Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Volume 27

RESEARCH IN PERSONNEL AND HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Series Editor: Joseph J. Martocchio Recent Volumes: Volumes 1–10: ...

Author: Joseph J. Martocchio

1355 downloads 1830 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

RESEARCH IN PERSONNEL AND HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Series Editor: Joseph J. Martocchio Recent Volumes: Volumes 1–10:

Edited by Kendrith M. Rowland and Gerald R. Ferris

Volumes 11–20: Edited by Gerald R. Ferris Supplement 1:

International Human Resources Management – Edited by Albert Nedd

Supplement 2:

International Human Resources Management – Edited by James B. Shaw and John E. Beck

Supplement 3:

International Human Resources Management – Edited by James B. Shaw, Paul S. Kirkbridge and Kendrith M. Rowland

Supplement 4:

International Human Resources Management in the Twenty-First Century – Edited by Patrick M. Wright, Lee D. Dyer, John W. Boudreau and George T. Milkovich

Volume 21:

Edited by Joseph J. Martocchio and Gerald R. Ferris

Volumes 23–26: Edited by Joseph J. Martocchio

RESEARCH IN PERSONNEL AND HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT VOLUME 27

RESEARCH IN PERSONNEL AND HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT EDITED BY

JOSEPH J. MARTOCCHIO University of Illinois, USA

United Kingdom – North America – Japan India – Malaysia – China

JAI Press is an imprint of Emerald Group Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2008 Copyright r 2008 Emerald Group Publishing Limited Reprints and permission service Contact: [email protected] No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. No responsibility is accepted for the accuracy of information contained in the text, illustrations or advertisements. The opinions expressed in these chapters are not necessarily those of the Editor or the publisher. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-84855-004-9 ISSN: 0742-7301 (Series)

Awarded in recognition of Emerald’s production department’s adherence to quality systems and processes when preparing scholarly journals for print

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Susan Brodt

Queen’s School of Business, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada

Graham Brown

Singapore Management University, Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore

Christopher J. Collins

ILR School, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

Catherine E. Connelly

DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Nikolaos Dimotakis

Department of Management, Eli Broad College of Business and Graduate School of Management, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

Gerald R. Ferris

College of Business, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

Dwight D. Frink

School of Business Administration, University of Mississippi, University, MS; Universidad de Costa Rica, San Jose, Costa Rica; INCAE, Alajuela, Costa Rica

Angela T. Hall


Morela Hernandez

Michael G. Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

vii

viii

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Aden E. Heuser

Department of Management and Human Resources, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

Wayne A. Hochwarter


Stephen E. Humphrey

Department of Management and Organization, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

Remus Ilies

Department of Management, Eli Broad College of Business and Graduate School of Management, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

Rebecca R. Kehoe

ILR School, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

Howard J. Klein

Department of Management and Human Resources, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

Frederick P. Morgeson

The Eli Broad Graduate School of Management, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

Michael K. Mount

Management & Organizations, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

Alexa A. Perryman

Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University, Ft. Worth, TX, USA

Annette L. Ranft


M. Todd Royle

Department of Management, Langdale College of Business Administration, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, GA, USA

ix

List of Contributors

Sim Sitkin

Duke University: The Fuqua School of Business, Durham, NC, USA

Leigh Plunkett Tost


Kimberly A. Wade-Benzoni


Jane Webster

Queen’s School of Business, Kingston, ON, Canada

David Zweig

Department of Management, University of Toronto, Scarborough, ON, Canada

OVERVIEW I am pleased to present Volume 27 of Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management that contains seven interesting chapters. These chapters are interesting and thought provoking because each one establishes a strong case for bringing somewhat understudied topics into the research mainstream of the human resources management field, brings to our attention the need to critically examine conventional, conceptual and methodological approaches used in HRM research, or builds creative paths in our thinking about commonly studied topics. Some of you may find one or more chapters to step outside convention, and this is by design. I encourage authors to challenge convention in order to stimulate healthy debates and discussions between HRM researchers. In Chapter 1, Webster and colleagues discuss why employees keep their knowledge to themselves. Despite managers’ best efforts, many employees tend to hoard knowledge or are reluctant to share their expertise with coworkers or managers. Although many firms have introduced specialized initiatives to encourage a broader dissemination of ideas and knowledge among organizational members, these initiatives often fail. This paper provides reasons as to why this is so. Instead of focusing on why individuals might share their knowledge, however, the authors explain why individuals keep their knowledge to themselves. Multiple perspectives are offered, including social exchange, norms of secrecy, and territorial behaviors. In Chapter 2, Morgeson and Humphrey present an integrative conceptualization of work design. The design of work has been shown to influence a host of attitudinal, behavioral, cognitive, well-being, and organizational outcomes. Despite its clear importance, scholarly interest in the topic has diminished over the past 20 years. They point out that a recent body of research has sought to reenergize research into work design by expanding our view of work design from a narrow set of motivational work features to one that incorporates broader social and contextual elements. The authors seek to review the literature on work design and develop a framework that integrates both job and team design research. They begin by briefly reviewing the history of work design in order to provide needed historical context and illustrate the evolution of job and team design. The authors then define work xi

