Search results
1 – 10 of 481Sanket Sunand Dash and Lalatendu Kesari Jena
The purpose of this paper is to define workplace victimization as any behavior that impairs employees’ basic psychological needs and explores the mutually interactive association…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to define workplace victimization as any behavior that impairs employees’ basic psychological needs and explores the mutually interactive association between trait self-deception; emotional neglect, especially by supervisors, and workplace victimization.
Design/methodology/approach
Workplace victimization is identified as a pervasive problem in organization. This paper zeroes in on self-deception and emotional neglect as two possible antecedents of workplace victimization, explores the genesis of the two concepts and analyzes their conceptual relationship with each other and with workplace victimization. Based on the conceptual analysis, it identifies the lack of intentionality as a common element in both constructs and identifies a set of possible frameworks linking self-deception, emotional neglect and workplace victimization for future research.
Findings
This paper explores four possible frameworks to model the expected association while advocating for investigation of these given models to check whether one has considerable expository success than other by either connecting or disassociating these two constructs.
Research limitations/implications
The amount of linkage between self-deception and emotional neglect at workplace is worth investigating, and this research paper presents several possible models that might help to focus and organize the future workplace investigations.
Practical implications
The current paper postulates that supervisors’ and subordinates’ ability to display appropriate leadership and follower behavior and interaction will be impaired if they are high in trait self-deception and have been the victim or perpetrators of emotional neglect.
Originality/value
In the workplace, self-deceptive individuals display behaviors such as conscientiousness, resilience, optimism and competitiveness that are considered characteristics of good employees and, hence, are more likely to be promoted to supervisory positions, where emotional neglect of others such as subordinates becomes more pertinent.
Details
Keywords
Self-deception is generally deemed an adaptive psychological mechanism that ensures well-being, a sense of identity and social advancement. However, self-deception becomes…
Abstract
Purpose
Self-deception is generally deemed an adaptive psychological mechanism that ensures well-being, a sense of identity and social advancement. However, self-deception becomes maladaptive in organised environments that undermine the critical thinking essential to development and change. The purpose of this paper is to advance a theoretical model of self-deception, specifying and contextualising its intrapersonal and relational components in organisations. Further, it provides guidelines for practitioners to identify self-deception tactics, and minimise maladaptive self-deception.
Design/methodology/approach
Drawing on affective coping, system justification and self-categorisation theories, the paper illustrates how the interplay of intrapersonal and relational factors with organisational practices explain self-deception.
Findings
Maladaptive self-deception is pervasive in organisations that deter critical reflection, and intensify motivated biases to self-enhance and self-protect.
Originality/value
This paper proposes a socially and organisationally embedded model of self-deception, specifies how self-deception develops and manifests in organisations, and suggests ways of identifying and managing self-deception towards positive organisational development and change.
Details
Keywords
Kerstin Thummes and Jens Seiffert-Brockmann
The purpose of this paper is to present research on motivated bias and self-deception in ethical decision-making in public relations. Self-deception might explain how…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to present research on motivated bias and self-deception in ethical decision-making in public relations. Self-deception might explain how professionals evade mental stress in conflicting situations and manage to be persuasive even when they have to act contrary to their own morals or to public interests. Since self-deception impedes moral reasoning, the research purpose is to gain insights on its origins so that effective counter-measures can be developed.
Design/methodology/approach
First, the state of research on moral dilemmas in public relations and on self-deception in psychology is outlined. Second, four professionals are interviewed to explore typical conflicts of interest and to develop a realistic scenario that gives rise to a moral dilemma. Third, a small sample of professionals (n=9) is confronted with the developed scenario in a qualitative online questionnaire to analyze their reasoning.
Findings
Results indicate that self-deception in response to moral dilemmas exists in public relations practice. Typical conflicts of interest, boundary conditions for motivated bias and counter-measures are identified. Experienced professionals in leading positions seem to have the confidence to reject mandates they perceive as immoral. Counter-measures against self-deception should therefore address young professionals and practitioners with low advisory influence.
Originality/value
While public relations research mostly presumes professionals as rational actors, this study sheds light on irrational practices. In contrast to common practice of expert interviews, an indirect and implicit methodological approach is applied to capture unconscious processes of motivated reasoning.
Details
Keywords
Joana R.C. Kuntz and Mary Abbott
This paper aims to test a moderated mediation model linking person-environment fit with workplace outcomes (engagement, meaning at work and performance) through authenticity…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to test a moderated mediation model linking person-environment fit with workplace outcomes (engagement, meaning at work and performance) through authenticity (authentic living and self-alienation). Self-deception was included as a moderator of these relationships.
Design/methodology/approach
Data were collected from 163 employees in a large department using an online survey. The hypotheses were tested using the PROCESS Macro for SPSS, which conducts bootstrapped moderated mediation analyses.
Findings
Results showed that person-environment fit facets were positively related to engagement, meaning and performance through authentic living and negatively related through self-alienation. These relationships were significant at low to moderate levels of self-deception.
Research/limitations implications
Despite its small sample size, this study used a time-lagged design to mitigate the limitations associated with cross-sectional studies. Further, it expanded the research on authenticity in the workplace by illustrating the interplay of authenticity with fit, self-deception and workplace outcomes.
