Search results

This chapter examines the effect an informal control namely trust-in-superior and subordinates’ truthfulness in revealing their private information on budgetary slack. A laboratory experiment was conducted. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and ordinary least squares (OLS) regression were used to test the hypotheses proposed in this chapter. The independent variables were trust-in-superior and subordinates’ truthfulness in revealing their private information. The dependent variable was budgetary slack. The results indicate that trust-in-superior reduces the budgetary slack created by subordinates under private information condition. In addition, the results show that subordinates’ truthfulness in revealing their private information mediates the effect of trust-in-superior on budgetary slack.

In this paper, I show how a consideration of legitimacy processes is of theoretical use in addressing two current issues in status research. First, I investigate under what conditions the contrast between the sex composition of a work group and the sex composition of an organization’s authority structure may trigger the salience of gender status in task groups. I argue that this contrast will make gender status salient when an evaluation from an authority figure outside the group creates inconsistency and uncertainty in the current status structure within the group. Delegitimation of a superior is one such process that produces this inconsistency and uncertainty. Second, I examine under what conditions status position compared to identity will more likely stimulate behavior among work group members. I argue that the legitimation of the superior and the group’s status order reduce the likelihood that group members will pursue status inconsistent, identity behaviors. Delegitimation, however, increases opportunities for acting in identity consistent ways and reduces the costs for doing so, thus enhancing the likelihood of identity-based behaviors.

Despite the benefits of delegation, anecdotal and survey-based evidence suggests that firms do not optimally delegate decision-making authority. However, to date, no quantifiable evidence supports this claim.

We design an experiment to explore the superior’s choice between delegation and information elicitation. We also examine the effect of the superiors’ choice on the amount of effort provided by subordinates to gather decision-facilitating information.

We find that, compared to economic predictions, superiors delegate less often than they should. Subordinates exert lower effort when superiors elicit information than when superiors delegate the decision to them. As a result, superiors earn lower profit when they elicit information than when they delegate decision-making authority.

Our empirical evidence supports two main tenets espoused in the literature on the allocation of decision rights. First, the evidence of under delegation contributes to the literature which maintains that superiors’ tendency to under-delegate leads firms to become overly centralized.

By designing a novel experimental, we identify systematic ways in which behavior deviates from economic theory and contribute to the discussion on how firms utilize information. In particular, under delegation prevents firms from exploiting economies that arise from local capabilities and task specialization, and results in forgone profits.

This study seeks to identify the role that peer team members' behaviors and superiors' preferences play in influencing the likelihood that staff auditors engage in dysfunctional audit behavior (DAB).

This study uses an experiment that manipulates peer team member behavior (DAB present or DAB absent) and superior preference (efficiency or effectiveness). Students enrolled in a graduate accounting course, proxying for inexperienced staff auditors, receive an internal control sample selection task. Participants assess the likelihood that a typical staff auditor would engage in DAB or non-DAB.

First, staff auditors with a peer team member who engages in DAB are more likely to engage in DAB. Second, staff auditors who have a superior with a preference toward efficiency are more likely to engage in DAB. Finally, when considered simultaneously, the effect of the superior's preference on the likelihood of staff auditors engaging in DAB is not different for staff auditors, subject to a peer engaging in DAB versus those subject to a peer who engaged in a non-DAB.

This study uses a hypothetical audit team, a written script of team member communication, and students proxying for inexperienced staff auditors. As such, future studies might consider improving the realism of the team setting, the manner in which a message is portrayed, and implications at higher levels within the audit team hierarchy.

Team interactions contribute to the prevalence of DAB within the profession. Specifically, inexperienced auditors are influenced by the behavior of peer and superior team members and this may be one cause of the prevalence of DAB within the profession. As such, future firm considerations could include well-structured mentorship programs and rewards structures.

This study adds to the audit team literature by investigating the influence of audit team dynamics on staff auditors' behaviors. This paper extends the current audit team literature, that is mostly focused on supervisor–subordinate relationships, by investigating social influences from peers and superiors. This study's findings inform public accounting firms of areas in which personnel may negatively affect audit quality through intra-team interactions.

This paper aims to analyze challenges of subjective performance evaluation (SPE) and their effects on team performance. It focuses on discretionary bonus allocations in teams and challenges driven by cognitive biases on the superior or the employee side. This is important as efficient teamwork is a relevant source of competitive advantages in firms, and firms often rely on teams to coordinate various, mutually supportive organizational activities.

The author analyzes results that have recently been discussed in the literature and link them to each other to create a more holistic picture about potential performance effects of SPE. Based on the analyses, the author develops avenues for future research and point out open questions.

Exploring employees’ fairness perceptions in team settings in which there is no clear standard for a “fair” team bonus allocation, the author finds that perceived fairness of team bonus allocation may decrease under SPE because employees interpret the “fairness” of the bonus allocation from an egocentric perspective. Such decrease in perceived fairness can eventually even lead to decreased team performance. Likewise, on the superior side, more complex, but highly relevant team can cause cognitive biases of superiors in assessing employee performance, thereby decreasing the potentially positive effects of SPE on team performance.

This paper contributes to the literature by analyzing recently discovered challenges of SPE in teams and linking them to each other to draw more general conclusions about the performance effects of SPE. For practice, my findings imply that firms may want to be cautious when evaluating the potential effects of SPE – as it is made by human beings with their cognitive biases. For research, the paper opens up new research possibilities and points out open questions.