xii

OVERVIEW

design, particularly as it relates to incorporating job and team design elements and transitioning from a view of jobs to one of roles. Following this, they identify a comprehensive set of work design outcomes that provide the basis for understanding the impact that different work characteristics can have on individuals and teams. The authors then offer an extended discussion of our integrative model of work design, which includes three sources of work characteristics (task, social, and contextual) and the worker characteristics implied by these characteristics. Having defined the range of work and worker characteristics, they go on to discuss some of the fit and composition issues that arise when designing work, as well as discuss the mechanisms through which the work characteristics have their impact on outcomes. Finally, they discuss research into informal forms of work design. In Chapter 3, Tost and her colleagues review previous research on intergenerational conflict, focusing on the practical implications of this research for organizational leaders. They explain how the interaction between the interpersonal and intertemporal dimensions of intergenerational decisions creates the unique psychology of intergenerational decisionmaking behavior. In addition, the authors review the boundary conditions that have characterized much of the previous research in this area, and examine the potential effects of loosening these constraints. They offer multiple proposals for future research that include examination of the effect of intragenerational decision making on intergenerational beneficence, consideration of the role of third parties and linkage issues, investigation of the effects of intergenerational communications and negotiation when generations can interact, examination of the role of social power in influencing intergenerational interactions, investigation of the interaction between temporal construal and immortality striving, and exploration of the ways in which present decision makers detect and define the intergenerational dilemmas in their social environments. In Chapter 4, Kehoe and Collins develop a theoretical model using the equifinality perspective to connect multiple systems of HR practices to alternative organizational structure types. They argue that firms following an exploitation strategy maintain competitive advantage through high levels of efficiency and reliability in production and delivery of existing products or services. Firms following an exploration strategy maintain a competitive advantage through continuous innovation and knowledge exchange and combination. Hence, organizations are more likely to successfully execute either strategy by implementing an HR system that would create the organizational structural characteristics that support the workforce requirements of the chosen strategy.

Overview

xiii

In Chapter 5, Frink and his colleagues maintain that accountability is ubiquitous in social systems, and its necessity is magnified in formal organizations, whose purpose has been argued to predict and control behavior. The very notion of organizing necessitates answering to others, and this feature implies an interface of work and social enterprises, the individuals comprising them, and subunits from dyads to divisions. Because the nature of workplace accountability is multi-level as well as interactive, single-level conceptualizations of the phenomenon are incomplete and inherently misleading. In response to these ideas, the authors put forth a meso-level conceptualization of accountability, which develops a more comprehensive understanding of this pervasive and imperative phenomenon. Their meso model integrates contemporary theory and research, and extends our perspectives beyond individual, group, unit, or organizational perspectives toward a unitary whole. Following this the authors provide a description of challenges and opportunities facing scholars conducting accountability research (e.g., data collection and analysis and nontraditional conceptualizations of workplace phenomenon). Theoretical and practical implications are discussed, as are directions for future research. In Chapter 6, Dimotakis and colleagues point out that intentional negative behaviors, under their various conceptualizations, have developed into a major area of study in the literature. They indicate that previous research has provided many interesting and valuable examinations of this phenomenon, examining a variety of factors such as individual differences, exogenous influences and affective and cognitive reactions to experienced events. Most of these approaches, however, have been limited by relatively static conceptualizations of intentional negative behaviors and their antecedents. Following a review of the previous literature, the authors offer an alternative, dynamic view of discrete episodes of said behaviors, and outline the ways in which this approach could help advance the field and address some of the limitations of previous research. In Chapter 7, Klein and Heuser briefly review findings from recent socialization research to provide an updated view of the socialization literature. To help advance the literature, they take an instructional system approach, viewing socialization fundamentally as a process of learning about a new or changed role and the environment surrounding that role. As such, they pay attention to further understanding exactly what needs to be learned during socialization. The authors offer an expanded socialization content typology is presented. In addition, two other components are added to this typology to reflect the fact that (a) each of those content dimensions needs to be learned relative to different organizational levels (e.g., job, work

xiv

OVERVIEW

group, unit, organization) and (b) socialization occurs over several months and there are temporal considerations relating to the different socialization content dimensions. The authors then examine how to best facilitate the learning of that expanded socialization content. The Gagne´-Briggs theory of instruction is used in connecting socialization content with the means of learning that content. They also identify the socialization and orienting activities commonly used by organizations to help new employees in the adjustment process and then map onto the learning outcomes organizations could best help facilitate. Finally, the authors discuss the conceptual, measurement, and research needs suggested by these extensions to the socialization literature. In sum, the authors offer interesting takes on essential topics in the HRM field. The more I read, the more I want to know. Altogether, I hope these papers inspire your work in the field. Joseph J. Martocchio Series Editor

BEYOND KNOWLEDGE SHARING: WITHHOLDING KNOWLEDGE AT WORK Jane Webster, Graham Brown, David Zweig, Catherine E. Connelly, Susan Brodt and Sim Sitkin ABSTRACT This chapter discusses why employees keep their knowledge to themselves. Despite managers’ best efforts, many employees tend to hoard knowledge or are reluctant to share their expertise with coworkers or managers. Although many firms have introduced specialized initiatives to encourage a broader dissemination of ideas and knowledge among organizational members, these initiatives often fail. This chapter provides reasons as to why this is so. Instead of focusing on why individuals might share their knowledge, however, we explain why individuals keep their knowledge to themselves. Multiple perspectives are offered, including social exchange, norms of secrecy, and territorial behaviors.

INTRODUCTION An annoying co-worker asked me to explain a process that was recently enacted in our department. I knew all about it, but I was in the middle of some overdue work and did not want to delay it any further so I feigned ignorance. Besides, I seem to spend lots of Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Volume 27, 1–37 Copyright r 2008 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0742-7301/doi:10.1016/S0742-7301(08)27001-5

1

2

JANE WEBSTER ET AL. my time teaching the green ones with no reward or recognition, yet I am still expected to manage my own work. (Connelly, Zweig, Webster, & Trougakos, 2008)

