely to adopt drinking behaviors under the influence of theirleaders and coworkers. In fact, an employee might involuntarily drink during businessevents under the pressure of their leader and coworkers. In addition, serious consequencesmay exist, such as employee alcohol abuse, which could cause physical and psychologicalharm to both employees and organizations (Liu et al., 2015). Therefore, organizationsshould remind employees about the negative effects of alcohol and moderate employees’business drinking. Moreover, organizations could reduce the pressure to drink throughnorm education (Walters, Bennett, & Miller, 2000). For example, drinking norm educa-tion can be accompanied by other discussions, such as conversations about drinkingproblems and suggestions to reduce alcohol use (Agostinelli, Brown, & Miller, 1995;Barnett, Far, Mauss, & Miller, 1996; Borsari & Carey, 2001).
Although EBD helps employees facilitate their LMX, TMX, and client ties, inconsideration of alcohol’s negative effects, we suggest that organizations should offeralternative activities. Specifically, employees who are expected to develop relationshipswith their leader, coworkers, and clients may be particularly at risk of alcohol abuse.Organizations can organize healthy activities, such as karaoke and traveling, foremployees to interact with their leader or coworkers. In addition, organizations haveethical and business obligations to identify the risks of business drinking and helpemployees, especially employees doing client-intensive work, avoid these risks. Forexample, organizations can offer regular physical check-ups for employees in the salesdepartment.
Limitations and future research
First, the convenience sample from China limits the generalizability of our findings.The data of client-related employees are collected from one particular culture (i.e.,Chinese), in which drinking is a well-recognized part of business operations (Hao,Chen, & Su, 2005). Future research could examine our model in other cultural settings.
Second, although a three-wave method of data collection was used with a one-monthinterval, it cannot prove the causality between variables. Future research should attemptto validate the findings of this study using experimental designs to clearly establish thedirectionality of effects.
M. Shao et al.
Third, as an employee role behavior, EBD may potentially be affected by thedrinking norms of roles outside the workplace. For example, families and friends playimportant roles in an employee’s nonwork domain. Sudhinaraset, Wigglesworth, andTakeuchi (2016) suggested that families and friends are critical in influencing anindividual’s alcohol use. Therefore, future studies may extend this study by examiningthe effects of nonwork-related roles on drinking norms.
Finally, there may be potential moderators. Different individual factors could modifythe relationship in the model of this study. Future studies may benefit from includingmore comprehensive moderators to provide a better understanding of EBD.
Funding information This research was supported by the Anhui Provincial Natural Science Foundation(APNSF; 1808085MG223&1708085MG174). The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authorsand do not necessary reflect the views of APNSF.
Compliance with ethical standards
Declaration of conflicting interests The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect tothe research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Ethical approval All procedures involving human participants are in accordance with the ethical standardsof the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its lateramendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants involved in this study.
References
Agostinelli, G., Brown, J. M., & Miller, W. R. 1995. Effects of normative feedback on consumption amongheavy drinking college students. Journal of drug education, 25(1), 31-40.
Ames, G. M., Duke, M. R., Moore, R. S., & Cunradi, C. B. 2009. The impact of occupational culture ondrinking behavior of young adults in the US Navy. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(2), 129-150.
Ames, G. M., & Grube, J. W. 1999. Alcohol availability and workplace drinking: mixed method analyses.Journal of studies on alcohol, 60(3), 383-393.
Ames, G. M., Grube, J. W., & Moore, R. S. 1997. The relationship of drinking and hangovers to workplaceproblems: an empirical study. Journal of studies on alcohol, 58(1), 37-47.
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Biron, M. 2010. Alcohol consumption and workplace absenteeism: Themoderating effect of social support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 334-348.
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P. A., & Sonnenstuhl, W. J. 2002. Driven to drink: Managerial control, work-related risk factors, and employee problem drinking. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 637-658.
Barnett, L. A., Far, J. M., Mauss, A. L., & Miller, J. A. 1996. Changing perceptions of peer norms as adrinking reduction program for college students. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education.
Bamberger, P., & Biron, M. 2007. Group norms and excessive absenteeism: The role of peer referent others.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(2), 179-196.
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. 1996. Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy ofmanagement journal, 39(6), 1538-1567.
Bennett, J. B., Patterson, C. R., Reynolds, G. S., Wiitala, W. L., & Lehman, W. E. 2004. Team awareness,problem drinking, and drinking climate: workplace social health promotion in a policy context. AmericanJournal of Health Promotion, 19(2), 103-113.
