It’s got to be perfect? Differentiating the unique daily relationships of perfectionism and excellencism with employee effort, performance and fatigue

Mohr, Monique; Dietz, Carolin Article — Published Version It’s got to be perfect? Differentiating the unique daily relationships of perfectionism and excellencism with employee effort, performance and fatigue Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology Provided in Cooperation with: John Wiley & Sons Suggested Citation: Mohr, Monique; Dietz, Carolin (2025) : It’s got to be perfect? Differentiating the unique daily relationships of perfectionism and excellencism with employee effort, performance and fatigue, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, ISSN 2044-8325, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 98, Iss. 2, https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.70034 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/323770 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ J Occup Organ Psychol. 2025;98:e70034. | 1 of 20 https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.70034 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/joop Received: 2 September 2024 | Accepted: 27 May 2025 DOI: 10.1111/joop.70034 RESEARCH ARTICLE It’s got to be perfect? Differentiating the unique daily relationships of perfectionism and excellencism with employee effort, performance and fatigue Monique Mohr | Carolin Dietz This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2025 The Author(s). Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psycholog y published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The British Psychological Society. Chemnitz University of Technology, Chemnitz, Germany Correspondence Monique Mohr, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, Chemnitz University of Technology, WilhelmRaabeStraße 43, 4/206A, 09120 Chemnitz, Germany. Email: [email protected] Abstract Employees are increasingly striving for perfection at work. Commonly deemed to be associated with more advantages than disadvantages for employees and organizations, this perfectionism is oftentimes societally and organizationally demanded, appreciated or rewarded. To date, however, research findings on this topic are inconclusive. Taking new theoretical developments in perfectionism research into account, we propose that the current view that perfectionism is an adaptive pursuit at work is probably distorted. Building on the recently developed Model of Excellencism and Perfectionism and using a daily diary design (N = 127 participants providing n = 1018 days of data), we examined how excellencism and perfectionism relate to employee effort, performance and wellbeing in daily work. As expected, results of multilevel path modelling showed that daily excellencism relates positively to both effort intensity and persistence and, via effort, to inrole performance. Unexpectedly, effort and, thus, excellencism, were unrelated to fatigue. Daily perfectionism did not show unique relationships over and above the respective relationships of daily excellencism. Accordingly, contrasted with excellencism, perfectionism seems to be an unneeded pursuit at work. As we discuss, the findings of our study are of both theoretical and practical criticality. KEYWORDS effort, excellencism, goals, perfectionism 2 of 20 | MOHR and DIETZ Pursuing perfection is not only an obligation to our community and constituents, it is also an obligation to us. … The mindsets of pride and perfection should influence our daytoday and perhaps even momenttomoment activities. (Baer & Shaw, 2017, p. 1215) Around the world, people strive for perfection (Flett & Hewitt, 2020). Over the last decades, the pursuit of perfection has linearly increased (Curran & Hill, 2019), a trend that is likely to continue. Especially at work, perfection is a widespread goal (Stoeber & Damian, 2016; Stoeber & Stoeber, 2009) and striving for perfection is oftentimes societally and organizationally demanded, appreciated or rewarded because it is commonly deemed to be associated with more advantages than disadvantages for employees and organizations (Baer & Shaw, 2017; Burns, 1980; Harari et al., 2018). Research findings to date, however, are inconclusive regarding the desirability of perfectionism at work. That is, Harari et al. (2018) concluded in their metaanalysis that ‘in total, perfectionism is likely not constructive at work’ (p. 1137). In contrast, Ocampo et al. (2020) agreed with Baer and Shaw (2017) and highlighted beneficial effects of perfectionism at work in their later review. Given the prevalence and impact of perfectionism at work, this lack of a coherent understanding and the discrepancy between commonly held assumptions and research findings on this topic is unfortunate. In our study, we therefore examined whether this lack of coherence can be resolved by taking recent theoretical developments in perfectionism research into account and applying them to organizational research. To date, research on perfectionism at work has been largely based on the twofactor model of perfectionism (Frost et al., 1993; Stoeber, 2018a; Stoeber & Otto, 2006). In this model, two perfectionism dimensions are distinguished, mostly labelled as perfectionistic strivings (i.e., striving for flawlessness and having exceedingly high performance standards) and perfectionistic concerns (i.e., feeling that one falls short of these standards). While there is large consensus regarding the maladaptive nature of perfectionistic concerns, the (mal- )adaptiveness of perfectionistic strivings at work and in other life domains is still debated (Stoeber, 2018b). According to the recently developed Model of Excellencism and Perfectionism (MEP; Gaudreau, 2019; Gaudreau et al., 2022), the inconsistent findings for perfectionistic strivings might arise due to the missing separation of the striving for perfection (i.e., “idealized, flawless, and excessively high standards”) from the striving for excellence (i.e., ‘very high yet attainable standards’; Gaudreau, 2019, p. 200). For instance, excellencism could drive relationships of perfectionism1 with desirable outcomes at work or relationships of perfectionism to undesirable outcomes at work could be masked. For that reason, our study aimed to provide a refined understanding of perfectionism at work by answering the question if it is really perfection that employees should strive for in their daytoday activities at work (Baer & Shaw, 2017). Correspondingly, based on the MEP (Gaudreau, 2019; Gaudreau et al., 2022), we investigated how perfectionism and excellencism relate to employee performance (i.e., inrole performance) and wellbeing (i.e., fatigue) in their daily work. Drawing on goal setting theory (Locke & Latham, 2002), we examined invested effort at work as a crucial mediating variable 1Perfectionism as conceptualized in the MEP is equivalent to perfectionistic strivings as conceptualized in the twofactor model of perfectionism. Because our study is based on the MEP, we use the term “perfectionism” throughout the manuscript. Practitioner points • Perfectionism at work is less adaptive than commonly assumed: supposed beneficial effects are likely driven by excellencism. • When contrasted with excellencism, perfectionism is unneeded for employee effort and inrole performance in everyday work. | 3 of 20 PERFECTIONISM AND EXCELLENCISM AT WORK in these relationships (see Figure 1 for the research model). In our study, we did not investigate general (i.e., domainunspecific) but workrelated (i.e., domainspecific) perfectionism (see Stoeber & Stoeber, 2009) and excellencism. We also took a rather new, dynamic approach