Knowledge management (KM) is often hailed as the key to organizational success in the information age. As such, KM initiatives have received a tremendous amount of practitioner attention over the years (e.g., Caldwell, 2004; Voelpel, Dous, & Davenpart, 2005). Researchers too, have begun to explore methods for increasing knowledge sharing among organizational members. Despite the hype, relatively few KM initiatives have resulted in real benefits. Even when KM systems and technologies are put into place to capture and transmit knowledge, people are often reluctant to use them (Connelly & Kelloway, 2003; Ford & Staples, 2006). This may be because most organizational knowledge is controlled at the level of the individual – thus for organizations to achieve success they need their employees to be willing to share their knowledge (Kelloway & Barling, 2000). Nonaka (1994) argued that employees’ willingness to explicate and share their knowledge is critical for a firm’s knowledge creation capability. However, some organizations mistakenly assume that the knowledge will be shared freely and without much prodding by the organization. Impeding knowledge transfer1 is an everyday part of organizational life. Questions about what knowledge to reveal to whom (and conceal from whom) occur with great regularity (Sitkin, 1986; Wittenbaum, Hollingshead, & Botero, 2004), and the choices people make are consequential: they influence organizational relationships (Simmel, 1950; Steele, 1970), employee satisfaction (Lawler, 1971) and organizational effectiveness (Stevenson, 1980). As Szulanski (2000, p. 10) has stated, ‘‘organizations do not necessarily know all that they know.’’ In order for organizations to rectify this problem we need to understand why employees are not always willing to transfer their knowledge to others. To address this issue we consider employees who impede knowledge transfer in organizations by withholding their knowledge, either by hiding or hoarding their knowledge. We examine the motivations and consequences of knowledge withholding between individuals in organizations.2 To do so, we explore different perspectives on knowledge exchange and consider how each serves to help us to better understand the various reasons why people choose to withhold knowledge. Each perspective expands our analysis of human behavior so that we may also consider potential reasons why KM initiatives might fail. For example, knowledge may be withheld for territorial reasons (Brown, Lawrence, & Robinson, 2005), for personal motives (Ragins, 2008),

Beyond Knowledge Sharing

3

or because of norms of secrecy (Brodt & Sitkin, 2006). Further, knowledge may be withheld due to individual differences in personality, perceptions of unfairness, distrust, reciprocity, or power (Connelly, Zweig, & Webster, 2006). These perspectives are examined further below.

WITHHOLDING KNOWLEDGE IN ORGANIZATIONS Knowledge encompasses the information, ideas, and expertise relevant for tasks performed by organizational members (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002). It has been described as tacit (e.g., a demonstration of how to perform a task) or explicit (e.g., codified task specifications), although many argue that tacit and explicit knowledge are inseparable (e.g., Polyani, 1969; Tsoukas, 1996). In contrast to data or information, knowledge ‘‘consists of insights and interpretations, is personalized and refers to specific situations’’ (Andriessen, 2006, p. 3). Of course, what is considered knowledge, information, or data depends on the context and the individuals involved. In sum, knowledge is personal, resides within the individual, and its transfer often requires direct communication between individuals (Hislop, 2002). The act of transferring knowledge to another is a ‘‘dyadic exchange of organizational knowledge between a source and a recipient unit in which the identity of the recipient matters’’ (Szulanski, 1996, p. 28). It should be emphasized that knowledge requests are frequently outside the supervisor– subordinate relationship, and may include fellow organizational members, close colleagues, and members of informal networks (Martiny, 1998). These requests are the main ways in which tacit knowledge is shared in organizations (Lave & Wenger 1991; Snowden, 2002). As noted by Prusak and Cohen (2001, p. 89), ‘‘managers y need to facilitate personal conversations. That’s why cafes, chat rooms, libraries, kitchens, and other social spaces are important. Sure, they promote knowledge exchange, but they also spur the discovery of mutual interest that support communities.’’ One could argue that knowledge sharing is crucial for many organizations to succeed. It is therefore important to examine why some employees would, at times, prefer to keep knowledge to themselves. In this chapter, we focus on employees who withhold knowledge in organizations. To do so, we first distinguish between two types of withholding knowledge in organizations: knowledge hoarding and knowledge hiding. As we describe next, knowledge hoarding and hiding represent two different types of knowledge withholding, where hoarding captures the accumulation of knowledge and hiding represents concealing knowledge

4

JANE WEBSTER ET AL.

requested by another. Unfortunately, little empirical research investigates their similarities and differences, but we do know that knowledge hoarding and knowledge hiding load on separate dimensions in a factor analysis (Connelly et al., 2008). It is important to begin to distinguish between hoarding and hiding, as they may have very different antecedents or consequences for organizations. Knowledge hoarding is the act of accumulating knowledge which may or may not be shared in the future (Hislop, 2003); that is, it is knowledge that has not been requested by another individual. For instance, an employee may keep personal information secret, an act of omission that is not targeted to a particular person but generally involves concealing information that would be distressing if revealed to others (Lane & Wegner, 1995; Sitkin & Roth, 1993). We do not necessarily assume employees have malevolent intentions or even incompatible interests with their organizations when they hoard. Employees who are hoarding knowledge may be well-intended, striving to do their best, and struggling to honor their social commitments (e.g., to the organization, to co-workers, to clients) as best they can (Sitkin & Brodt, 2006). In contrast to hoarding knowledge, knowledge hiding is an intentional attempt to withhold or conceal knowledge that has been requested by another individual (Connelly et al., 2006). That is, it captures dyadic situations in which knowledge is requested by one employee and that knowledge is hidden by another employee. For example, one employee may ask a second employee for a particular piece of knowledge. The second employee may choose to only disclose a portion of the knowledge or may simply decline to disclose the knowledge. Similar to knowledge hoarding, employees may hide for both self-interested and pro-social reasons. Although the act of intentionally concealing knowledge from another might be considered as an example of workplace deviance (Robinson & Bennett, 1995) from the point of view of the requestor, the person concealing the knowledge may feel that doing so is justified (e.g., it’s for the other person’s good) or in the organization’s best interests (e.g., preserving confidentiality). Employees hide knowledge in a variety of ways. In a series of studies examining the knowledge hiding behaviors of a large number of participants, Connelly et al. (2008) identified three different ways that people can engage in knowledge hiding in response to a request for information. The first method of knowledge hiding is to engage in evasive hiding in response to request for knowledge. Examples of evasive hiding include offering the knowledge requestor some other information instead of what was really needed or stalling for time and promising to help the


