Search results

In this paper, I examine Philip Selznick’s sustained engagement with the problems of organizational responsibility and integrity. I first discuss how Selznick conceived of integrity and responsibility, and the role of institutionalization in creating an organizational and institutional context conducive for reinforcing organizational integrity and responsibility. I then turn to how organizational integrity and responsibility can be problematical, highlighting threats Selznick identified in his work that be believed represented significant challenges for organizations and their leaders. I end the paper by considering where other organizational scholars have been able to pursue research relevant to the problems of organizational integrity and responsibility, and where there might be opportunities for further research on these problems and related issues.

This paper aims to identify how the news media cover organizational crisis responsibility and crisis response strategies and, if at all, how they differ by crisis types.

The approach takes the form of a content analysis of level of responsibility (individual versus organizational level) and organizational response strategies in news coverage of major crisis events during 2006 in three newspapers.

Significant differences were found between preventable crises and accidental crises: most preventable crises news coverage focused more on the individual level of responsibility, while accidental crises news used the organizational level of responsibility. The significant differences of organizational response strategies indicated that preventable crises news coverage frequently reported denial strategies, while accidental crisis news covered deal with strategies more.

The study is limited to the samples of the three newspapers and the period 2006.

This study suggests that crisis managers should always check the crisis news coverage, and media bias and orientation, and try to have good relations with the media to deliver the right message to the public during a crisis.

Despite the importance of the media's role in the public's perception of crisis responsibility, there is a lack of systematic analysis of level of crisis responsibility.

The purpose of this study is to examine and interpret the characteristics of social responsibility in general, and business responsibility in particular, that were evident during a period in European history that was plagued by widespread social problems and change. Based on that interpretation, the authors explore the lessons those characteristics may have for social responsibility in a contemporary world that is facing similar conditions.

The paper presents a qualitative analysis of the proceedings of the Bienfaisance Congress held in Frankfurt in 1857, where societal leaders from different nations met to answer the question, who has responsibility for whom, and for what? The authors use grounded theory, as it is operationalized in what is known as the “Gioia template,” to conduct a structured analysis of this particular text, and to in turn produce a theoretical interpretation of how that question was answered.

The interpretation from this study is that congress participants articulated certain established dimensions of responsibility (individual, organizational, national), as well as one new dimension (international), and did so by differentiating boundaries of responsibility; in turn, the authors suggest that these dimensions and boundaries work together to form a nested system of responsibilities.

There is limited empirical evidence available that documents the variety of responsibility-based initiatives that were being conducted during the 19th century. An analysis of the congress proceedings allows us to gain a better understanding of how the 19th-century world, particularly the upper echelons of European society, approached the question of under what conditions actors in different domains have responsibility for another. While the implications are limited by the analysis of the proceedings of one congress that was attended by elites, they do provide a snapshot of how Europe sought to articulate a system of bounded responsibilities during a time of widespread social problems and change.

Although the nested system of responsibilities framework that emerged from the grounded theory analysis is not applicable to all situations, it should sensitize policymakers and business leaders to the need to address social problems in a systemic way.

The authors both present a systems-based framework for understanding how responsibility is differentiated among actors (individual, organizational, state and international) and demonstrate how a theoretical interpretation of historical documents can be accomplished through the use of grounded theory, as operationalized through the Gioia template.

Attributing blame for performance failure and credit for success is ubiquitous in organizations. These responsibility attributions can play an important role in aligning individual and organizational performance expectations, but may also exacerbate conflict in groups and organizations. Theory suggests that an actor's organizational role will affect blame and credit attributions, yet empirical work on this prediction is lacking. This article tests an organizational role approach by assessing the effect of the responsible actor's hierarchical position and whether he or she acted as an individual or as part of a group on blame and credit attributions. The study finds that in response to organizational failures and successes leadership roles attract more blame than other positions, but in contrast to previous predictions, these roles do not attract more credit than lower level roles. In addition, upper level positions tend to be assigned greater blame than credit, while lower level positions show a reversed pattern: they attract more credit than blame. Groups are less likely to be assigned blame and more likely to be credited than are individuals, and occupants in flat organizational structures are assigned higher levels of blame and credit than are occupants in taller organizational structures.

Although uncertainty has been identified as a key crisis characteristic and a multi-faceted construct essential to effective crisis management research and practice, only a few studies examined publics' perceived uncertainty with a focus on crisis severity uncertainty, leaving crisis responsibility uncertainty uninvestigated in organizational crisis settings.