Berry, J. G., Pidd, K., Roche, A. M., & Harrison, J. E. 2007. Prevalence and patterns of alcohol use in theAustralian workforce: findings from the 2001 National Drug Strategy Household Survey. Addiction,102(9), 1399-1410.
Biddle, B. J. 1986. Recent developments in role theory. Annual review of sociology, 12(1), 67-92
To drink or not to drink; that is the question! Antecedents and...
Biddle, B. J. 2013. Role theory: Expectations, identities, and behaviors. Academic Press.Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. 2005. The personal costs of citizenship behavior: the relationship between
individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict. Journal of applied psychol-ogy, 90(4), 740.
Bommer, W. H., Dierdorff, E. C., & Rubin, R. S. 2007. Does prevalence mitigate relevance? The moderatingeffect of group-level OCB on employee performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1481-1494.
Borsari, B., & Carey, K. B. 2001. Peer influences on college drinking: A review of the research. Journal ofSubstance Abuse, 13(4), 391-424.
Brislin, R. W. 1986. Research instruments. Field methods in cross-cultural research, 159-162.Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., & Wang, E. T. 2006. Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An
integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision support systems, 42(3), 1872-1888.Corrao, G., Bagnardi, V., Zambon, A., & La Vecchia, C. 2004. A meta-analysis of alcohol consumption and
the risk of 15 diseases. Preventive medicine, 38(5), 613-619.Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. 1986. Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further
development. Academy of management review, 11(3), 618-634.Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. 2012. A meta-analysis of
antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward thefuture. Journal of management, 38(6), 1715-1759.
Engholm, C. 1991. When business East meets business West: The guide to practice and protocol in the PacificRim: Wiley.
Engs, R. C., & Hanson, D. J. 1994. The Student Alcohol Questionnaire: An updated reliability of the drinkingpatterns, problems, knowledge, and attitude subscales. Psychological Reports, 74(1), 12-14.
Engs, R. C., Slawinska, J. B., & Hanson, D. J. 1991. The drinking patterns of American and Polish universitystudents: A cross-national study. Drug and alcohol dependence, 27(2), 167-175.
Fillmore, K. M., Stockwell, T., Chikritzhs, T., Bostrom, A., & Kerr, W. 2007. Moderate alcohol use andreduced mortality risk: systematic error in prospective studies and new hypotheses. Annals of epidemi-ology, 17(5), S16-S23.
Fisher, C. B., Fried, A. L., & Anushko, A. 2007. Development and validation of the college drinkinginfluences survey. Journal of american college health, 56(3), 217-230.
Frone, M. R. (2009). Does a permissive workplace substance use climate affect employees who do not usealcohol and drugs at work? A U.S. national study. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors : Journal of theSociety of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors, 23(2), 386-390.
Frone, M. R. 2013. Alcohol and illicit drug use in the workforce and workplace. American PsychologicalAssociation.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. 1992. Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability.Academy of Management Review, 17, 183–211.
Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. 1975. A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A develop-mental approach. Leadership frontiers, 143, 165.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. 1987. Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in organizationalbehavior.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domainperspective. The leadership quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.
Greeley, J., & Oei, T. 1999. Alcohol and tension reduction. Psychological theories of drinking and alcohol-ism, 2, 14-53.
Green, S. G., Anderson, S. E., & Shivers, S. L. 1996. Demographic and organizational influences on leader–member exchange and related work attitudes. Organizational behavior and human decision processes,66(2), 203-214.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. 1985. Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy ofmanagement review, 10(1), 76-88.
Griskevicius, V., Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. 2008. Social norms: An underestimated and underem-ployed lever for managing climate change. In In.
Guirguis, L. M., & Chewning, B. A. 2005. Role theory: literature review and implications for patient-pharmacist interactions. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 1(4), 483-507.
Hao, W., Chen, H., & Su, Z. 2005. China: alcohol today. Addiction, 100(6), 737-741.Hauge, L. J., Einarsen, S., Knardahl, S., Lau, B., Notelaers, G., & Skogstad, A. 2011. Leadership and role
stressors as departmental level predictors of workplace bullying. International Journal of StressManagement, 18(4), 305.
M. Shao et al.
Herman, H. M., Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. 2008. A multi-level analysis of team climate andinterpersonal exchange relationships at work. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 195-211.
Hiltunen, A. J. 1997. Acute alcohol tolerance in social drinkers: Changes in subjective effects dependent onthe alcohol dose and prior alcohol experience. Alcohol, 14(4), 373-378.