5

knowledge requester at a later time. Another identified method of knowledge hiding was playing dumb. In these cases, people reported engaging in behaviors such as pretending that they didn’t know what the knowledge requestor was talking about or stating that they were not very knowledgeable about the topic. Rationalized hiding is a third identified method of knowledge hiding. People who engaged in rationalized hiding reported stating that the knowledge was confidential and could not be shared or that they were not permitted to share the requested knowledge. In sum, the results of these studies suggest that the act of knowledge hiding can take on three main forms. Each of these different types of knowledge hiding behaviors were found to be predicted by a different set of antecedents and to have different relationships with outcomes such as job performance. An interesting question concerns the frequency of hiding behaviors in organizations. In an event-based study conducted in an organization in which participants were asked to report on daily knowledge transfer events over a five-day period, 11% of the actual knowledge transfer events were hiding, while the remainder were sharing (Connelly et al., 2008). One would expect that, like counterproductive workplace behaviors, employees would be hesitant to report on their actual hiding incidents, and this 11% probably represents a lower bound on real hiding behaviors in organizations. Although an initial consideration of knowledge hiding and sharing might suggest that individuals may either share or hide their knowledge, a strict dichotomy does not exist between these variables. In other words, knowledge hiding and sharing are not simply the ‘‘opposites’’ of each other, but rather, they are conceptually distinct constructs (Connelly et al., 2006).3 To illustrate this point, let us consider two examples: First, an employee may receive a request for knowledge and choose to fully share any and all available information. In this case, the individual is clearly not hiding his/her knowledge. However, in the event that s/he is not able to provide the required knowledge (i.e., s/he does not possess the information), this person will be unable to share any knowledge. This is not a case of knowledge hiding. In contrast, we would consider the same case to be knowledge hiding if the employee has the knowledge to provide but intentionally conceals it (e.g., by feigning ignorance). Behaviorally, the two constructs would appear quite similar but the motivations behind knowledge hiding and a lack of knowledge sharing are strikingly different. As indicated above, knowledge hiding might be motivated by a number of different reasons (e.g., prosocial, instrumental, laziness, etc.), whereas a lack of knowledge sharing is likely only driven by an absence of the knowledge itself.

6

JANE WEBSTER ET AL.

REASONS WHY PEOPLE WITHHOLD KNOWLEDGE When considering why a coworker might prefer to hoard or hide his or her knowledge from a coworker, it is crucial to note that some employees consider knowledge as the sole property of the person who holds it. As such, it is difficult for an organization to compel an employee to share all of his or her knowledge (Kelloway & Barling, 2000). Instead, organizations need to consider the underlying dynamics that influence employees’ behaviors. An instinctual assumption may be that withholding is driven by a desire or need for power. However, there are a variety of other reasons why employees withhold knowledge. One interesting perspective emerges from recent work on territoriality (Brown et al., 2005); in this perspective, felt ownership over knowledge becomes a source of resistance to knowledge transfer. Although the results in terms of the withholding may be the same, it is important to distinguish between the different motivations to better understand why employees may hoard or hide their knowledge. In the following section we discuss both of these perspectives, while also considering interpersonal, organizational, and individual factors that can affect employees’ knowledge withholding behaviors.

Power and Politics in Organizations The most obvious and simplest reason for withholding knowledge is for political gain. In the knowledge economy, knowledge is touted to be a source of power. An idea or knowledge can have value as a strategic or political resource that brings extrinsic rewards to its possessor (Clegg, 1989). Indeed, a basic component of power in organizations is the role that valued resources play in extracting benefits to the controller of those resources (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). In contrast, KM systems can shift the balance of power to managers for a variety of reasons, including reducing employees’ uniqueness and deskilling them (Gray, 2001). As noted by Nonaka (1991, p. 102), ‘‘when information differentials exist, members of an organization can no longer interact on equal terms, which hinders the search for different interpretations of new knowledge.’’ Although power can be described as a characteristic of an individual, rather than an organizational-level variable, power is often shaped by organizational forces, such as reward systems. Indeed, power represents ‘‘a force, a store of potential influence through which events can be affected’’


7

(Pfeffer, 1981, p. 7). For example, a manager’s reward power, which is based on his or her capacity to provide incentives (French & Raven, 1959), may affect a subordinate’s decision whether to hide their knowledge, because he or she would expect negative consequences if this decision were detected. Similarly, expert power, derived from the individual’s special knowledge or skills (French & Raven, 1959), may also affect employees’ knowledge hoarding and hiding behaviors. For instance, experts may hide information in order to reinforce their status within the organization. Likewise, there is some evidence that powerless employees may attempt to gain control through deviant behaviors (Ashforth, 1989). As such, powerless employees may be more likely to engage in knowledge withholding, in order to garner what leverage they can. For example, in a case study conducted in two organizations, some employees hoarded knowledge in order to maintain their positions (Lichtenstein & Hunter, 2006). Alternatively, experts may share their knowledge with novices in order to repay their own training and socialization or in order to reinforce their expert status by remaining in contact with those less knowledgeable (Fine, 1998). Knowledge can be seen as an asset that employees can use to elevate their status in the organization. Davenport (1997) has stressed that concerns of power, rational gain, and distrust lead people to hide or hoard information and knowledge. As people gain unique knowledge and perform specific roles in the organization they increase others’ dependency on them. In a relevant example, Pfeffer (1981) described machine experts who threw away their manuals to ensure they were the irreplaceable operators of their machines. Similarly, people who are experiencing job insecurity may try to make themselves indispensable to the organization by hiding knowledge. These are good examples of politically motivated behavior. Although the political perspective is important to understanding knowledge withholding in organizations, it cannot explain all types of behaviors and particularly the different behaviors that serve to communicate or prevent others from taking or using an idea. People still hoard and hide knowledge even when political or power motives are not present and may withhold knowledge even to the point where they damage their image and lose power (Brown & Robinson, 2007). To understand why employees withhold knowledge when not driven by political or reward motives, we draw on theories of territoriality, psychological ownership and possession.