Discusses several propositions on the causes and realized strategies that are likely to be found in different industrial marketing‐purchasing situations involving rejecting versus accepting superior technological innovations ‐ innovations independently verified to provide superior operating characteristics and lower total costs compared to currently used products and manufacturing processes. Develops a theory of customer rejection of superior manufacturing technologies and product‐service innovations as a vehicle for summarizing a set of related propositions explaining such behavior. Reviews suggestions for empirical research to test the theory.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of superior support, in the presence of a range of work role stressors, on both conflict and enrichment aspects of work-life interface simultaneously. The paper frames the research narrative of superior support by contextualizing it within superior’s dichotomous and opposing roles of organizational performance driver and support provider.

Survey data was collected from Malaysian work adults. Drawing on a sample of 1,051 cases, structural equation modeling technique is used to examine the effect of superior support, with the presence of work role stressors, on individuals’ work-life experience. Three alternate models are compared: superior support as moderator of stressors-strain relationship; both superior support and work stressors as direct antecedents of work-life experience; and superior support as indirect antecedent (mediated by work role stressors) of work-life experience.

Findings evidence the favorable model of superior support as indirect antecedent (mediated by work role stressors) of work-life experience. In addition, superior support has significant impact on work role ambiguity and work-life enrichment, however, its effect on work role conflict, work role overload and work-life conflict is not significant. Findings of the study also demonstrate the distinct effect of work role stressors on work-life experience in terms of direction and strength of impact.

While superior support promotes greater work-life enrichment, its effect on work-life conflict is limited. Therefore, instead of superior support, employers have to identify alternate resources to assist employees to deal with conflict and interference of work-life interface. Distinctiveness of various work role stressors and interaction between these work role stressors offer practical implications to employer that all stressors at workplace should not be treated as identical and common to each other. Distinct effort should be taken to address different forms of work role stressors so that work-life conflict (resource depletion) can be minimized while work-life enrichment (resource gaining) can be enhanced.

The research investigates superior support in relation to work stressor and work-life experience by scrutinizing the role of supervisors from the vantage point of supervisors as performance drivers as well as support providers. This provides a balanced narrative as compared to previous research focussing solely on either the support perspective or the employee effort extraction perspective. In its execution, the research incorporates enrichment aspect of work-life experience, in addition to the conflict and negative effect. Drawing on the Conservation of Resources Theory, the study teases out important implication for employers and researchers to show that superior support and work role stressors come together to shape individuals’ work-life experience by depleting resources (work-life conflict) and gaining resources (work-life enrichment) simultaneously, as well as drawing out the dilemma of supervisors as performance drivers and support providers at the same time.

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.

Although competitive advantage is the cornerstone concept in strategic management it still remains a poorly defined and operationalized construct. The purpose of this paper is to revisit the concept of competitive advantage, to identify the problems that stem from its current conceptualization from the majority of the literature.

The paper undertakes an extensive literature review, audit of logical inference, syllogistic reasoning and Bayesian expressions in order to examine the problems associated with the current conceptualizations of competitive advantage.

Several drawbacks and fallacies relating to current conceptualizations of competitive advantage were identified that create an urgent need for a more robust definition which could better serve the needs of both empirical research and management practice.

The authors by no means claim that the literature review undertaken in this paper on the concept of competitive advantage and on the problems derived from its conceptualization was exhaustive or absolute. Rather, this paper constitutes an attempt to stimulate efforts and provide directions on the further conceptual development of competitive advantage.

The findings allow practising managers to not necessarily associate competitive advantage with its sources and with the determinants of superior performance.

The findings contribute to the evolution of the strategic management field by identifying, categorizing and mapping potential problems, drawbacks and fallacies, associated with the conceptualization of competitive advantage as currently delineated in the literature, and by suggesting some criteria for the development of a conceptually more robust definition.

Workplace incivility has detrimental effects on targets of such behaviors and can lead to further conflict. This research aims to examine whether cultural differences in people’s approach to social respect and status may influence their responses to incivility displayed by superiors and subordinates.

Three studies (n = 1043) examined how people from honor cultures (southern states of the USA; Latin America) and dignity cultures (northern states of the USA) would perceive and respond to uncivil superiors relative to uncivil subordinates. Studies 1 and 2 used scenarios; in Study 3, employed participants recalled their own incivility experiences.

Participants from honor cultures were more likely to perceive the mistreatment negatively if it came from a superior than a subordinate (all studies) and more likely to indicate that they would retaliate against an uncivil superior than an uncivil subordinate (Studies 1 and 3). Moreover, for participants from honor cultures (but not from dignity cultures), anger mediated the relation between the appraisal of incivility and retaliation only when the offender was a superior (all studies).

This research relied on scenarios and people’s recollections, focusing on a limited range of responses to incivility. Future research should conduct laboratory experiments and examine additional responses. Nevertheless, these findings suggest that being mistreated by a superior or a subordinate has different meanings and consequences for people from diverse cultures, which can have implications for cross-cultural work interactions.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this research is the first to compare people’s emotional and behavioral responses to uncivil superiors with their responses to uncivil subordinates in honor cultures.