Search results

This study aims to expand the theory of organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) to include “exterior” behaviours. By advancing the work of Blake and Mouton (1964) and remapping the performance/OCB dimensions offered in the historical literature, a new holistic model of organisational performance is proposed. As a further step, a decision-making tool is proposed for managerial decision-making and to help predict employee performance.

The paper adopts a critical review and conceptual approach to explore historical OCB theories and task performance (TP) taxonomies. It then used Blake and Mouton’s managerial grid to construct a contemporary conceptual tool for managerial decision-making.

Despite the performance literature not lacking in quantity, a few of such research have led to a pragmatic managerial tool. The review reveals several confusions regarding the accurate classification of what actually constitutes OCB and what constitutes TP – this gap is filled by the introduction of the OCB model for managerial decision-making (OMMD).

The current work expands our thinking on OCBs that can occur outside the organisation. These exterior behaviours can influence the organisation’s performance and must be managed just like any other performance metric. The OMMD, primarily based on OCB and TP, provides an initial framework for exploring different typologies of employees. Despite being based on several cogent performance literatures, the proposals have not been tested empirically.

Like the Blake and Mouton model, the new OMMD can be useful in estimating the proportions of employee OCBs and TP.

Culture and social exchange theory can be seen as playing a role in separating TP from OCB.

This study extends the work of Bateman and Organ (1983) by suggesting that some work behaviours can occur outside the organisation. Besides, a decision-making proposal is offered based on the managerial grid framework (Blake and Mouton, 1964).

How far is training in your organisation concerned with developing individual skills or developing the overall performance of people to work together in the organisation more effectively? Traditionally, training has been concerned with developing individual skills. The emphasis has been upon apprentice training where people develop the technical expertise to do particular tasks. Alongside this ran the professional training required for accountants and others so that a company had individuals with specific knowledge to undertake functional roles.

Research examining the relation of personality to conflict resolution strategy has yet to incorporate the dominant, contemporary view of personality, the five‐factor model (FFM). The use of broad traits (domains), to represent personality, although parsimonious, ignores information contained in narrow personality facets, masks important conceptual relations with various strategies, and has produced inconsistent results. The present study demonstrates that narrow, rather than broad, FFM traits consistently explain greater variance in strategy, and account for significant variance when FFM domain scores appear unrelated to the criterion. These effects are shown to result from the unbinding of criterion‐related from criterion‐unrelated facet scores that are otherwise aggregated into broad domains.

The area of leadership, management style and decision‐making research contains ideas which have proved to be both controversial and useful. Many of the equivocal results are due to the limited variables contained within the models reviewed. On analysis, each contain powerful ideas and variables which, if integrated, could provide a useful research vehicle as well as an effective training paradigm. This article synthesises a number of variables from several models to develop such an approach.

The purpose of this study is to gain more insight in how line managers react to power use of superiors and subordinates in conflict situations.

The data was collected from 488 line managers; the majority of these managers worked in business services and non‐profit organizations. To measure the reaction of the line manager, the “Test for handling common organizational conflicts” was used, which incorporates a response factor (conflict style) and a situation factor (a combination of the opponent's behaviour and the organizational position).

The results showed, as expected, that managers' dominant or submissive reactions to opponents' dominant or submissive behaviour depend on opponents' power positions. The predicted directions of these relationships were that managers would react more complementarily to their superiors and would react more reciprocally to their subordinates. The hypotheses on the complementary reaction to superiors were supported. Managers submissiveness was more and dominance less with dominant superiors than with submissive superiors, and vice versa. Managers' reciprocal reaction in conflicts with subordinates was found for managers' submissiveness, but not for their dominant behaviour. The results showed complementary interactions, namely, managers dominate more with submissive subordinates than with dominant subordinates.

This study shows the structuring role of the hierarchal relationship in conflict interactions, and the prevailing position of complementary conflict patterns between managers and their superiors. The results supported the theoretical propositions in most cases, and they provide a better understanding of the use of dominance and submissiveness by managers.

In this viewpoint, the authors argue that the predominant method of analyzing conflict management focuses too heavily on the managerial interests in administrative efficiency and productivity rather than on the needs of individuals and organizations. The aim of this paper is to employ Weber's analysis of conflict systems, specifically the distinction between formal and substantive rationality, to support the authors’ view.

This is a viewpoint, where content is dependent on the author's opinion and interpretation.

Conflict management based on Weber's theories of formal and substantive rationality will benefit organizations and society by promoting a more positive perception of corporate behavior.