8

JANE WEBSTER ET AL.

Territoriality Territoriality involves attachment or territorial feelings towards an object, which in turn leads to territorial behaviors oriented towards communicating and maintaining one’s claim over an object. Although the objective value of objects plays a role in developing territorial feelings and seeing it as a territory, knowledge hoarding and hiding are about much more than ‘‘rational’’ or strategic control of valued resources. The development of proprietary attachment to things at work is not so much reflective of a rational calculus of the costs and benefits of ownership, but rather of naturally occurring psychological mechanisms and needs.

Psychological Ownership According to Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks (2001, 2003) objects are more valuable to the individual and thus likely to engender feelings of ownership to the extent that they fulfill several important human needs including the need for efficacy, the need for a sense of place, and the need for selfexpression. For example, organizational members are more likely to develop proprietary attachment to objects or entities at work that enable them to express, construct or maintain their social identity at work (Brown & Altman, 1981; Dittmar, 1992). This itself is dependent on the extent to which the object is important to the individuals’ identity construction (Altman & Chemers, 1980; Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Goffman, 1959; Tuan, 1980). For some organizational members, identity expression through territories may be a key strategy for establishing who they are in relation to others in the organization and for creating impressions for themselves and others (Brown & Werner, 1985). Research supports this link and finds that employees who see an association between their identity and an idea are more likely to feel a claim to that idea (Hannah, 2004). Objects also become more valuable as individuals invest more of themselves in the object. This includes investments of time, effort, ideas, expertise, or attention (Czikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton, 1981; Pierce et al., 2001). For example, an investment of energy might include extended effort to develop a program or even research a competitor. The amount of time or degree of interaction one has had with a particular object will also strengthen one’s sense of ownership over it (Brown et al., 2005). People are more likely to feel ownership over an object as they gain information or knowledge about it (Beggan & Brown, 1994; Constant, Kiesler, & Sproull, 1994; Rudmin & Berry, 1987) and become more familiar with the object.


9

For example, Ford and Staples (2006) found that employees are less like to share knowledge that they perceive as unique. Knowledge and ideas in particular are examples of deeply held territories. Drawing on the key routes to ownership, we can predict that knowledge created is more likely to engender territoriality than knowledge learned from others. Someone who generates the idea is more likely to have (i) invested his or her self in the knowledge, (ii) have intimate familiarity with the knowledge, and (iii) control the inputs, the process, and the immediate outputs of knowledge work. Thus, the more involved in creating the idea the more likely the employee will see a stronger claim to the idea. Understanding one’s attachment to knowledge also helps us understand why people engage in territorial behaviors. Territorial Behaviors A critical aspect of territoriality, and one that has significant implications for knowledge transfer, is that territorial behavior is a social behavioral construct: it is only in relation to other people that we mark and defend our claims. As Brown and colleagues (2005) argue, territorial behaviors are not simply about expressing ownership over an object (e.g., this is mine) but they are centrally concerned with establishing, communicating, and maintaining one’s relationship with that object relative to others in the social environment (e.g., this is mine and not yours!). Through marking the object, the individual both constructs it as a territory and then communicates this claim to others. Perceptions, or fear, of infringement lead to territorial behaviors intended to maintain and restore the claim to the territory. Thus the territorial behaviors, marking and defending, signal and reinforce our claims. Past research has identified four types of territorial behaviors (Altman, 1975; Brown, 1987; Brown et al., 2005), which can influence and, in some cases, be examples of withholding behaviors. These types of behaviors include identity-oriented marking, control-oriented marking, anticipatory defending, and reactionary defending. Each of these behaviors has implications for knowledge withholding, which we will discuss below. Control-Oriented Marking. Control-oriented marking involves actions and symbols that communicate to others the claim to and boundaries around a territory (Altman, 1975; Becker & Mayo, 1971; Smith, 1983). In the context of knowledge withholding, examples of control-oriented marking might include informing others in a meeting that one has developed an idea. Control-oriented marking serves to communicate to others that someone

10

JANE WEBSTER ET AL.

has claimed a territory and as such is particularly relevant for hoarding in that other people are discouraged from accessing or using the knowledge. Identity-Oriented Marking. Identity-oriented marking is the deliberate decoration or modification of an object by its owner to reflect the owner’s identity (Sommer, 1974; Sundstrom & Sundstrom, 1986). Identity-oriented marking serves the function of enabling individuals to construct and express their identities to themselves and to others through the territory. Identity-oriented marking allows individuals to influence how others see them and what they are associated with, and as such has several interesting implications for knowledge withholding, and in particular, hiding. First, an idea is not simply an idea but an extension of the self. People may be reluctant to share certain ideas or may be more active in promoting other ideas that reflect aspects of themselves that they want to project. For example, if a solution reflects the positive aspects of their identity they may push their idea that reflects this. On the other hand, if the knowledge reflects something they don’t want others to know about them they may try to discourage discussion of a particular solution or idea. Anticipatory Defenses. Although marking is intended to demarcate territorial boundaries and the claim of a territory by an individual, the socially defined nature of these boundaries and attachments means they will sometimes be subject to differing interpretations (Brown & Altman, 1981, 1983; Lyman & Scott, 1967; Wollman, Kelley, & Bordens, 1994). For example, newcomers to the organization or work group may be unaware of claims or misinterpret territorial markers. As a result, individuals may engage in anticipatory defenses, actions designed to thwart potential infringement. These actions are classified as anticipatory defenses because people engage in them before an infringement occurs and these defenses serve to thwart infringement attempts by others (Dyson-Hudson & Smith, 1978; Edney, 1975, 1976; Knapp, 1978). Anticipatory defenses that relate to knowledge hoarding might include a password on computer files to prevent others from accessing that information. Not providing known information might also be used as a way of leading people astray. Whereas announcing an idea is one strategy for claiming the idea, not telling (hiding) could be an anticipatory defense. If one is afraid that others will claim an idea he or she may hide it. Similarly, if an idea is only partially developed or the individual is afraid that others will modify it in ways they do not agree with, they may hide it. Again, the