to workrelated perfectionism (see Mohr et al., 2022, 2023) and excellencism that focuses on their daily relationships with effort, inrole performance, and fatigue. The findings of our study are of both theoretical and practical criticality. Most importantly, finding that relationships between perfectionism and relevant outcomes at work are confounded by excellencism would constitute a critical step towards a more thorough understanding of perfectionism and its implications at work. As the introductory quote illustrates, the view that perfectionism's positive aspects outweigh its negative aspects at work is not only widespread among employees but also among practitioners and organizational scholars as well (Baer & Shaw, 2017; Harari et al., 2018). Finding that perfectionism is unneeded or even harmful at work considering excellencism could fundamentally change the answer to the question of perfectionism's (mal- )adaptiveness at work. In the future, it might be excellencism and not perfectionism that should be organizationally and societally encouraged and promoted (Gaudreau et al., 2022). Moreover, up to now, the MEP (Gaudreau, 2019; Gaudreau et al., 2022) has only been tested in settings outside the work context (e.g., university, sports). Because perfectionism is domainspecific and especially prevalent at work (Stoeber & Damian, 2016; Stoeber & Stoeber, 2009), testing the model among employees with respect to workrelevant outcomes is crucial. Finally, we enrich the literature on work effort by broadening the scope of personfocused antecedents (i.e., perfectionism and excellencism) of effort expenditure at work (Van Iddekinge et al., 2023). Differentiating perfectionism from excellencism According to the MEP (Gaudreau, 2019; Gaudreau et al., 2022), perfection and excellence are two related but distinct goals that can be described and differentiated in terms of goal setting (i.e., forming a goal) and goal striving (i.e., trying to reach this goal by regulating affect, attention, effort and behaviour; see Kanfer et al., 2017). Regarding goal setting, perfection refers to goals that are idealized, excessively high, rigid and entail flawlessness, whereas excellence refers to goals that are very high but flexible and attainable. Regarding goal striving, people who strive towards perfection do so in a relentless manner, whereas people who strive towards excellence do so in an effortful, engaged and determined but also a flexible manner (Gaudreau, 2019; Gaudreau et al., 2022). Thus, the goals of perfection and excellence differ with respect to both their difficulty and nature and with respect to FIGURE 1 Conceptual model. Solid lines indicate hypothesized paths. Dotted lines indicate paths referring to research questions. Dashed lines indicate additional paths specified in the model. This figure does not include morning fatigue and the respective autoregressive path. 4 of 20 | MOHR and DIETZ the intensity and way they are pursued. As mentioned, the goals of perfection and excellence are not independent from each other. More precisely, excellence can be viewed as an unplanned ‘stopover’ on the way to perfection. That is, people who aim at excellence (i.e., excellence strivers) will be satisfied and end their journey when reaching their goal (i.e., excellence), whereas people who aim at perfection (i.e., perfection strivers) will inevitably reach excellence during their journey (even if not directly intended) but continue their quest towards perfection, a destination they might never reach. Therefore, although excellence is attainable without attaining perfection, perfection is not attainable without attaining excellence (Gaudreau, 2019). Accordingly, the effects of perfectionism can only be interpreted in relation to the effects of excellencism. Different scenarios can occur when contrasting the effects of perfectionism with the effects of excellencism. For instance, when investigating a desirable outcome, such as job satisfaction, perfectionism could show a positive, nonsignificant or negative relationship with job satisfaction over and above the respective relationship of excellencism. Assuming that excellencism relates positively to job satisfaction, perfectionism would consequently be beneficial (i.e., unique positive relationship), unneeded (i.e., no unique relationship) or harmful (i.e., unique negative relationship). When investigating an undesirable outcome such as burnout, perfectionism could again show a positive, nonsignificant or negative relationship with burnout over and above the respective relationship of excellencism. However, assuming that excellencism relates negatively to burnout, perfectionism would in that case be harmful if it shows a unique positive relationship, unneeded if it shows no unique relationship with burnout (as in the previous example), or beneficial if it shows a unique negative relationship (Gaudreau, 2019; Gaudreau et al., 2022). Because the MEP (Gaudreau, 2019; Gaudreau et al., 2022) is comparatively new, empirical studies examining its propositions are just emerging. Up to now, the results of these studies indicated that perfectionism is unneeded or harmful when contrasted with excellencism. For instance, perfection strivers did not experience more benefits in terms of life satisfaction and progress on personal goals or reduced harm in terms of depression than excellence strivers (Gaudreau et al., 2022). In the university context, students who were perfection strivers were found to perform worse on creative tasks than excellence strivers (GouletPelletier et al., 2022). Similarly, students who were excellence strivers showed higher academic achievement and better mental health outcomes than perfection strivers and experienced an upward spiral of academic development, whereas perfection strivers experienced a downward spiral (Gaudreau et al., 2022; Tape et al., 2024). Students who were perfection strivers were also found to experience worse adjustment (e.g., higher anxiety, depression and stress), savoured positive school events less and had greater dropout intentions than excellence strivers (Gaudreau et al., 2024; Gaudreau & Schellenberg, 2024). In this regard, selfcompassion was found to attenuate the positive relationships to distress in perfection strivers (With et al., 2024). Adolescents who were perfection strivers scored lower on openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and selfesteem and higher on neuroticism than excellence strivers (Bien et al., 2025). In the sports context, perfection strivers showed higher athletic achievement but experienced lower savouring and enjoyment when missing goals than excellence strivers (Gaudreau et al., 2024). Furthermore, sport fans who were perfection strivers had more positive attitudes towards cheating than excellence strivers (Gaudreau & Schellenberg, 2022). Excellencism in daily work: Relationships with employee effort, performance and wellbeing Goals are ‘internal representations of desired states that direct attention, organize action and sustain effort aimed at achieving those states’ (Kanfer et al., 2017, p. 343). As explained, excellence refers to very high goals that are pursued in an effortful, engaged and determined manner (Gaudreau, 2019; Gaudreau et al., 2022). This effortful striving is in line with goal setting theory that ascribes high goals an energizing function and, thus, postulates a positive relationship between high goals and effort invested in | 5 of 20 PERFECTIONISM AND EXCELLENCISM AT WORK pursuing these goals (Locke & Latham, 2002). In our study, we investigated both effort intensity (i.e., how much effort employees exert) and persistence (i.e., how