Search results

Business ethics provide a potent source of competitive advantage, placing increasing pressure on organizations to create and maintain an ethical workforce. Nonetheless, ethical breaches continue to permeate corporate life, suggesting that there is something missing from how we conceptualize and institutionalize organizational ethics. The current effort seeks to fill this void in two ways. First, we introduce an extended ethical framework premised on sensemaking in organizations. Within this framework, we suggest that multiple individual, organizational, and societal factors may differentially influence the ethical sensemaking process. Second, we contend that human resource management plays a central role in sustaining workplace ethics and explore the strategies through which human resource personnel can work to foster an ethical culture and spearhead ethics initiatives. Future research directions applicable to scholars in both the ethics and human resources domains are provided.

Scanning both the academic and popular business literature of the last 40 years puzzles the alert reader. The variety of prescriptions of how to be successful (effective, performing, etc.) 1 Organizational performance, organizational success and organizational effectiveness will be used interchangeably throughout this paper.1 in business is hardly comprehensible: “Being close to the customer,” Total Quality Management, corporate social responsibility, shareholder value maximization, efficient consumer response, management reward systems or employee involvement programs are but a few of the slogans introduced as means to increase organizational effectiveness. Management scholars have made little effort to integrate the various performance-enhancing strategies or to assess them in an orderly manner.

This study classifies organizational strategies by the importance each strategy attaches to different constituencies in the firm’s environment. A number of researchers divide an organization’s environment into various constituency groups and argue that these groups constitute – as providers and recipients of resources – the basis for organizational survival and well-being. Some theoretical schools argue for the foremost importance of responsiveness to certain constituencies while stakeholder theory calls for a – situation-contingent – balance in these responsiveness levels. Given that maximum responsiveness levels to different groups may be limited by an organization’s resource endowment or even counterbalanced, the need exists for a concurrent assessment of these competing claims by jointly evaluating the effect of the respective behaviors towards constituencies on performance. Thus, this study investigates the competing merits of implementing alternative business philosophies (e.g. balanced versus focused responsiveness to constituencies). Such a concurrent assessment provides a “critical test” of multiple, opposing theories rather than testing the merits of one theory (Carlsmith, Ellsworth & Aronson, 1976).

In the high tolerance level applied for this study (be among the top 80% of the industry) only a handful of organizations managed to sustain such a balanced strategy over the whole observation period. Continuously monitoring stakeholder demands and crafting suitable responsiveness strategies must therefore be a focus of successful business strategies. While such behavior may not be a sufficient explanation for organizational success, it certainly is a necessary one.

How do organizations respond to negative feedback regarding their innovation activities? In this chapter, the authors reconcile contradictory predictions stemming from behavioral learning and from the escalation of commitment (EoC) perspectives regarding persistence under negative performance feedback. The authors core argument suggests that the seemingly contradictory psychological processes indicated by these two perspectives occur simultaneously in decision makers but that the design of organizational roles and reward systems affects their prevalence in decision-making tasks. Specifically, the authors argue that for decision makers responsible for an individual project, responses given to negative performance feedback regarding a project are dominated by self-justification and loss-avoidance mechanisms predicted by the EoC literature, while for decision makers responsible for a portfolio of projects, responses to negative performance regarding a project are dominated by an under-sampling of poorly performing alternatives that behavioral learning theory predicts. In addition to assigning decision-making authority to different organizational roles, organizational designers shape the strength of these mechanisms through the design of reward systems and specifically by setting more or less ambiguous goals, aspiration levels, time horizons of incentives provided, and levels of failure tolerance.

We present a model of organizational monitoring that integrates organizational justice and information privacy. Specifically, we adopt the position that the formation of invasiveness and unfairness attitudes is a goal-driven process. We employ cybernetic control theory and identity theory to describe how monitoring systems affect one's ability to maintain a positive self-concept. Monitoring provides a particularly powerful cue that directs attention to self-awareness. People draw on fairness and privacy relevant cues inherent in monitoring systems and embedded in monitoring environments (e.g., justice climate) to evaluate their identities. Discrepancies between actual and desired personal and social identities create distress, motivating employees to engage in behavioral self-regulation to counteract potentially threatening monitoring systems. Organizational threats to personal identity goals lead to increased invasiveness attitudes and a commitment to protect and enhance the self. Threats to social identity lead to increased unfairness attitudes and lowered commitment to one's organization. Implications for theory and research on monitoring, justice, and privacy are discussed along with practical implications.

Building on recent theoretical insights from the institutional logics perspective, we examine organizational dynamics in the loosely coupled field of corporate diversity management to develop a theory of the process of logic instantiation. We consider a case in which firms subscribed to the same institutional logic, the business performance logic for diversity management, but varied in adoption of diversity mentoring practices. Employing an inductive and iterative approach to analyze over 50 interviews with diversity managers at large U.S. corporations, we explain how four organizational factors mediated the process of logic instantiation in these firms: (1) the diversity manager’s interpretation and framing of the business performance logic, (2) the formal diversity goals of the firm, (3) the relative organizational power of the diversity manager, and (4) the accepted definition of “diversity.” We discuss implications for theories of social action and diversity management.

Building on recent theoretical insights from the institutional logics perspective, we examine organizational dynamics in the loosely coupled field of corporate diversity management to develop a theory of the process of logic instantiation. We consider a case in which firms subscribed to the same institutional logic, the business performance logic for diversity management, but varied in adoption of diversity mentoring practices. Employing an inductive and iterative approach to analyze over 50 interviews with diversity managers at large U.S. corporations, we explain how four organizational factors mediated the process of logic instantiation in these firms: (1) the diversity manager’s interpretation and framing of the business performance logic, (2) the formal diversity goals of the firm, (3) the relative organizational power of the diversity manager, and (4) the accepted definition of “diversity.” We discuss implications for theories of social action and diversity management.

This chapter explores the phenomenon of organizational resilience. A comprehensive model was advanced and tested while utilizing a quantitative study conducted in the education system in Israel with 98 schools, involving 1,132 educators. Statistical analysis based on structural equation modeling revealed significant relationships between three antecedents (social capital, team empowerment, goal interdependence) and organizational resilience. In addition, a positive significant relationship was found between organizational resilience and organizational functioning in crisis. Organizational resilience was found to be a mediator between three of the antecedents (social capital, team empowerment, goal interdependence) and organizational functioning in crisis. Furthermore, organizational functioning in crisis was found to mediate the relationship between organizational resilience and organizational innovation. Implications for policymakers, managers, and change leaders in organizations are discussed.

Executives of network organizations seek to combine core competencies and talents of individual firms, along the various links of the value chain for a given project. These firms are brought together in alignment for the purpose of providing organizations a competitive advantage. Using multiple examples as well as results from an extensive research project, this chapter introduces a multidisciplinary model for leading network organizations. The model is informed by theoretical and empirical research and by executive practice. It includes consideration of an organization’s internal interactions as well as its interactions with the environment and with the external organizations within its network. The chapter provides leaders a set of four imperatives for achieving effective collaboration within networks.

Organizational behavior scholars have long recognized the importance of a variety of emotion-related phenomena in everyday work life. Indeed, after three decades, the span of research on emotions in the workplace encompasses a wide variety of affective variables such as emotional climate, emotional labor, emotion regulation, positive and negative affect, empathy, and more recently, specific emotions. Emotions operate in complex ways across multiple levels of analysis (i.e., within-person, between-person, interpersonal, group, and organizational) to exert influence on work behavior and outcomes, but their linkages to human resource management (HRM) policies and practices have not always been explicit or well understood. This chapter offers a review and integration of the bourgeoning research on discrete positive and negative emotions, offering insights about why these emotions are relevant to HRM policies and practices. We review some of the dominant theories that have emerged out of functionalist perspectives on emotions, connecting these to a strategic HRM framework. We then define and describe four discrete positive and negative emotions (fear, pride, guilt, and interest) highlighting how they relate to five HRM practices: (1) selection, (2) training/learning, (3) performance management, (4) incentives/rewards, and (5) employee voice. Following this, we discuss the emotion perception and regulation implications of these and other discrete emotions for leaders and HRM managers. We conclude with some challenges associated with understanding discrete emotions in organizations as well as some opportunities and future directions for improving our appreciation and understanding of the role of discrete emotional experiences in HRM.

Purpose – This article describes a theoretical model that allows understanding, explaining, and measuring the perceived organizational effectiveness of multinational coalition operations’ headquarters.

Design/methodology/approach – The proposed model is based on subject matter experts’ opinions and on existing general and military models of organizational effectiveness. It is tailored to the particular case of coalition operations’ headquarters.

Findings – The model includes input factors such as structure and processes, people and organizational culture as well as the operative and official goals of the organization. It especially emphasizes the degree of fit, or alignment, among them.

Originality/value – This comprehensive model provides a solid basis for (a) capturing the perceived effectiveness of people deployed in such headquarters, (b) for determining influencing factors in order to identify barriers and, if required, (c) for deducing improvement opportunities for organizational effectiveness of these coalition operations’ headquarters.