11


territoriality perspective is unique in that it points out that this may happen even when rewards are not involved. Reactionary Defenses. Reactionary defenses are responses to infringement attempts by others: how one reacts if someone uses or takes that which they see as belonging to them (Brown, 1987; Brown et al., 2005; Wollman et al., 1994). Reacting to an infringement of one’s territory serves primarily to restore the claim to the object. However, reacting can also function to provide an emotional expression of one’s feelings toward the infringement. Examples include confronting the individual or taking the issue to higher ups. Although beneficial in terms of protecting the claims of the individual, reactions, or fear of reaction, may increase knowledge withholding, in particular hiding, because the individual may be concerned about infringing on another’s territory. Fear of infringement and the subsequent reactions will reduce collaborative work and desire to work on someone else’s idea (i.e., contribute to it). In sum, the territoriality perspective highlights that attachment to knowledge is a function of variety of factors, many of which cannot be explained with simple reference to the objective value of knowledge. To this point, territoriality and feelings of ownership have been relatively ignored by researchers, but as we have discussed, the value of knowledge must also be understood in terms of its subjective value to the owner. It is furthermore important to note that specific territorial behaviors can be used to hide information and therefore undermine KM efforts within the organization.

Interpersonal Dynamics To this point we have examined factors related to knowledge in terms of its value, whether objective or subjective. Another important influence on withholding knowledge relates to the nature of social exchanges. An implicit social exchange underlies many interactions between organizational members. Essentially, someone who voluntarily and spontaneously engages in a behavior that benefits another person may implicitly invoke a similar yet unspecified reciprocal behavior (Blau, 1964). In due course, the nature of the exchanges expands, as obligations are discharged and new ones are created. Based on Blau’s social exchange theory, the history of reciprocity among colleagues may affect the likelihood of an employee engaging in knowledge hiding behaviors. Employees who have received assistance previously may feel duty-bound to reciprocate by sharing their knowledge

12

JANE WEBSTER ET AL.

whenever possible with those who have provided the assistance. Employees whose requests for assistance are rebuffed may conversely feel entitled to hide knowledge from those who request it. It is important to consider cases where two colleagues have established a relationship. In this scenario, the quality of their relationship, as shaped by their previous interactions, may affect their knowledge hiding behaviors. Interpersonal distrust may be a particularly salient determinant of how these relationships frame future interactions. Interpersonal distrust may underlie ineffective social exchanges (Blau, 1964) and it may in fact affect employees’ knowledge hiding behaviors. Whereas trust has been broadly defined as confident positive expectations regarding another’s conduct, distrust refers to confident negative expectations regarding another’s conduct (Lewicki et al., 1998). Although the nomological net of distrust has yet to be widely established, McAllister, Lewicki, and Bies (2000) suggest that individuals who actively distrust another party are likely to use hard influence tactics. Indeed, Ford and Chan (2003) found that distrust relates to knowledge hoarding, Ford and Staples (2006) reported that employees cited distrust as a reason for not sharing knowledge, and Connelly et al. (2008) found a strong relationship between distrust and the three types of knowledge hiding behaviors (evasive hiding, playing dumb, and rationalized hiding). Knowledge hiding in organizations may also be affected by interpersonal fairness, or the courtesy of interpersonal treatment by one person to another (Donovan, Drasgow, & Munson, 1998). People who believe that they have been treated rudely or unfairly by a colleague may retaliate by engaging in various retaliatory behaviors, such as interpersonal aggression (e.g., Dupre, Inness, Connelly, Barling, & Hoption, 2006) or by reducing their organizational citizenship behaviors (e.g., Blakely, Andrews, & Moorman, 2005). Similarly, employees who believe that they have been treated rudely or disrespectfully by a colleague will be more likely to hide their knowledge from this individual, even in response to a legitimate request for assistance (Sitkin & Stickel, 1996).

Organizational Culture and Norms Employees’ knowledge hoarding and hiding behaviors may also be affected by the broader organizational environment in which they work. As some employees have reported, ‘‘Active hoarders would not survive within this organization; they would be singled out’’ (Ford & Chan, 2003, p. 22).