To close this research gap empirically, this study employed data from an online survey of a total of 817 US adults to examine how participants' crisis responsibility uncertainty and their attribution-based crisis emotions might impact their crisis responses such as further crisis information seeking.

First, findings show that participants' crisis responsibility uncertainty was negatively associated with their attribution-independent (AI) crisis emotions (i.e. anxiety, fear, apprehension and sympathy) and external-attribution-dependent (EAD) crisis emotions (i.e. disgust, contempt, anger and sadness), but positively associated with internal-attribution-dependent (IAD) crisis emotions (i.e. guilt, embarrassment and shame). Second, crisis responsibility uncertainty and AI crisis emotions were positive predictors for participants' further crisis information seeking. Third, AI crisis emotions and IAD crisis emotions were parallel mediators for the relationship between participants' crisis responsibility uncertainty and their further crisis information seeking.

Organizations need to pay attention to the perceived uncertainty about crisis responsibility and attribution-based crisis emotions since they can impact the decision of seeking crisis information during an ongoing organizational crisis.

This study improves uncertainty management in organizational crisis communication research and practice, connecting crisis responsibility uncertainty, attribution-based crisis emotions and publics' crisis information seeking.

As organizations move toward organizational learning the responsibilities of members change. Organizational members, themselves, should be giving consideration to what these new responsibilities should be, rather than leaving this task to management. Six possible responsibilities are suggested here to begin such a discussion. These responsibilities call on organizational members to accept greater responsibility for the generation and sharing of knowledge, but equally important is determining the organization’s purpose and sharing in its governance.

This large‐scale exploratory research explores the manner in which various organizational types view their social obligations in terms of the tradeoffs (or potential symbioses) between economic and non‐economic (social) goals. Historically, this issue has been researched only in the context of business firms. Given the increased scope and visibility of nonprofit organizations, it becomes particularly relevant to explore a broad range of organizational types. To proceed with this research, this study proposes a 5‐class typology describing the organizational spectrum from the fully for‐profit to the fully nonprofit organizations. This paper also contributes to the emerging empirical research stream in the area by undertaking a systematic assessment of the way in which all organizational types value their economic versus social orientations as gauged by several measures. Across the two top executive levels, a regular progression of statistically significant differences are found between the five organizational types with respect to their social and economic orientations. A by‐product of this research is that we reveal how the economic or social orientation of organizations can be systematically investigated by undertaking large‐scale empirical studies with appropriately designed research instruments.

When organizations face a crisis that is a result of a transgression, crisis scholars suggest that the organization should apologize in order to accept responsibility for the event. In turn, this is expected to reduce the reputation damage to the organization. The assumption is that an apology statement is interpreted by stakeholders to be equal to accepting responsibility; however, this assumption has not been empirically examined. This paper seeks to address that gap.

A three (explicitness of accepting responsibility: none, implicit, explicit) by two (expressing regret: none, explicit) between subjects design was employed. Participants read an article about a crisis event, answered questions about perceived reputation, read one of six organizational responses, and responded to questions about reputation and anger caused by the response.

Results indicate that both accepting responsibility and expressing regret affect perceptions of reputation after a crisis and the anger felt by respondents. Additionally, apologies need an explicit statement of responsibility to increase their benefits for the organization.

Implications of this research include understanding the independent effects that accepting responsibility, expressing regret, and anger have on organizational reputation. Results can be useful for both academics and practitioners when thinking about how to respond to a crisis. Different strengths and limitations are discussed in the text.

The paper tests the assumption that an organizational apology is viewed as equal to accepting responsibility and explores some of the basic propositions of situational crisis communication theory. This study is also one of the first to examine the impact of the crisis response on stakeholder anger.

The purpose of this paper is to consolidate the state of the empirical research to date on the relationship between leadership and corporate responsibility.

The authors conduct a comprehensive, systematic and narrative review of all published quantitative studies that have examined the link between leadership and corporate responsibility broadly defined, and the authors put forward an integrative model encapsulating current knowledge in this domain.

The authors not only identify validated direct, indirect and moderating effects of leadership on corporate responsibility but also point to gaps in the literature that imply important directions for further research.

The authors aim to make the following contributions to both the leadership and the corporate responsibility literatures. First, the systematic and narrative review in and of itself provides an important consolidation of existing knowledge in both domains. Second, the authors confirm that the preponderance of empirical evidence supports that leadership matters to corporate responsibility efforts in organizations. Lastly, the review provides a comprehensive model of the relationship between leadership and corporate responsibility that has important implications for future research and theory building in this field.