long employees persevere with their effort), two central dimensions of workrelated effort (Van Iddekinge et al., 2023). Following Locke and Latham (2002), we assumed that pursuing very high goals (i.e., excellencism) would positively relate to both effort intensity and persistence in daily work. Hypothesis 1. Daily excellencism in the morning at work relates positively to effort intensity and persistence in the afternoon. By mobilizing and sustaining effort (i.e., effort intensity and persistence), high goals are deemed to be positively related to performance (Kanfer et al., 2017; Locke & Latham, 2002; Van Iddekinge et al., 2023). Accordingly, we assumed that an employee's excellencism on a specific workday would positively relate to their inrole performance that day (i.e., completion of formally required and rewarded tasks and duties at work; Williams & Anderson, 1991) via effort intensity and persistence. However, exerting and sustaining effort at work might not only be beneficial for employee performance but might also be detrimental to employee wellbeing. In particular, when an employee exerts more effort on a specific workday or persists with their effort, they should feel more fatigued at the end of that workday because, according to the workfatigue hypothesis (Hockey, 2013), mobilizing and sustaining effort at work should be draining. The assumption that exerting effort at work to accomplish tasks and goals is fatiguing is also at the core of the recovery literature (Demerouti et al., 2009; Sonnentag & Zijlstra, 2006). We therefore assumed that an employee's excellencism on a specific workday would positively relate to their feelings of fatigue at the end of that workday via effort intensity and persistence. Hypothesis 2. Effort intensity and persistence in the afternoon relate positively to (a) inrole performance in the afternoon and (b) fatigue at the end of the workday. Hypothesis 3. Daily excellencism in the morning at work shows a positive indirect relationship with (a) inrole performance in the afternoon and (b) fatigue at the end of the workday via effort intensity and persistence in the afternoon. Perfectionism in daily work: Beneficial, unneeded or harmful? As stated by the MEP (Gaudreau, 2019; Gaudreau et al., 2022), the relationships between perfectionism and outcomes of interest can only be interpreted in relation to the respective relationships of excellencism. Although the model does not make specific predictions and leaves it up to empirical scrutiny to determine whether perfectionism is beneficial, unneeded, or harmful with respect to specific outcomes, it is supposed that excellencism is likely a beneficial pursuit, whereas perfectionism is likely an unneeded or harmful pursuit (Gaudreau, 2019). As outlined above, this supposition has received initial empirical support (see, e.g., Gaudreau & Schellenberg, 2022; Gaudreau et al., 2022; GouletPelletier et al., 2022). With respect to our model, daily perfectionism could, firstly, show a unique positive relationship with effort over and above the assumed respective positive relationship of daily excellencism. That is, perfection refers to a higher and more difficult goal than excellence, and perfectionism is marked by relentlessness (Gaudreau, 2019). Therefore, it might be that an employee exerts more effort and also persists longer with their effort on workdays on which they strive for perfection. However, daily perfectionism could, secondly, show no unique relationship with effort. That is, it might be that the positive relationships between perfectionism and effort found in previous research (e.g., Stoeber & Eismann, 2007) were driven by excellencism and, thus, become nonsignificant when differentiating between perfectionism and excellencism. Therefore, we cannot make clear predictions on how daily 6 of 20 | MOHR and DIETZ perfectionism relates to effort and, thus, via effort as a crucial mechanism, to inrole performance and fatigue over and above daily excellencism. We hence posed the following two research questions: Research Question 1. Does daily perfectionism at work show a unique relationship with effort over and above the respective relationship of daily excellencism at work? Research Question 2. Does daily perfectionism at work show unique indirect relationships with inrole performance and fatigue via effort over and above the respective relationships of daily excellencism at work? For the correct understanding and interpretation of our study and its results, it is important to highlight that we investigated daily, withinperson relationships. As described in detail in the Method section, we used a multilevel design that allows for examining both withinperson as well as betweenperson relationships. We report results at the betweenperson level on an exploratory basis in the complementary analyses. METHOD Procedure and sample To test our hypotheses and investigate our research questions, we collected data through an online daily diary study as part of a larger research project. We recruited participants via flyers distributed via email or in person, advertisements on respective websites (e.g., psychologieheute.de), mailing lists and social online networks (e.g., Facebook). We advertised our project as a research project on ‘Job demands and recovery from daily work’. Participants had to be of age (i.e., at least 18 years old) and work at least 30 h/week on at least 4 days/week (Monday–Friday); participants must not be selfemployed or regularly working late or night shifts. We only included employees regularly working during the day to ensure that participants did not differ regarding their daily courses of work (e.g., being assigned work tasks, getting up in the morning). Participants who completed both the general survey and at least 70% of the daily surveys could take part in a lottery and win one out of 14 vouchers from an online retailer (two vouchers worth 100 Euros, two vouchers worth 50 Euros, 10 vouchers worth 20 Euros). After participants had provided informed consent and registered for our study, we asked them to complete a general survey capturing demographic and workrelated background data. We then invited participants to complete the daily diary surveys (i.e., morning survey, accessible from 5 to 10 AM; noon survey, accessible from 11 AM to 2 PM; endofworkday survey, accessible from 3 to 7 PM) for two consecutive working weeks (Monday–Friday). Participants were instructed to answer the morning survey before starting to work, the noon survey in the morning at work and the endofworkday survey at the end of their workday. In total, 167 people registered for our project, 141 of whom completed the general survey. Based on our inclusion criteria outlined above, we excluded four participants indicating they were interns or working students and three participants working less than 30 h/week. In addition, we excluded two participants who did not provide any diary data and five participants who did not provide any data regarding our focal study variables, resulting in a final sample of 127 participants providing 1018 days of data. Regarding the daily survey data, we ensured that participants indicated that they had worked in the morning and in the afternoon before completing the respective surveys. Participants provided data on 953 morning surveys, data on 814 noon surveys and data on 797 endofworkday surveys. We handled missing data by using full information maximum likelihood estimation in Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017; Newman, 2014). Most participants were female (69.3%; two participants could or did not want to assign themselves to the gender binary). Participants