13

Organizational culture and social norms will affect what employees consider to be acceptable conduct towards fellow organizational members; these have been shown to predict knowledge sharing behaviors in organizations (e.g., Connelly & Kelloway, 2003; Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2001). For instance, in an organization with a non-hierarchical organizational culture, both management and employees socialize and interact frequently with each other, with little regard for their organizational status (Connelly & Kelloway, 2003). The resultant social interaction is an important determinant of how employees’ knowledge is used and shared (Kelloway & Barling, 2000). Employees who have several opportunities to interact socially with coworkers will have a better understanding of their colleagues’ abilities and knowledge, will trust their colleagues more, and will have more opportunities to share their knowledge with coworkers in the future (Connelly & Kelloway, 2003). Interestingly, an organization’s sharing climate may have little effect on employees who hide knowledge. In a study of actual knowledge sharing and hiding behaviors in an organization, intentions to withhold knowledge related strongly (and negatively) to organizational sharing climate for those who shared, but did not relate for those who hid (Connelly et al., 2008). In contrast, an organization’s norms concerning distrust and secrecy may be particularly relevant to withholding knowledge in organizations. Norms of distrust and organizational secrecy may be particularly prevalent in complex and uncertain environments (Erickson, 1979). Whether this transfers to withholding behaviors within the organization is an empirical question. Employees’ withholding decisions are based on a variety of factors in the organizational environment, and in particular, on formal (e.g., Hannah, 2005) and informal rules about secrecy (e.g., Brodt & Sitkin, 2006; Sitkin, 1986). For example, Hannah (2005) found that formal rules resulted in employees feeling obligated to protect trade secrets. Further, Brodt and Sitkin (2006) identified a variety of norms around secrecy in their interviews with employees from three semiconductor companies and identified eight secrecy norms, including: ‘‘Need to Know’’ (related to the pragmatics of getting the job done), ‘‘Right to Know’’ (related to informational rights), ‘‘Avoiding Disruptions’’ (related to avoiding conflict, minimizing discomfort, and protecting people’s feelings), and ‘‘Maintaining Interpersonal Trust’’ (related to the psychology of trust and close relationships). Thus, whether through explicit instructions or simply by observing the actions of their coworkers, employees learn quickly that it is the norms of secrecy that they are actually expected to follow (Browning & Folger, 1994; Van Maanen & Pentland, 1994).

14

JANE WEBSTER ET AL.

In addition, employees are motivated to follow secrecy norms because they want to be accepted by others and not appear deviant (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955; Sitkin & Roth, 1993). Indeed, individuals who stray from group norms are often disliked, rejected, and ridiculed (Levine, 1989), which is stressful and difficult to endure (Williams et al., 2002). Of the eight norms that emerged from and Brodt and Sitkin’s (2006) analysis, the majority reflected concerns about being accepted either by peers or by organization leaders (e.g., respecting authority, maintaining interpersonal trust). More generally, social norms are an important mechanism by which organizations provide guidance (Katz & Kahn, 1966) and facilitate social interactions (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1991; Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993). Norms clarify shared beliefs about how group or organization members should behave. Managers serving on special committees or task forces, for example, are expected to be open with fellow committee members during deliberations, but also tight-lipped regarding discussions outside of the group.4 Because of this norm, committee members know how to behave among themselves and with non-committee members. Norms also help people know what to expect of others and often guide interpretations of other people’s behavior. Specifically, they provide a situational explanation for behavior that might otherwise be interpreted as indicative of some other motive. Taken together, norms can create a sense of social comfort when tackling difficult and/or ambiguous tasks such as decisions concerning knowledge transfer. Norms foster a shared understanding of what is expected of oneself and of others and by providing a non-personal (i.e., system) explanation for the resulting behavior. They are generally thought to be sources of guidance for individuals who face complex or potentially controversial choices (Hackman, 2002). Thus, in the case of knowledge transfer, norms help individuals decide whether to withhold knowledge or to disclose it (Brodt & Sitkin, 2006).

Individual Characteristics Thus far, there has been little research that examines individual characteristics related to the withholding of knowledge in organizations. Although some research has examined the dissimilarity of a peer’s workgroup with respect to personality in predicting an individual’s deviant behaviors (e.g., Liao, Joshi, & Chuang, 2004), few studies have specifically examined what aspects of people’s personalities and other characteristics


15

might predict whether or not individuals will engage in behaviors such as knowledge hiding. However, one personality trait that might predispose individuals to withhold knowledge is Machiavellianism (O’Neill & Adya, 2006). People who have high levels of this trait are self-interested and are predisposed to win at all costs (Fehr, Samsom, & Paulhus, 1992). Because of their strategic orientation, high Machiavellians are likely to hide knowledge if it serves their interests. Furthermore, perceptions of another individual’s level of Machiavellianism may affect whether or not someone will engage in knowledge hiding with this person. Another potential characteristic that is worth further examination is an individual’s goal orientation, or the types of goal preferences (learning, performance) held in achievement situations (Dweck, 1986). These may influence one’s intention to engage in goal-oriented behaviors (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996) such as knowledge hiding. For instance, an individual high in learning orientation has a malleable view of ability and is likely to want to share and receive knowledge from others (Zweig & Webster, 2004). In this case, even sharing information about failures would be considered an opportunity to learn. In contrast, individuals high in performance approach orientation (a desire to attain favorable judgments) or performance avoidance orientation (a desire to avoid unfavorable judgments) believe that ability is fixed. The personalities of these performance-oriented individuals may preclude them from pretending to be ignorant or incompetent. In support of this, Connelly et al. (2008) found that knowledge sharing relates positively to learning orientation, while the hiding behavior of playing dumb relates negatively to performance approach orientation. As indicated earlier, individual power and status should also be particularly pertinent to knowledge withholding in organizations (O’Neill & Adya, 2006). For example, those with higher need for power may try to control knowledge more through territorial behavior. In contrast, those lower in power may be more likely to be territorial and try to use knowledge as a resource. This may be less important to people with more status or position power (Esser, 1968; Esser, Chamberlain, Chapple, & Kline, 1965). People lower in status or power may be more sensitive to the cues of others (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003) and therefore be more sensitive to potential invasions. Those higher in status or who are more dominant in personality may ignore the markings and signals of others thus increasing animosity between employees. Knowledge may also be more important to the identity of lower status or less dominant people. If they come up with a solution, or have a niche area, they may be more protective of this, not

16

JANE WEBSTER ET AL.