Future research could examine the relationship between organizational justice and the more global concepts of formality and rationality. Similarly, future research on justice may be expanded by through the notion and perception of legitimacy by members of the organization. How employees accept a system as fair and just has potential import for future justice research.

The combination of formal and substantive rationality offers a practical, and meaningful, way of dealing with conflict from a personal orientation as well as an organizational one. It orients conflict resolution toward people rather than productivity concerns. It further safeguards organizational interests by minimizing litigation, negative publicity, and other adverse effects of conflict.

Weber theorized that formal rationality requires organizations to develop clear, objective, and universal procedures in order to carry out administrative routines. Substantive rationality, in contrast, acknowledges that specific cases may demand particularized decision‐making focusing on individual cases. The paper draws on the procedural justice literature to show how these procedures can be implemented in a fair manner.

Leadership is one of the most complex and multifaceted phenomena to which organisational and psychological research has been applied. An evolutionary developmental perspective is used to create an evolutionary tree of leadership theory and reveal the path along which it has evolved. Nine evolutionary eras are identified, and requirements for a tenth era of leadership theory are discussed. These eras provide a broad framework for researchers and practising managers to categorise existing, and evaluate future, theories.

This study aims to develop and validate a best‐worst scaling (BWS) measure of preferred conflict‐handling styles, named the Conflict‐handling BWS (CHBWS).

The authors conducted three studies. Study 1 consisted of a sample of psychology students (n=136) from a Canadian university and was designed to assess the convergent validity of the CHBWS by comparing it with the ROCI‐II and DUTCH instruments. Study 2 consisted of a sample of psychology students (n=154) from a US university and was designed to assess the predictive validity of the CHBWS by relating conflict‐handling styles to consumer complaint behavior. Study 3 consisted of a random sample of adults registered with an online survey company in Australia (n=204) and Germany (n=214). This study was designed to assess the antecedent relationship of Schwartz's personal values to conflict‐handling styles.

The study shows that best‐worst scaling is a valid and advantageous way of measuring conflict‐handling styles. The CHBWS demonstrated both convergent and predictive validity, and was able to reproduce the structure of the dual‐concerns model. The study also showed that preferred conflict‐handling style influences the choice of complaint behavior in a retail service failure situation. Furthermore, the study demonstrated that Schwartz's personal values can influence the preferred conflict‐handling style in two individualistic cultures.

This is the first study to measure conflict‐handling style preferences using a BWS approach. Furthermore, it is the first study to relate consumer complaint behavior to preferred conflict‐handling style.

As founding editors of the Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, this paper welcomes the beginnings of a new academic community. The purpose of this paper is to outline why both academic researchers and organizational practitioners need to enter into and be guided by a new debate and new set of expertise. It signals the sorts of research agendas that need to be addressed in this field.

The paper establishes the future research agenda for organizational effectiveness. It reviews historic literature and traces the development of the field of organizational effectiveness from: early analysis of political judgements about effectiveness; systemic analysis of the intersection of profitability, employee satisfaction and societal value; debates over stakeholder, power, social justice and organizational fitness, resilience and evolution; the importance of mental models of senior managers; how organizations use changes in work system design and business process to modify employee's mental, emotional and attitudinal states; and the use of an architectural metaphor to highlight the locus of value creation perspectives.

There are many echoes of the debates and concerns today in the past. The paper shows how current concerns over strategic and business model change, organization design, talent management, agile and resilient organization, balanced scorecard, employee engagement, advocacy and reputation can be informed, and better contextualized, by drawing upon frameworks that have previously arisen.

The paper argues that the authors must adopt a broad definition of performance, and examine how the achievement of important strategic outcomes, such as innovation, customer centricity, operational excellence, globalization, become dependent on people and organization issues. It signals the need to focus on the intermediate performance outcomes that are necessary to achieve these strategic outcomes, and to examine these performance issues across several levels of analysis such as the individual, team, function, organization and societal (policy) level.

The audience for this paper and the journal as a whole is academics who work on cross-disciplinary research problems, the leading human resource (HR), strategy or performance research centres, and finally senior managers and specialists (not just HR) from the internal centres of expertise inside organizations who wish to keep abreast of leading thinking.

The paper argues the need to combine human resource management perspectives with those from decision sciences, supply chain management, operations management, consumer behaviour, innovation, management cognition, strategic management and its attention to the resource-based view of the firm, dynamic capabilities, business models and strategy as practice. It argues for a broadening of analysis beyond human capital into related interests in social capital, intellectual capital and political/reputational capital, and for linkage of the analysis across time, to place the novelties and contexts of today into the structures of the past.