Huey, L., & Ricciardelli, R. 2015. ‘This isn’t what I signed up for’ When police officer role expectationsconflict with the realities of general duty police work in remote communities. International Journal ofPolice Science & Management, 17(3), 194-203.
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance.Psychological bulletin, 96(1), 72.
Isenhour, L. C., Stone, D. L., Lien, D., Zhang, M., Griffeth, R. W., & Fried, D. D. 2012. Work-family conflictand individual consequences. Journal of Managerial Psychology.
Jing, Q. , Xiaoyan, L. , Bin, W. , Baihe, S. , Wei, Z. , & Meng, C. , et al. (2018). A role theory perspective onhow and when goal-focused leadership influences employee voice behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 9,1244-.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. 1964. Organizational stress: Studiesin role conflict and ambiguity.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The social psychology of organizations (Vol. 2, p. 528). New York: Wiley.Koenig, A. M., & Eagly, A. H. 2014. Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: Observations of
groups’ roles shape stereotypes. Journal of personality and social psychology, 107(3), 371.Lapointe, É., Vandenberghe, C., & Boudrias, J. S. 2014. Organizational socialization tactics and newcomer
adjustment: The mediating role of role clarity and affect-based trust relationships. Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(3), 599-624.
Liu, S., Wang, M., Bamberger, P., Shi, J., & Bacharach, S. B. 2015. The dark side of socialization: Alongitudinal investigation of newcomer alcohol use. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 334-355.
Luvison, D., & Cummings, J. L. 2017. Decisions at the Boundary: Role Choice and Alliance ManagerBehaviors. Group & Organization Management, 42(2), 279-309.
Mackey, J. D., & Perrewé, P. L. 2019. The relationships between hindrance stressors, problem drinking, andsomatic complaints at work. Group & Organization Management, 44(4), 807-838
Mangione, T. W., Howland, J., Amick, B., Cote, J., Lee, M., Bell, N., & Levine, S. 1999. Employee drinkingpractices and work performance. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 60, 261–270.
Matta, F. K., Scott, B. A., Koopman, J., & Conlon, D. E. 2015. Does seeing “eye to eye” affect workengagement and organizational citizenship behavior? A role theory perspective on LMX agreement.Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1686-1708.
Marczinski, C. A., & Fillmore, M. T. 2009. Acute alcohol tolerance on subjective intoxication and simulateddriving performance in binge drinkers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 23(2), 238.
McAllister, D. J., Kamdar, D., Morrison, E. W., & Turban, D. B. 2007. Disentangling role perceptions: howperceived role breadth, discretion, instrumentality, and efficacy relate to helping and taking charge.Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1200.
McFarlin, S. K., & Fals-Stewart, W. 2002. Workplace absenteeism and alcohol use: A sequential analysis.Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16(1), 17.
Merton, Robert K. 1957. The role-set: Problems in sociological theory. The British Journal of Sociology, 8(2),106-120.
Moore, R. S., Ames, G. M., Duke, M. R., & Cunradi, C. B. 2012. Food service employee alcohol use,hangovers and norms during and after work hours. Journal of substance use, 17(3), 269-276.
Moore, S., Grunberg, L., & Greenberg, E. 2000. The relationships between alcohol problems and well-being,work attitudes, and performance: are they monotonic?. Journal of substance abuse, 11(2), 183-204.
Morgeson, F. P., Delaney-Klinger, K., & Hemingway, M. A. (2005). The importance of job autonomy,cognitive ability, and job-related skill for predicting role breadth and job performance. Journal of appliedpsychology, 90(2), 399.
Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Ilies, R. 2009. The development of leader–member exchanges: Exploringhow personality and performance influence leader and member relationships over time. Organizationalbehavior and human decision processes, 108(2), 256-266.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. 2006. Modeling the Antecedents of Proactive Behavior at Work.Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636-652.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases inbehavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 88(5), 879.
To drink or not to drink; that is the question! Antecedents and...
Quenqua, D. 2012, October 1. Feeling the pressure to drink for work. The New York Times, Well blog.https://www.well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/feeling-the-pressure-to-drink-for-work/. Accessed 5May 2019.
Roche, A. M., Pidd, K., Berry, J. G., & Harrison, J. E. 2008. Workers' drinking patterns: the impact onabsenteeism in the Australian workplace. Addiction, 103(5), 738-748.
Rodriguez, M., Honeycutt, E. D., & Ragland, C. 2015. Preliminary Investigation of Entertainment StrategiesInvolving Alcohol: Implications for Professional Sales Education and Training in Business Markets.Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 22(4), 257-268.
Rotunda, R. J., & O'farrell, T. J. 1997. Marital and family therapy of alcohol use disorders: Bridging the gapbetween research and practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28(3), 246.
Sayette, M. A. 1999. Does drinking reduce stress? Alcohol research and health, 23(4), 250-255.Schmidt, L. L. 2006. Self-reported emotional intelligence as an indicator of social exchange quality at work.
University of Houston.Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. 2007. The constructive,
destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological science, 18(5), 429-434.Schweitzer, M. E., & Kerr, J. L. 2000. Bargaining under the influence: The role of alcohol in negotiations. The
Academy of Management Executive, 14(2), 47-57.Schyns, B., Paul, T., Mohr, G., & Blank, H. 2005. Comparing antecedents and consequences of leader–
member exchange in a German working context to findings in the US. European Journal of Work andOrganizational Psychology, 14(1), 1-22.
Seers, A. 1989. Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organizationalbehavior and human decision processes, 43(1), 118-135.
Seers, A., Petty, M., & Cashman, J. F. 1995. Team-member exchange under team and traditional management:A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Group & Organization Management, 20(1), 18-38.
Shell, G. R. 1999. Bargaining for advantage. Viking, New York, NY.Shivers-Blackwell, S. L. 2004. Using role theory to examine determinants of transformational and transac-
tional leader behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(3), 41-50.Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. 2007. Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves through work
relationships. Academy of management review, 32(1), 9-32.Sluss, D.M., VanDick, R., & Thompson, B. S. 2011. Role theory in organizations: A relational perspective. APASrivastava, U. R., & Singh, V. 2015. Individual and group level antecedents of team-member exchange
(TMX) and its associated outcomes. International Journal of Management Excellence, 5(1), 567-583.Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. 2000. Identity theory and social identity theory. Social psychology quarterly, 224-237.Steptoe, A., & Wardle, J. 1999. Mood and drinking: a naturalistic diary study of alcohol, coffee and tea.
Psychopharmacology, 141(3), 315-321.Stryker, S. 2007. Identity theory and personality theory: Mutual relevance. Journal of personality, 75(6),
1083-1102.Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. 2000. The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social psychology
quarterly, 284-297.Sudhinaraset, M., Wigglesworth, C., & Takeuchi, D. T. 2016. Social and cultural contexts of alcohol use:
Influences in a social–ecological framework. Alcohol research: current reviews.Tepper, B. J., Lockhart, D., & Hoobler, J. 2001. Justice, citizenship, and role definition effects. Journal of
applied psychology, 86(4), 789.Treistman, S. N., & Martin, G. E. 2009. BK Channels: mediators and models for alcohol tolerance. Trends in
neurosciences, 32(12), 629-637.Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K., & Panaccio, A. 2017. Affective commitment to organizations and supervisors
and turnover: A role theory perspective. Journal of management, 43(7), 2090-2117.Vogel-Sprott, M. 1992. Alcohol tolerance and social drinking: Learning the consequences. Guilford Press.Walters, S. T., Bennett, M. E., & Miller, J. H. 2000. Reducing alcohol use in college students: A controlled
trial of two brief interventions. Journal of Drug Education, 30(3), 361-372.Wang,M., Liu, S., Zhan, Y., & Shi, J. 2010. Daily work–family conflict and alcohol use: Testing the cross-level
moderation effects of peer drinking norms and social support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 377.Whitaker, B. G., Dahling, J. J., & Levy, P. 2007. The development of a feedback environment and role clarity
model of job performance. Journal of Management, 33(4), 570-591.Wicki, M., Kuntsche, E., & Gmel, G. 2010. Drinking at European universities? A review of students' alcohol
use. Addictive behaviors, 35(11), 913-924.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps andinstitutional affiliations.
M. Shao et al.
Meng Shao is a PhD Candidate in School of Management at University of Science and Technology of China.She has a master degree in School of Mathematics at University of Exeter (England, United Kingdom) and abachelor degree in School of Mathematics at University of Edinburgh (Scotland, United Kingdom). Herresearch interests include drinking behavior, interpersonal relationship and workplace stressor.
Jibao Gu (PhD, University of Science and Technology of China) is a professor of management school at theUniversity of Science and Technology of China. His research interests are organizational behavior, highereducation, innovation management and entrepreneurship.
Jianlin Wu (PhD, University of Science and Technology of China) is an associate professor of managementschool at the University of Science and Technology of China. Her research interests include organizationalbehavior, innovation management and entrepreneurship.
To drink or not to drink; that is the question! Antecedents and...