Search results

The status quo for managing deviant workplace behavior is underperforming. The current research offers a new approach for scholars and managers in approaching these misbehaviors. Namely, we outline how system justification theory, which holds that people are motivated to rationalize and justify the systems—including workplaces—to which they belong even when those systems disadvantage them or others, offers value in explaining and addressing the prevalence of such misbehaviors and contemporary failures in managing them.

This conceptual research explores the situated role of onlookers to patterns of workplace misbehavior, like harassment. We explore existing scholarship on why and how onlookers respond to such actions, including cultural elements, and draw parallels between those accounts and the foundational concepts of system justification theory to demonstrate an unrealized theoretical overlap valuable for its immediate applications in research.

The current paper establishes clear links between system justification theory and efforts to manage misbehavior, establishing system justifications as freezing forces in the culture of a workplace that must be unfrozen to successfully implement strategies for managing misbehavior. Further, we describe how organizational onlookers to misbehavior are subject to system justifications, which limit prescribed means of stopping these patterns of wrongdoing.

Very limited organizational scholarship has utilized system justification theory, despite calls for such applications. Given the existing shortcomings in scholarship and management approaches to workplace misbehavior, the current research breaks from the status quo and offers an established theory as a new way to approach these misbehaviors.

In addition to serving a hegemonic function, system-justifying ideologies serve the palliative function of enabling people to feel better about inequality. We summarize three studies supporting this proposition. In the first study, an arbitrary hierarchy was created using the “Star Power” simulation. Results reveal that system justification is associated with increased positive affect, satisfaction, and decreased negative affect, guilt, and frustration. Two additional studies demonstrate that the dampening effect of system justification on support for the redistribution of resources is mediated by reduced moral outrage but not guilt or negative affect. Implications for social change and social justice are discussed.

Purpose – In this chapter, we seek to resolve the conflicting implications that emerge from status quo theories of justice, on the one hand, and theories of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on the other. Specifically, status quo theories depict individuals as resistant to perceptions of injustice in their social environments, whereas theories of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice depict individuals as quite sensitive to the justice that characterizes outcomes and treatment.

Methodology/approach – We build on previous research on the justice judgment process to consider ways in which the findings from these two research streams can be integrated.

Findings – We suggest that the two overarching streams of research have identified and empirically explored two distinct modes of justice evaluation: a system justification mode and a system critique mode.

Originality/value of chapter – We develop a model of the justice judgment process that specifies the circumstances under which each of the two modes is likely to operate.

The purpose of this paper is to test the explanatory effects of the system justification theory on reactions to new employee hazing.

Three studies (N = 107, 121 and 128), all using experimental assignment, vignettes of workplace hazing and two-level repeated measures ANCOVA designs, with dispositional variables included as covariates and justification of workplace hazing processes as dependent variables, were conducted.

Onlookers are more likely to justify long-standing (cf. recently adopted) hazing systems and hazing systems used by highly cohesive (cf. loosely cohesive) teams, supporting the application of the system justification theory to workplace hazing reactions.

The use of vignette research and onlookers (cf. hazed employees) may limit inferences drawn about employee reactions in workplaces that use hazing.

Despite its negative associations, hazing at work persists, with 25 percent of current sample reported being hazed at work. The system justification theory, which the authors applied to hazing, offers an explanation for stakeholders’ willingness to sustain and perpetuate hazing, and onlookers’ seeming blind-spot regarding outrage over workplace hazing. This theory holds promise for combatting passive responses to workplace hazing.

This is the first paper to empirically test explanations for workplace hazing’s perpetuation, by applying the system justification theory to the social system of workplace hazing. Moreover, it is the first paper to offer empirical evidence of hazing’s prevalence across at least 25 percent of sampled industries and organizational rank.

This paper aims to use the stereotype content model to explore the extent to which voter admiration for presidential candidates mediates the charismatic leadership – voting behavior relationship. The paper also seeks to test whether system justification beliefs moderate the mediated relationship.

Using data collected both before and after the 2008 US presidential election, this paper tested the hypothesized relationships using a conditional indirect effects model with 126 undergraduate students enrolled in the psychology department and business school of a large university in the USA.

Results demonstrated that admiration mediates the charismatic leadership – voting behavior relationship. Moreover, this mediated relationship varied by system justification beliefs.

These results suggest that charismatic leaders arouse specific emotions (i.e. admiration) in followers and that emotional arousal inspires followers to act on the behalf of the leader. However, this relationship only holds when people are motivated to embrace change. This suggests that not all followers will be responsive to charismatic leaders.

For political leaders, these findings suggest that being charismatic is important when change motives are high, but it may be less important when stability is highly valued.

The paper demonstrates that charismatic leaders do arouse the emotions of followers and that such emotions motivate followers to engage in behaviors on behalf of the leader.