were on average 37.4 years old (SD = 12.1) and worked 39.2 h/week (SD = 5.4). Most participants held a master's degree (33.9%) or had finished vocational training (29.1%). Participants worked in various industries, such as administrative occupations (16.5%), working with | 7 of 20 PERFECTIONISM AND EXCELLENCISM AT WORK children and adolescents (15.7%), education (8.7%) and information technology (6.3%). To check for selective attrition, we compared the 14 participants who completed the general survey but were not included in our final sample with the 127 participants included therein. We found no differences with respect to gender, age, average weekly working hours or educational level. We collected the data for this study in Germany from midJune 2023 to midOctober 2023. We provided all surveys in German. Measures As stated, we administered three daily surveys (i.e., morning survey, noon survey, endofworkday survey) to the participants. In these daily surveys, we assessed our focal study variables. In the morning survey, we assessed state fatigue in the morning as a control variable. In the noon survey, we assessed daily perfectionism and excellencism in the morning at work. In the endofworkday survey, we assessed effort intensity, effort persistence and inrole performance in the afternoon at work as well as state fatigue at the end of the workday. Daily perfectionism and excellencism (noon survey) We used the short version of the Scale of Perfectionism and Excellencism (SCOPE, Gaudreau et al., 2022; see also https:// osf. io/ y6jf5/ ) in its German version (Bien et al., 2025) to assess participants' daily perfectionism and excellencism in the morning at work. As recommended by Gaudreau et al. (2022), we slightly adapted the instruction and items to match the work context and the daily assessment. Five items captured participants' daily perfectionism (e.g., ‘This morning at work, it is my goal to attain perfection’) and five items captured participants' daily excellencism (e.g., ‘This morning at work, it is my goal to reach excellence’). The response scale ranged from 1 = not at all to 7 = completely. The scale proved to be reliable for both perfectionism (withinperson α = .89, betweenperson α = .99) and excellencism (withinperson α = .81, betweenperson α = .93; Geldhof et al., 2014). This is the first study using a version of the SCOPE adapted to the work context and the daily assessment of perfectionism and excellencism. Effort intensity and persistence (endofworkday survey) To assess how intensely participants worked in the afternoon, we used five items developed by Brown and Leigh (1996). A sample item is ‘This afternoon at work, I really exerted myself to the fullest’. The response scale ranged from 1 = do not agree at all to 5 = completely agree. Withinperson α was .91, betweenperson α was .97. To assess how persistently participants worked in the afternoon, we used the threeitem work effort persistencesubscale developed by De Cooman et al. (2009). A sample item is ‘This afternoon at work, I did not give up quickly when something did not work well’. The response scale ranged from 1 = do not agree at all to 5 = completely agree. Withinperson α was .70, betweenperson α was .80. We translated all eight effort items from English into German with the help of a professional translator. Inrole performance (endofworkday survey) We assessed participants' perceived inrole performance with four items developed by Williams and Anderson (1991); German version see Fritz and Sonnentag (2005). A sample item is ‘This afternoon at work, I adequately completed assigned duties’. The response scale ranged from 1 = do not agree at all to 5 = completely agree. Withinperson α was .93, betweenperson α was .99. 8 of 20 | MOHR and DIETZ Fatigue (endofworkday survey, morning survey) To capture participants' state fatigue at the end of the workday, we used the 7item (e.g., ‘tired’, ‘exhausted’) fatigue subscale of the Profile of Mood States (McNair et al., 1971) in its German short version (Albani et al., 2005). The response scale ranged from 1 = not at all to 5 = extremely. Withinperson α was .93, betweenperson α was .99. To rule out that participants experienced more fatigue at the end of a workday on which they already experienced more fatigue before starting to work, we controlled for state fatigue in the morning (see Gabriel et al., 2019). We assessed fatigue in the morning as at the end of the workday; within α was .92, betweenperson α was .98. Removing this control variable from our analysis does not change the results with respect to the hypotheses and research questions. Construct validity We conducted a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis using Mplus Version 8.6 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017) to examine the construct validity of our focal measures (perfectionism, excellencism, effort intensity, effort persistence, inrole performance, endofworkday fatigue). We specified homologous factor structures at the withinand betweenperson levels. This sixfactor measurement model showed a reasonable fit to the data, χ2(724) = 1813.16, p < .001, CFI = .93, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .04, SRMRwithin = .05, SRMRbetween = .12,2 a better fit than a model subsuming perfectionism and excellencism under one factor, χ2(734) = 2422.27, p < .001, CFI = .89, TLI = .88, RMSEA = .05, SRMRwithin = .05, SRMRbetween = .14, SatorraBentler Δχ2(10) = 475.99, p < .001, a better fit than a model subsuming both effort dimensions under one factor, χ2(734) = 1916.84, p < .001, CFI = .92, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .04, SRMRwithin = .05, SRMRbetween = .12, SatorraBentler Δχ2(10) = 84.24, p < .001, and a better fit than a onefactor model, χ2(754) = 11026.45, p < .001, CFI = .34, TLI = .29, RMSEA = .12, SRMRwithin = .24, SRMRbetween = .33, SatorraBentler Δχ2(30) = 4572.09, p < .001. Data analysis Because we repeatedly collected data from the same participants using a daily diary design, our data have a multilevel structure (i.e., days are nested within participants). We therefore tested our hypotheses and investigated our research questions with a multilevel path analytic approach using Mplus Version 8.6 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017) following recommendations by Preacher et al. (2010; 111 mediation model with random intercepts and fixed slopes). In our main analyses, we focus on the daily, withinperson level (i.e., Level 1) relationships. We also report results at the betweenperson level (i.e., Level 2) in the complementary analyses. Table 1 displays means, standard deviations, intraclass correlation coefficients and intercorrelations among the study variables. We tested all hypotheses and research questions in one overall model (model fit: χ2(10) = 29.34, p = .001, CFI = .99, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .04, SRMRwithin = .06, SRMRbetween = .07). To receive unbiased withinperson estimates, we separated the withinand betweenperson variance of the daily assessed variables by 2As the comparatively high value for the SRMRbetween indicates, the measurement model did not fit the data well at the betweenperson level; thus, it is likely that the ideal measurement model is not homologous at the withinand betweenperson level of analysis. To further test whether the measurement model fits the data well at the withinperson level, the main level of our analyses, we conducted another multilevel CFA. In this multilevel CFA, we used the “define” command and “center” option in Mplus to groupmean (i.e., personmean) center (see Enders & Tofighi, 2007) all items and the “within” command