Practical implications
Organisations stand to gain from encouraging authenticity at work, and this can be achieved by ensuring person-environment fit. While self-deception can act as a protective factor against low perceptions of person-environment fit, organisations should strive to create a culture that values diversity and self-expression.
Originality/value
This study is among the first to explore authenticity at work and the first to empirically examine the authenticity and person-environment fit relationship in relation to outcomes, considering individual propensity for motivated bias.
Details
Keywords
Abstract
Details
Keywords
The executives, just below the chief executive officers represent an important but rarely investigated senior executives. The purpose of this paper is to investigate their need…
Abstract
Purpose
The executives, just below the chief executive officers represent an important but rarely investigated senior executives. The purpose of this paper is to investigate their need for social acceptance and the impact of culture on the perceived use of transformational and transactional leadership behaviors.
Design/methodology/approach
A cross-sectional, multi-instrument design was used to investigate 439 Australian executives at the apex of their organization.
Findings
The results suggest that these executives identified a prominent need to self-deceive themselves when assessing their perceived use of transformational and transactional leadership behaviors. In addition, the cultural dimensions, such as supportiveness and performance orientation, were identified as influencing specific leadership behaviors, in order to produce competitive advantages. However, the cultural dimension of emphasis on rewards uniquely decreased the perceived use of several leadership behaviors (i.e. articulates vision, fosters the acceptance of group goals, and provides an appropriate role model).
Research limitations/implications
The study provides further evidence of how the social context impacts on leadership behaviors and thinking
Practical implications
The development of executive requires insights into how their personal need for social acceptance and culture alter their use of leadership.
Originality/value
Social desirability and specific culture dimensions do not uniformly influence the perceived use of transformational and transactional leadership behaviors.
Details
Keywords
Seeking to clarify the concept of lying, I deal with several topics on which ideas vary. I consider the symbolic, intentional, misleading, and relational character of lies, and…
Abstract
Seeking to clarify the concept of lying, I deal with several topics on which ideas vary. I consider the symbolic, intentional, misleading, and relational character of lies, and include secrecy and other forms of deliberate deception within lies on the basis of these components. Next, I distinguish between human and nonhuman deception, invoking the concepts of symbols, role‐taking, self, and mind. Following this, I present several representative categories of the infinite array of benign and exploitive social contexts in which lying occurs. In a brief discussion, I then impugn the commonly‐used notion of “self‐deception” as internally contradictory. And, finally, I describe both negative and positive consequences of deception in human affairs.
Details
Keywords
Iain L. Densten and James C. Sarros
The purpose of this paper is to examine empirically the effect of cultural and social acceptance on CEO leadership.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to examine empirically the effect of cultural and social acceptance on CEO leadership.
Design/methodology/approach
Several instruments were used to capture key concepts (i.e. Organisational Culture Profile, Marlowe‐Crowne Social Desirability Scale, Transformational Leadership Inventory, and Leader Reward and Punishment Questionnaire), which were examined using confirmatory factor analysis. Data were collected from 635 Australian CEOs.
Findings
The results of hierarchical multi‐regression analysis clarified the importance of self‐deception and impression management as influential context factors, and how both operate at the pinnacle of organisations. The study also identifies that transformational and transactional leadership behaviours were uniquely influenced by specific cultural dimensions, and suggests that CEOs use combinations of these behaviours to respond to four cultural dimensions (i.e. emphasis on rewards, performance orientation, innovation, and stability) in order to produce competitive advantages.
Research limitations/implications
The study highlights how CEOs are still vulnerable to conforming to the social norms of their organisation and also how CEOs use a repertoire of leadership behaviours, in response to the importance of different cultural dimensions.
Originality/value
The paper contributes to the leadership literature by directly addressing how context impacts on CEO leadership in three specific areas: social acceptance needs, demographics and culture. Further, the study investigates CEO transformational and transactional leadership behaviours rather than global constructs, and directly addresses the common method variance issue.
Details
Keywords
This paper aims to address the issue of survey distortion caused by one of the most common and pervasive sources of bias, namely social desirability bias (SDB). Despite 50 years…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to address the issue of survey distortion caused by one of the most common and pervasive sources of bias, namely social desirability bias (SDB). Despite 50 years of research, there are still many unanswered questions about its conceptualisation and operationalisation. The authors argue that traditional measures of SDB are inadequate and that the context in which the research is being conducted should be reflected in the measures employed. Hence, the authors develop and validate a multi‐dimensional scale that may be used to measure the degree of SDB present in responses to giving surveys.
Design/methodology/approach
Following initial scale development procedures a convenience sample of 820 donors to a national charity was employed to refine the resultant scale items. Exploratory factor analysis and reliability tests were conducted to establish the dimensionality of the new scale and its reliability. Using a separate sample of 1,500 active donors, the scale was then subject to confirmatory procedures to test its predictive validity.
Findings
The findings support the assertion that SDB is a multi‐dimensional construct consisting of six dimensions. However, in the context of postal surveys it is found that self‐deception and the degree of intrinsic benefit accruing to a donor are the primary determinants of the level of SDB an individual will exhibit. The authors also highlight the significance of the SDB issue since in the survey reported here, 65 per cent of respondents were found to over‐report their giving.
Originality/value
This is one of the first published studies that has been able to explore the predictive validity of a SDB scale. The work has expanded our understanding of the determinants of SDB and provided an instrument that may now be employed to reduce a significant proportion of this error in giving surveys.
Details