This paper aims to propose mechanisms of the dark side of interorganizational relationships from a social psychological perspective. The purpose is to understand the role of boundary spanners’ social psychological processes that may trigger the dark side effects.

Multple mechanisms are developed through three social psychological theories, namely, social identity theory, system justification theory and social learning theory.

Boundary spanners’ social psychological processes can trigger the dark side of interorganizational relationships via mechanisms such as excessive cooperation, reification, system justification and path dependence in learning.

This paper concludes with a discussion that offers a new perspective on research on dark side effects and the managerial implications of the present analysis.

This paper contributes to the current literature by extending the interpersonal social psychological processes that could explain the dark side of interorganizational relationships. This paper is a step forward to answer the calls for multilevel considerations of the dark side effects and inspire future research on the role of social psychological processes in dark side effects.

The purpose of this study is to ascertain how corporate social responsibility (CSR) managers are justifying the adoption of automation technologies in India, which is simultaneously creating job loss.

Indian firms to become and maintain superior levels of competitiveness in the marketplace had initiated the adoption, as well as usage of automation technologies such as robotics, additive manufacturing, machine learning and others. Such firm initiatives led to job loss in communities where the firm had a presence with its plants and offices. CSR managers primarily engaged with communities to undertake firm CSR initiatives. Job creation and its continuance have been a sacred component in this narrative. The adoption of automation technologies had altered this point of conversation. CSR managers had to justify both organizational actions from a firm perspective and reconcile the same to the community leaders. In this research, an exploratory study was conducted with a semi-structured open-ended questionnaire with 28 CSR experts. Data was collected through personal interviews and the data was content analysed based upon thematic content analysis.

The results indicated that CSR managers rationalized the adoption of automation technologies from a push-pull-mooring (PPM) perspective from a firm centric point of view. While for justification from a community (social) centric perspective, dominantly system thinking with fair market ideology than normative justification, utilitarian rather than deontological thinking (DT) and organizational economic egoism (OEE) rather than reputational egoism was applied.

The study applies the theories of the PPM perspective from a firm centric point of view. While for community-based theoretical justification – system thinking with fair market ideology than normative justification, utilitarian rather than DT and OEE rather than reputational egoism was used.

This study finding would help CSR managers to undertake community activities while their firms are adopting and implementing automation technologies that are creating job loss in the very community their firms are serving. Mangers would get insights regarding the steps they should undertake to create harmony.

This is one of the first studies that delve regarding how CSR managers are justifying the adoption of automation technologies in India, which is simultaneously creating job loss. Theoretically, this study is novel because the study question is answered based upon the adoption of automation technologies from a PPM perspective from a firm centric point of view. While, for justification from a community (social) centric perspective, dominantly system thinking with fair market ideology than normative justification, utilitarian rather than DT and OEE rather than reputational egoism was applied.

Looks at the literature to date which has indicated some successful cases of using traditional economic analysis techniques in justifying factory automation. Points out, however, that strategic implications and integration effects of factory control systems are beyond the scope of currently available justification schemes. Presents a new approach to justification of advanced factory management systems, namely activity‐based costing (ABC). Introduces frameworks of typical advanced factory management systems and briefly discusses basic concepts, definitions and current applications of ABC. Enumerates the need for this new justification approach, the hierarchy of factory operating expenses and steps to implement ABC in acquiring advanced factory management systems. Concludes with a case study example to illustrate the application of this new approach.

When will individuals accept or reject systems that subordinate them, when will they take actions that will challenge these status hierarchies, and when will such challenges be more intense, overt, and non-normative? Research suggests that individuals often justify and maintain systems that subordinate them, yet we suggest that there are certain boundary conditions that predict when individuals will no longer accept their place in such systems. We propose a model that examines how multiple factors: A sense of power, emotions associated with power, and perceptions of the system's legitimacy and stability – predict when those in low power will act against authority or when they will act to justify and maintain such systems. We also suggest that the level and type of action taken against a hierarchy changes as more of the elements (i.e., sense of power, emotions, perceptions of the status hierarchy) of our model are present. We predict that the actions taken against hierarchies become more overt and non-normative as more of these factors are present.

Difficulties in measuring the benefits of office automation are preventing investment in systems. Examines the problems for organizations attempting to cost‐justify office automation. Benefits attributed to office automation used to be quantifiable, however, more recently office automation is being used to support managers whose benefits are much “softer” and not as quantifiable. Proposes that today′s methods of justification focus too strongly on quantifiable benefits and do not neccesarily justify expenditure on office systems. Suggests that, while it is understandable that management will need to be able to justify investments in financial terms, these methods need to evolve to access benefits at both a quantitative and qualitative level which will provide a more credible measure of the value of investments.