to specify that all items are modelled only at the withinperson level. Thereafter, we specified the measurement model at the withinperson level; no measurement model was specified at the betweenperson level. When specifying the measurement model only at the withinperson level using personmean centered items, it showed a good and slightly improved fit to the data, χ2(362) = 858.04, p < .001, CFI = .95, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .04, SRMRwithin = .04. Because our main analyses are at the withinperson level, the inadequate fit at the betweenperson level does not threaten the validity of our main results. | 15 of 20 PERFECTIONISM AND EXCELLENCISM AT WORK of perfectionism (Frost et al., 1993; Stoeber, 2018a; Stoeber & Otto, 2006) denoted a turning point regarding the conceptualization of perfectionism (i.e., from a oneto a multidimensional construct). Now, the MEP (Gaudreau, 2019; Gaudreau et al., 2022) could denote a turning point regarding the (mal- )adaptiveness of perfectionism. Previous research on perfectionism at work has been largely based on the twofactor model. Although we refrain from proposing to replace the twofactor model with the MEP from now on, we think that future research might benefit from an integration of both models (for a suggested approach, see Gaudreau, 2021). Finally, our study also provides helpful insights for the study of effort at work. As Van Iddekinge et al. (2023) pointed out, work effort is a central, yet not well understood concept. Especially its relationships with other constructs at work are largely unclear. We therefore enrich research on work effort and contribute to the development of its nomological network by examining perfectionism and excellencism as personfocused antecedents of effort expenditure at work. As our results showed, daily excellencism can be considered both an antecedent of effort intensity and persistence, whereas daily perfectionism did not show a unique relationship with effort. Accordingly, and in line with Locke and Latham (2002), pursuing excellence, a very high but flexible and attainable goal, seems to be beneficial for effort and, thus, performance, whereas pursuing perfection, an idealized, excessively high and rigid goal, is not. Moreover, previous research showed that very high goals at work can be detrimental to wellbeing if they are assigned (Welsh et al., 2020). Our research suggests that very high goals at work are not necessarily detrimental to wellbeing if they are rooted in oneself. The theoretical implications of our research are directly relevant for practice. Perfectionism is becoming increasingly legitimized in today's workplaces, and more and more employees are encouraged to strive for perfection (Ocampo et al., 2020). As stated in the introductory quote, many organizational scholars as well as practitioners believe in the positive aspects of perfectionism at work (Baer & Shaw, 2017; Harari et al., 2018). However, this picture is probably distorted: As our results suggest, the assumed beneficial effects (e.g., for employee effort and performance) of perfectionism at work are likely driven by excellencism. Thus, given our results and considering the downsides of perfectionism found in previous work (e.g., Harari et al., 2018), it seems to be unneeded to strive for perfection, especially for ‘daytoday’ (Baer & Shaw, 2017) activities and performance at work (see also Hrabluik et al., 2012). Accordingly, employees could benefit from learning how to disengage from unrealistic goals and how to set high but attainable goals in their daytoday work (Hrabluik et al., 2012; Wrosch et al., 2003). Furthermore, practitioners should refrain from demanding perfection and from promoting employees' perfectionism. This implication does seem to apply more broadly as well. Given our results and the findings of previous research (e.g., Gaudreau et al., 2022; Gaudreau & Schellenberg, 2022; GouletPelletier et al., 2022), individuals do likely not benefit from perfectionism, be it at work or in other life domains. Because perfectionism is not only organizationally but also societally encouraged, there is a need to raise societal awareness of its missing benefits and possible downsides. This awareness could help to lessen societal pressures to strive for perfection. Instead of striving for perfection, our results suggest that it is beneficial if employees strive for excellence in their daily work as excellencism was positively related to effort and performance without negative implications for employee wellbeing. Increasing employee effort and performance is a crucial concern to managers (Van Iddekinge et al., 2023). Correspondingly, it might be tempting to advise employees to strive for excellence and to advise practitioners to encourage employees' excellencism at work. However, we feel that this advice would be premature given the lack of empirical findings on excellencism at work. Limitations and future research directions Our study has limitations that need to be discussed. First, we tested a mediation model in which the assessments of the mediator and outcome variables were not temporally separated, which can raise concerns regarding their temporal order (see Aguinis et al., 2017). More precisely, we assessed effort, inrole 16 of 20 | MOHR and DIETZ performance and fatigue concurrently in the endofworkday surveys. To allay concerns regarding the concurrent assessment of effort and inrole performance, there is a strong theoretical basis for assuming that effort precedes performance (Locke & Latham, 2002; Van Iddekinge et al., 2023). Moreover, regarding the concurrent assessment of effort and fatigue, we asked participants to report their experiences referring to different time frames (see Fisher & To, 2012). That is, participants reported on their effort expenditure referring to their afternoon at work, whereas we used a state measure to assess participants' fatigue at the end of the workday. Second, the high perfectionismexcellencism and effort intensitypersistence correlations at both levels raise questions about whether our results are biased by a lack of discriminant validity and, relatedly, by multicollinearity or common method bias. Both perfectionism and excellencism as well as effort intensity and persistence have been conceptualized as closely related but distinct constructs (Gaudreau et al., 2022; Van Iddekinge et al., 2023); therefore, it is important to treat them as separate constructs on theoretical grounds. The results of our multilevel CFA comparisons provided first evidence that the constructs are empirically distinguishable by showing that the models that differentiated between perfectionism and excellencism and between effort intensity and persistence fitted the data significantly better than the respective onefactor solutions. Results of a closer investigation using the CICFA(sys) technique (Rönkkö & Cho, 2022) showed a marginal problem regarding discriminant validity with respect to the measurements of perfectionism and excellencism at the withinperson level, our main level of analysis. In face of this marginal problem, it is probably safe to interpret these scales as representations of distinct constructs at the withinperson level (see Rönkkö & Cho, 2022). However, there were also moderate discriminant validity problems in our data (i.e., perfectionism vs. excellencism at the betweenperson level, effort intensity vs. persistence at both levels). It is recommended to discuss the high correlations found in our study with reference to the interrelationships found in prior studies and to discuss possible causes for the high correlations (Rönkkö & Cho, 2022). We are not