because of trying to get ahead but rather, because it is more important to how others see them. Giving this up has greater implications for them. In a related vein, it is also interesting to consider the implications of certain individual characteristics that employees feel represent ‘‘invisible stigmas’’ (Ragins, 2008; Sitkin & Roth, 1993) and how these stigmas might influence decisions to disclose or withhold information. Employees may feel that certain specific characteristics, such as their religion or sexual orientations, would be detrimental to their careers if others knew about them. For example, studies of gay and lesbian employees who choose to disclose their sexual orientation to their employers suggest that disclosure is heavily context-specific (e.g., Schneider, 1987). Further, gay and lesbian employees who perceive discrimination in their workplaces are hesitant to disclose their sexual orientations to colleagues (Ragins, Cornwell, & Miller, 2003). Interestingly, Ragins and Cornwell (2001) suggest that the presence of protective legislation as well as progressive organizational policies and practices will affect whether gay and lesbian employees disclose their sexual orientations. For example, Ragins, Singh, and Cornwell (2007) report that gay, lesbian, and bisexual employees are more likely to disclose their sexual orientations when they work in a group that is perceived as supportive and sharing their stigma. That is, although many individuals have a common ‘‘secret’’ (i.e., their sexual orientation), their decisions to share or withhold this information may depend heavily on workgroup cultures. Although the non-disclosure of stigmatizing information might not influence the transfer of organizationally relevant knowledge, the act of withholding stigmatizing information itself might be reflected as reluctance on the part of the stigmatized group member to generally share knowledge freely. This reluctance could be perceived negatively by others and lead to consequent knowledge withholding in response. Thus, it is important for future research to explore the effects of stigmas on workplace relationships in general and knowledge withholding in particular.

CONSEQUENCES OF WITHHOLDING KNOWLEDGE As we have seen, employees may resist transferring knowledge despite its importance to organizational goals. Understanding the different ways that employees may withhold knowledge, as well as correctly identifying their reasons, can have important implications for solving these knowledge transfer dilemmas. As we discuss in this section, withholding knowledge has consequences for individuals as well as for organizations; some of these

17


consequences are detrimental but there are also potentially positive outcomes as well.

The Individual Withholding knowledge can be expected to lead to a number of negative or positive outcomes. Of course, withholding knowledge is sometimes important to do, as in protecting trade secrets (Hannah, 2005). However, in other situations, employees who hide their knowledge are likely to have knowledge hidden from them as well and to experience damaged interpersonal relationships; this is due to the strong element of reciprocity in employees’ decisions to share or hide their knowledge from coworkers. The relationship between knowledge withholding and other outcomes, such as individual performance, is more complex. In the short term, employees who hide knowledge will have more time available to work on their own tasks, and their performance would be expected to be higher than that of employees who take the time to share their knowledge with their coworkers. In the long term, however, knowledge hiding that is reciprocated with further hiding behaviors from colleagues is likely to lead to lower job performance because crucial, task-related information will become less readily available. Sharing knowledge is also likely to enhance the reputation of employees who have demonstrated that their expertise is valuable and that they are altruistic enough to make it available to others. Withholding knowledge can also have negative consequences for the individual both in terms of image and lost opportunities. People deceive others for both self-interested and pro-social reasons (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998; Grover, 1993) and the inferred reasons behind a lie affect the way in which this deception is perceived by others. Generally, lies told for affiliation reasons (e.g., ‘‘I like your new hairstyle’’), to benefit others (e.g., ‘‘everyone chipped in to pay for your gift’’), or to protect privacy (e.g., ‘‘she was let go because of the economy’’) are considered to be acceptable (Seiter, Bruschke, & Bai, 2002; Sitkin & Brodt, 2006). Similarly, as described earlier, employees may engage in withholding knowledge for both self-interested and pro-social reasons, but the inferred motivations are likely to affect how this behavior is perceived. For example, employees who are perceived to hide knowledge for instrumental reasons rather than to benefit others are likely to face more serious interpersonal consequences. It is also important to recognize that withholding knowledge by engaging in territorial behaviors can lead to pejorative views of the individual

18

JANE WEBSTER ET AL.

doing so. For example, if one constantly marks one’s ideas, that person may be seen as self-promoting. Even expressing oneself through an idea may be seen as self-serving at the cost of other options or input. Certainly anticipatory and reactionary defenses may lead to the perception that the territorial individual is not a team player or is secretive. In all of these examples, coworkers may not understand the reason for the behavior which could lead to isolation and ostracizing of the territorial individual. On the positive side, feelings of ownership over physical space have been found to be associated with more responsibility for (Rodgers & Freundlich, 1998) and positive evaluations of (Nuttin, 1987) the object itself. This has several implications for knowledge transfer which could lead to positives for the organization. People who have higher ownership are likely to be more committed and see the project through to completion. With creative, demanding work the pitfalls are numerous and individuals who have a higher sense of ownership are less likely to abandon projects. With feelings of ownership comes a right to exercise influence (control) over the target (Barzel, 1989). Certainty about what will happen to the knowledge is important in understanding whether employees will withhold knowledge. If individuals create the idea it may be ‘‘their baby.’’ If an organization neglects to capitalize on this idea, the creator may decide to go on his own to pursue his idea. Of course there are potential financial incentives for this, but oftentimes it is driven by a sense of responsibility and desire to see an idea through. Clear organizational norms of secrecy should smooth social interactions and thus minimize interpersonal conflicts resulting from knowledge withholding. For example, if secrecy norms are clear and followed, they stand to reduce uncertainty, impose a modicum of control on employee behavior, and make non-disclosure less socially awkward by providing socially acceptable explanations (Brodt & Sitkin, 2006). However, the promise of secrecy norms – that they will provide a coherent set of informal behavioral guidelines that clarify actions and simplify secrecy decisions – may not square with reality (Brodt & Sitkin, 2006). Dealing with multiple norms is likely to be challenging for individuals for a number of reasons. For example, having multiple norms raises questions about the relationships among them: Are they compatible? Do they adequately cover the secrecy terrain? The secrecy norms that Brodt and Sitkin (2006) identified turned out to fall short on both accounts: the norms were incompatible, incomplete, and overly inclusive. Incompatible norms indicated disclosure as well as secrecy, whereas incomplete norms left ‘‘norm gaps’’ where existing norms seemed not to apply. