Why and when will people adopt bottom-line mentality (BLM) as an adaptive strategy? This research explores the dynamic triggers of BLM as an activated mental state, moving beyond static individual differences. Based on threat rigidity theory, we propose that time pressure can drive people to adopt BLM by fostering local processing—a narrow focus on immediate tasks. We further suggest that temporal leadership can moderate the relationship between time pressure and local processing, thereby mitigating subsequent BLM. Through three studies, we test this model: Study 1 uses a lab experiment with eye-tracking to confirm time pressure’s causal effect on local processing (n = 120); Study 2, an online experiment, establishes the causal link between local processing and BLM by manipulating local processing (n = 300); and Study 3, an experience sampling study with 101 employees over 10 workdays, validates the complete theoretical model. Our findings reveal how time pressure shapes BLM through local processing and highlight temporal leadership as a practical buffer. We discuss implications for managing workplace time pressure and propose future research directions to deepen understanding of the state-like nature of BLM in organizations.
AshbyNJSJohnsonJGKrajbichI, et al. (2016) Applications and innovations of eye-movement research in judgment and decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making29(2–3): 96–102.
2.
BabalolaMTGreenbaumRLAmarnaniRK, et al. (2020) A business frame perspective on why perceptions of top management’s bottom-line mentality result in employees’ good and bad behaviors. Personnel Psychology73(1): 19–41.
3.
BabalolaMTJordanSLRenS, et al. (2023) How and when perceptions of top management bottom-line mentality inhibit supervisors’ servant leadership behavior. Journal of Management49(5): 1662–1694.
4.
BabalolaMTMawritzMBGreenbaumRL, et al. (2021) Whatever it takes: How and when supervisor bottom-line mentality motivates employee contributions in the workplace. Journal of Management47(5): 1134–1154.
5.
BabalolaMTRenSOgbonnayaC, et al. (2022) Thriving at work but insomniac at home: Understanding the relationship between supervisor bottom-line mentality and employee functioning. Human Relations75(1): 33–57.
6.
BealDJWeissHM (2003) Methods of ecological momentary assessment in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods6(4): 440–464.
7.
ButticèVCollewaertVStroeS, et al. (2021) Equity crowdfunders’ human capital and signal set formation: Evidence from eye tracking. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice46(5): 1317–1343.
8.
ChoiIKooMChoiJA (2007) Individual differences in analytic versus holistic thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin33(5): 691–705.
9.
ChuaHFBolandJENisbettRE (2005) Cultural variation in eye movements during scene perception. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences102(35): 12629–12633.
10.
CrawfordERLePineJARichBL (2010) Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology95(5): 834–848.
11.
DavidoffJFonteneauEFagotJ (2008) Local and global processing: Observations from a remote culture. Cognition108(3): 702–709.
12.
De DreuCKWNijstadBA (2008) Conflict mental set and creativity: Threat rigidity or motivated focus?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology95(3): 648–661.
13.
DuanCZhangMJLiuX, et al. (2023) Investigating the curvilinear relationship between temporal leadership and team creativity: The moderation of knowledge complexity and the mediation of team creative process engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior44(4): 717–738.
14.
DuchowskiAT (2017) Eye tracking methodology: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). London, UK: Springer.
15.
EissaGWylandRLesterSW, et al. (2019) Winning at all costs: An exploration of bottom-line mentality, Machiavellianism, and organisational citizenship behaviour. Human Resource Management Journal29(3): 469–489.
16.
Eurofound (2017) Sixth European working conditions survey—Overview report (2017 update). Publications Office of the European Union.
17.
FiedlerSGlöckneA (2015) Attention and moral behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology6: 139–144.
18.
FörsterJDannenbergL (2010) GLOMOsys: A systems account of global versus local processing. Psychological Inquiry21(3): 175–197.
19.
FörsterJHigginsET (2005) How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus. Psychological Science16(8): 631−636.
20.
FörsterJLibermanNKuschelS (2008) The effect of global versus local processing styles on assimilation versus contrast in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology94(4): 579–599.
21.
GabrielASPodsakoffNPBealD, et al. (2019) Experience sampling methods: A discussion of critical trends and considerations for scholarly advancement. Organizational Research Methods22(4): 969–1006.
22.
GilbertCG (2005) Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal48(5): 741–763.
23.
GreenbaumRLMawritzMEissaG (2012) Bottom-line mentality as an antecedent of social undermining and the moderating roles of core self-evaluations and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology97(2): 343–359.
24.
GreenbaumRLMawritzMZamanNN (2023) The construct of bottom-line mentality: Where we’ve been and where we’re going. Journal of Management49(6): 2109–2147.
25.
HakimNSimonsDJZhaoH, et al. (2017) Do easterners and westerners differ in visual cognition? A preregistered examination of three visual cognition tasks. Social Psychological and Personality Science8(2): 142–152.
26.
HalinskiMBoekhorstJAAllenD, et al. (2023) Creativity during threat to organizational survival: The influence of employee creativity on downsizing survival selection. Journal of Management51(3): 1033–1065.
27.
HarrisonGWListJAToweC (2007) Naturally occurring preferences and exogenous laboratory experiments: A case study of risk aversion. Econometrica75(2): 433–458.
28.
JeongIGongYZhongB (2023) Does an employee-experienced crisis help or hinder creativity? An integration of threat-rigidity and implicit theories. Journal of Management49(4): 1394–1429.
29.
JiangTWangTPoonKT, et al. (2022) Low self-concept clarity inhibits self-control: The mediating effect of global self-continuity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin49(11): 1587–1600.
30.
JonesDNPaulhusDL (2014) Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment21(1): 28–41.
31.
KarauSJKellyJR (1992) The effects of time scarcity and time abundance on group performance quality and interaction process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology28(6): 542–571.
32.
KinickiAJVecchioRP (1994) Influences on the quality of supervisor–subordinate relations: The role of time-pressure, organizational commitment, and locus of control. Journal of Organizational Behavior15(1): 75–82.
LinYYangMQuadeMJ, et al. (2022) Is the bottom line reached? An exploration of supervisor bottom-line mentality, team performance avoidance goal orientation and team performance. Human Relations75(2): 349–372.
35.
MarupingLMVenkateshVThatcherSMB, et al. (2015) Folding under pressure or rising to the occasion? Perceived time pressure and the moderating role of team temporal leadership. Academy of Management Journal58(5): 1313–1333.
36.
MargucJVan KleefGAFörsterJ (2012) Stepping back while staying engaged when facing an obstacle increases psychological distance. Social Psychological and Personality Science3(3): 379–86.
37.
MawritzMBFarroAKimJ, et al. (2024) Bottom-line mentality from a goal shielding perspective: Does bottom-line mentality explain the link between rewards and unethical behavior?Human Relations77(4): 505–532.
38.
MazzeiMJDeBodeJGangloffKA, et al. (2024) Old habits die hard: A review and assessment of the threat-rigidity literature. Journal of Management51(6): 2154–2181.
39.
MesdaghiniaSRawatANadavulakereS (2019) Why moral followers quit: Examining the role of leader bottom-line mentality and unethical pro-leader behavior. Journal of Business Ethics159(2): 491–505.
40.
MeißnerMOllJ (2019) The promise of eye-tracking methodology in organizational research: A taxonomy, review, and future avenues. Organizational Research Methods22(2): 590–617.
41.
MitchellMSHetrickALMawritzMB, et al. (2023) Oh the anxiety! The anxiety of supervisor bottom-line mentality and mitigating effects of ethical leadership. Journal of Management50(7): 2888–2926.
42.
MohammedSNadkarniS (2011) Temporal diversity and team performance: The moderating role of team temporal leadership. Academy of Management Journal54(3): 489–508
43.
MolinaMNeeVHolmH (2023) Cooperation with strangers: Spillover of community norms. Organization Science34(6): 2315–2331.
44.
MorgesonFDeRueDKaramE (2010) Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management36(1): 5–39.
45.
NavonD (1977) Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology9(3): 353–383.
46.
NeeVHolmHJOpperS (2018) Learning to trust: From relational exchange to generalized trust in China. Organization Science29(5): 969–986.
47.
OcasioWC (1995) The enactment of economic adversity: A reconciliation of theories of failure-induced change and threat-rigidity. Research in Organizational Behavior17: 287–331.
48.
PanXJiangT (2023) Awe fosters global self-continuity: The mediating effect of global processing and narrative. Emotion23(6): 1618–1632.
49.
PlotnickLTuroffM (2014) Mitigating maladaptive threat rigidity responses to crisis. In Van De WalleBTuroffMHiltzSR (eds.), Information systems for emergency management. London, United Kingdom: Routledge, 65–94.
50.
QinXDustSBDiRenzoMS, et al. (2020) Negative creativity in leader-follower relations: A daily investigation of leaders’ creative mindset, moral disengagement, and abusive supervision. Journal of Business and Psychology35(5): 665–682.
51.
RazumnikovaOMVol’fNV (2011) Selection of visual hierarchical stimuli between global and local aspects in men and women. Fiziologiia cheloveka37(2): 14–19.
52.
SantosCMPassosAMUitdewilligenS, et al. (2016) Shared temporal cognitions as substitute for temporal leadership: An analysis of their effects on temporal conflict and team performance. Leadership Quarterly27(4): 574–587.
53.
ScottBAJudgeTA (2006) Insomnia, emotions, and job satisfaction: A multilevel study. Journal of Management32(5): 622–645.
54.
SemmelmannKWeigeltS (2018) Online webcam-based eye tracking in cognitive science: A first look. Behavior Research Methods50(2): 451–465.
55.
SherfENVenkataramaniVGajendraN, et al. (2019) Too busy to be fair? The effect of workload and rewards on managers’ justice rule adherence. Academy of Management Journal62(2): 469–502.
56.
ShiWConnellyBLCirikK (2018) Short seller influence on firm growth: A threat rigidity perspective. Academy of Management Journal61(5): 1892–1919.
57.
ShockleyKMGabrielASRobertsonD, et al. (2021) The fatiguing effects of camera use in virtual meetings: A within-person field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology106(8): 1137–1155.
58.
SirolaNPitesaM (2017) Economic downturns undermine workplace helping by promoting a zero-sum construal of success. Academy of Management Journal60(4): 1339–1359.
59.
SpencerSJZannaMPFongGT (2005) Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology89(6): 845–851.
60.
StawBMSandelandsLEDuttonJE (1981) Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly26(4): 501–524.
61.
StokerJIGarretsenHSoudisD (2019) Tightening the leash after a threat: A multi-level event study on leadership behavior following the financial crisis. Leadership Quarterly30(2): 199–214.
62.
Stone-RomeroEFRosopaPJ (2008) The relative validity of inferences about mediation as a function of research design characteristics. Organizational Research Methods11(2): 326–352.
WatsonDClarkLATellegenA (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology54(6): 1063–1070.
65.
YangLQSimonLSWangL, et al. (2016) To branch out or stay focused? Affective shifts differentially predict organizational citizenship behavior and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology101(6): 831.
66.
ZhangZJiaX (2023) No time for ethics: How and when time pressure leads to abusive supervisory behavior. Journal of Business Ethics188(4): 807–825.
67.
ZhangYChenHHuZ, et al. (2025) Lose no time! We have lost too much already: Firm adversity and CEO temporal leadership. Journal of Business Research188: 115085.
68.
ZhangYWaldmanDAHanYL, et al. (2015) Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal58(2): 538–566.
69.
ZhangYZhangYLawKS, et al. (2022) Paradoxical leadership, subjective ambivalence, and employee creativity: Effects of employee holistic thinking, Journal of Management Studies59(3): 695–723.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