aware of any previous studies investigating the perfectionism–excellencism or effort intensitypersistence relationships at the withinperson level; thus, we cannot compare our correlations at this level. The betweenperson correlation of perfectionism and excellencism in our study (r = .77) was higher than correlations reported in previous work (e.g., r = .64 in Bien et al., 2025; r = .51 in GouletPelletier et al., 2022, Study 1). As other studies investigated this interrelationship in contexts outside the workplace, it might be that perfectionism and excellencism are more closely interrelated and, thus, less clearly distinguishable in the work context. However, it might also be that the betweenperson correlations differ because they were gained from a repeated, daily assessment referring to a specific timeframe (i.e., one's morning at work) and not to a onetime assessment of perfectionism and excellencism in general. This might apply to the effort intensity and persistence relationship (r = .83) as well, which was also found to be lower in previous research (r = .65; De Cooman et al., 2009). To conclude, albeit our discriminant validity findings do not indicate a problem that would require a fundamental reconceptualization of the constructs and their measurement in future research (Rönkkö & Cho, 2022), they raise doubts regarding the applicability of these constructs and, thus, their theoretical foundations (see Gaudreau et al., 2022; Van Iddekinge et al., 2023), across different contexts, study designs and timeframes. Regarding multicollinearity, the results of our complementary analyses showed that multicollinearity is not an issue in our model. Thus, we are confident that each variable in our model provides added value and shows substantial unique relationships with the outcome variables. We acknowledge that all of our measures share common method variance due to the use of samesource selfreports. Accordingly, our results might be affected by common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2012). We took several measures to mitigate possible method biases, such as ensuring participants' anonymity and aiming to reduce evaluation apprehension as well as partly temporally separating the assessments of our focal variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Furthermore, we specified a twolevel model with identical paths at the withinand betweenperson level, thereby personmean centring our variables at the withinperson level. Due to this personmean centring, the relationships at the withinperson level cannot be affected by betweenperson differences that are common sources of method bias (e.g., social desirability; Gabriel et al., 2019). Albeit the assumed factor structure of our measures was reasonable and we excluded some | 17 of 20 PERFECTIONISM AND EXCELLENCISM AT WORK of the commonly known sources of method bias to minimize its impact, it is not possible to completely rule out that our results were inor deflated by common method bias. Our study prepares the ground for fruitful future research. Given the prevalence and impact of perfectionism at work, more research on the differentiation between perfectionism and excellencism and related implications in the work context is imperative. Although our results indicated that perfectionism is an unnecessary pursuit at work, future research is needed to replicate or refine this finding. As research in other domains suggested (e.g., Gaudreau et al., 2022; Gaudreau & Schellenberg, 2022; GouletPelletier et al., 2022), it might be that perfectionism can also be a harmful pursuit at work or that—under specific circumstances—it even turns out to be a beneficial pursuit (Gaudreau et al., 2022). For instance, our study focused on daytoday performance of employees working in various industries. It might be that perfectionism only shows unique performance benefits for specific occupations such as musicians or heart surgeons for which performing close to perfection is part of their daily work. Furthermore, whereas perfectionism might be unneeded for successfully performing everyday or mundane tasks (Gaudreau, 2019), it might be beneficial for tasks that require employees' maximum performance. Relatedly, it would be insightful to research perfectionism and excellencism in relation to other indicators of performance (e.g., creativity, GouletPelletier et al., 2022) and (un- )desired behaviour at work (e.g., cheating, Gaudreau & Schellenberg, 2022; counterproductive work or organizational citizenship behaviour). Future research could also focus on objective performance indicators (e.g., promotions) or on performance within other time frames (e.g., longterm career success). Perfectionism and excellencism both showed substantial variance at the day level (i.e., 17% and 26%, respectively); however, most of their variance was at the betweenperson level. Therefore, future research should examine both withinperson variability and betweenperson differences of perfectionism and excellencism. We also call for a closer examination of excellencism in the work context. Our results point to possible beneficial effects (i.e., for daily effort and inrole performance) of excellencism at work. However, there might also be a ‘dark side’ to excellencism at work (Gaudreau, 2019; Gaudreau et al., 2022). For instance, high levels of excellencism within work teams could lead to unhealthy competition or successful excellence strivers might feel the pressure to aim higher and higher and, thus, turn into perfectionists. Future research should turn to these issues. Finally, it might be worthwhile to further investigate the relationship between perfectionism, excellencism, and effort in various contexts. As previous research has shown, people striving for perfection might not reveal that they invested effort to achieve their goals; instead, they might emphasize that they reached their goals without investing effort (i.e., effortless perfectionism, Travers et al., 2015). Therefore, it might be that the relationships between perfectionism, excellencism and effort differ when using objective indicators to assess effort instead of selfreports. In this regard, scholars could also take up the recently proposed differentiation between flexible (i.e., pursuing goals with an open and broad focus that allows one to attend to other goals) and rigid persistence (i.e., pursuing goals with a narrower focus that facilitates reaching some goals, but not others; Vallerand et al., 2023). It is likely that excellencism, with its focus on determined but flexible goal pursuit, relates to flexible persistence, whereas perfectionism, with its focus on relentless goal pursuit, relates to rigid persistence. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS Monique Mohr: Conceptualization; data curation; investigation; formal analysis; project administration; methodology; writing – original draft. Carolin Dietz: Investigation; project administration; writing – review and editing. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank Cathy Ihln, Annika Leibiger, Susanne Luft, Lieselotte Mahrt and Anton Recknagel for their help in data collection. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT The authors report no conflict of interest. 18 of 20 | MOHR and DIETZ DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Data on the focal study variables and the code for our main analysis are available at https:// osf. io/ p7ytf/ . ORCID Monique Mohr https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6878-8808 Carolin Dietz https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7847-1230 REFERENCES Aguinis, H., Edwards, J. R., & Bradley, K. J. (2017). Improving our understanding of moderation and mediation in strategic management research. Organizational Research Methods, 20(4), 665–685. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10944 28115 627498 Albani, C., Blaser, G., Geyer, M., Schmutzer, G., Brähler, E., Bailer, H., & Grulke, N. (2005). Überprüfung der Gütekriterien der deutschen Kurzform des Fragebogens “Profile of Mood States” (POMS) in einer repräsentativen Bevölkerungsstichprobe [The German Short Version of “Profile of Mood States” (POMS): Psychometric evaluation in a representative sample]. PPmP: Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie, 55(7), 324–330. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1055/ s2004834727 Baer, M., & Shaw, J. D. (2017). Falling in love again with what we do: Academic craftsmanship in the management sciences. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4), 1213–1217. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amj. 2017. 4004 Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixedeffects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https:// doi. org/ 10. 18637/ jss. v067. i01 Bien, K., Wagner, J., & Brandt, N. D. (2025). Who tends to be a perfectionistic adolescent? Distinguishing perfectionism from excellencism and investigating the links with the Big Five and selfesteem. British Journal of Psycholog y, 116(1), 108–130. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ bjop. 12739 Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psycholog y, 81(4), 358–368. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00219010. 81.4. 358 Burns, D. D. (1980). The perfectionist's script for selfdefeat. Psychology Today, 14(6), 34–52. Curran, T., & Hill, A. P. (2019). Perfectionism is increasing over time: A metaanalysis of birth cohort differences from 1989 to 2016. Psychological Bulletin, 145(4), 410–429. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ bul00 00138 De Cooman, R., De Gieter, S., Pepermans, R., Jegers, M., & Van Acker, F. (2009). Development and validation of the Work Effort Scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 266–273. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1027/ 10155759. 25.4. 266 Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Geurts, S. A. E., & Taris, T. W. (2009). Daily recovery from workrelated effort during nonwork time. In S. Sonnentag, P. L. Perrewé, & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Current perspectives on jobstress recovery (pp. 85–123). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ S1479 - 3555(2009) 00000 07006 Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in crosssectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121–138. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 1082989X. 12.2. 121 Fisher, C. D., & To, M. L. (2012). Using experience sampling methodology in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(7), 865–877. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ job. 1803 Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2020). Reflections on three decades of research on multidimensional perfectionism: An introduction to the special issue on further advances in the assessment of perfectionism. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 38(1), 3–14. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 07342 82919 881928 Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Recovery, health, and job performance: Effects of weekend experiences. Journal of Occupational Health Psycholog y, 10(3), 187–199. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 10768998. 10.3. 187 Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Mattia, J. I., & Neubauer, A. L. (1993). A comparison of two measures of perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 14(1), 119–126. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 01918869(93) 90181 - 2 Gabriel, A. S., Podsakoff, N. P., Beal, D. J., Scott, B. A., Sonnentag, S., Trougakos, J. P., & Butts, M. M. (2019). Experience sampling methods: A discussion of critical trends and considerations for scholarly advancement. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 969–1006. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10944 28118 802626 Gaudreau, P. (2019). On the distinction between personal standards perfectionism and excellencism: A theory elaboration and research agenda. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(2), 197–215. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 17456 91618 797940 Gaudreau, P. (2021). Separating the core definitional feature and the signature expressions of dispositional perfectionism: Implications for theory, research, and practice. Personality and Individual Differences, 181, 110975. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. paid. 2021. 110975 Gaudreau, P., & Schellenberg, B. J. I. (2022). Attitudes of sport fans toward the electronic signstealing scandal in Major League Baseball: Differing associations with perfectionism and excellencism. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psycholog y, 44(3), 220–229. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1123/ jsep. 20210136 Gaudreau, P., & Schellenberg, B. J. I. (2024). The impact of internetbased cognitive behavior therapy for perfectionism: A reinterpretation through the lens of the model of excellencism and perfectionism. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 52(3), 288–300. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S1352 46582 3000516 Gaudreau, P., Schellenberg, B. J. I., Gareau, A., Kljajic, K., & ManoniMillar, S. (2022). Because excellencism is more than good enough: On the need to distinguish the pursuit of excellence from the pursuit of perfection. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog y, 122(6), 1117–1145. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ pspp0 000411 | 19 of 20 PERFECTIONISM AND EXCELLENCISM AT WORK Gaudreau, P., Schellenberg, B. J. I., & Quesnel, M. (2024). From theory to research: Interpretational guidelines, statistical guidance, and a shiny app for the model of excellencism and perfectionism. European Journal of Personality, 38(5), 839–860. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 08902 07023 1221478 Geldhof, G. J., Preacher, K. J., & Zyphur, M. J. (2014). Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychological Methods, 19(1), 72–91. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0032138 GouletPelletier, J.- C., Gaudreau, P., & Cousineau, D. (2022). Is perfectionism a killer of creative thinking? A test of the model of excellencism and perfectionism. British Journal of Psycholog y, 113(1), 176–207. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ bjop. 12530 Harari, D., Swider, B. W., Steed, L. B., & Breidenthal, A. P. (2018). Is perfect good? A metaanalysis of perfectionism in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psycholog y, 103(10), 1121–1144. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ apl00 00324 Hockey, R. (2013). The psycholog y of fatigue: Work, effort and control. Cambridge University Press. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ CBO97 81139 015394 Hrabluik, C., Latham, G. P., & McCarthy, J. M. (2012). Does goal setting have a dark side? The relationship between perfectionism and maximum versus typical employee performance. International Public Management Journal, 12(1), 5–38. ht t ps:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10967 494. 2012. 684010 Kanfer, R., Frese, M., & Johnson, R. E. (2017). Motivation related to work: A century of progress. Journal of Applied Psycholog y, 102(3), 338–355. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ apl00 00133 Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0003066X. 57.9. 705 Lüdecke, D., BenShachar, M. S., Patil, I., Waggoner, P., & Makowski, D. (2021). Performance: An R package for assessment, comparison and testing of statistical models. Journal of Open Source Software, 6(60), 3139. https:// doi. org/ 10. 21105/ joss. 03139 McNair, D. M., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L. F. (1971). Manual for the profile of mood states. Educational and Industrial Testing Service. Mohr, M., Nesher Shoshan, H., & Sonnentag, S. (2023). Perfectionism and cognitivebehavioural processes in daily work: Implications for selfrelated perceptions and emotions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psycholog y, 32(6), 858–869. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13594 32X. 2023. 2256499 Mohr, M., Venz, L., & Sonnentag, S. (2022). A dynamic view on workrelated perfectionism: Antecedents at work and implications for employee wellbeing. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psycholog y, 95(4), 846–866. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ joop. 12403 Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user's guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén. Newman, D. A. (2014). Missing data: Five practical guidelines. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 372–411. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10944 28114 548590 Ocampo, A. C. G., Wang, L., Kiazad, K., Restubog, S. L. D., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2020). The relentless pursuit of perfectionism: A review of perfectionism in the workplace and an agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(2), 144–168. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ job. 2400 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.- Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psycholog y, 88(5), 879–903. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00219010. 88.5. 879 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psycholog y, 63, 539–569. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur evpsych - 12071 0100452 Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209–233. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0020141 R Core Team. (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. https:// www. Rproje ct. org/ Rönkkö, M., & Cho, E. (2022). An updated guideline for assessing discriminant validity. Organizational Research Methods, 25(1), 6–14. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10944 28120 968614 Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2008). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software]. http:// quant psy. org/ Sonnentag, S., & Zijlstra, F. R. H. (2006). Job characteristics and offjob activities as predictors of need for recovery, wellbeing, and fatigue. Journal of Applied Psycholog y, 91(2), 330–350. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00219010. 91.2. 330 Stoeber, J. (2018a). The psychology of perfectionism: An introduction. In J. Stoeber (Ed.), The psycholog y of perfectionism: Theory, research, applications (pp. 3–16). Routledge. Stoeber, J. (2018b). The psychology of perfectionism: Critical issues, open questions, and future directions. In J. Stoeber (Ed.), The psycholog y of perfectionism: Theory, research, applications (pp. 333–352). Routledge. Stoeber, J., & Damian, L. E. (2016). Perfectionism in employees: Work engagement, workaholism, and burnout. In F. M. Sirois & D. S. Molnar (Eds.), Perfectionism, health, and wellbeing (pp. 265–283). Springer. Stoeber, J., & Eismann, U. (2007). Perfectionism in young musicians: Relations with motivation, effort, achievement, and distress. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(8), 2182–2192. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. paid. 2007. 06. 036 Stoeber, J., & Gaudreau, P. (2017). The advantages of partialling perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns: Critical issues and recommendations. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 379–386. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. paid. 2016. 08. 039 Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches, evidence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 295–319. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ s1532 7957p spr10 04_ 2 20 of 20 | MOHR and DIETZ Stoeber, J., & Stoeber, F. S. (2009). Domains of perfectionism: Prevalence and relationships with perfectionism, gender, age, and satisfaction with life. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(4), 530–535. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. paid. 2008. 12. 006 Tape, N., Dry, M., Monaghan, B., Tan, N., & Turnbull, D. (2024). The Scale of Perfectionism and Excellencism (SCOPE): An adolescentbased validation study for the measurement of perfectionism and excellencism. The Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 41(1), 3–11. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 20590 776. 2023. 2289627 Travers, L. V., Randall, E. T., Bryant, F. B., Conley, C. S., & Bohnert, A. M. (2015). The cost of perfection with apparent ease: Theoretical foundations and development of the Effortless Perfectionism Scale. Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 1147–1159. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ pas00 00109 Vallerand, R. J., Chichekian, T., VernerFilion, J., & Bélanger, J. J. (2023). The two faces of persistence: How harmonious and obsessive passion shape goal pursuit. Motivation Science, 9(3), 175–192. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ mot00 00303 Van Iddekinge, C. H., Arnold, J. D., Aguinis, H., Lang, J. W. B., & Lievens, F. (2023). Work effort: A conceptual and metaanalytic review. Journal of Management, 49(1), 125–157. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06322 1087641 Welsh, D. T., Baer, M. D., & Sessions, H. (2020). Hot pursuit: The affective consequences of organizationset versus selfset goals for emotional exhaustion and citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psycholog y, 105(2), 166–185. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ apl00 00429 Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and inrole behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601–617. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06391 01700305 With, S., Benoît, A., & Gaudreau, P. (2024). Selfcompassion as a moderator in the relationships of excellencism and perfectionism with indicators of mental health. Mindfulness, 15(7), 1650–1664. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1267 102402388 - 5 Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., Miller, G. E., Schulz, R., & Carver, C. S. (2003). Adaptive selfregulation of unattainable goals: Goal disengagement, goal reengagement, and subjective wellbeing. Personality and Social Psycholog y Bulletin, 29(12), 1494–1508. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01461 67203 256921 Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., & Elphick, C. S. (2010). A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods in Ecolog y and Evolution, 1(1), 3–14. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 2041210X. 2009. 00001. x SUPPORTING INFORMATION Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this article. Appendix S1 How to cite this article: Mohr, M., & Dietz, C. (2025). It’s got to be perfect? Differentiating the unique daily relationships of perfectionism and excellencism with employee effort, performance and fatigue. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psycholog y, 98, e70034. https://doi.org/10.1111/ joop.70034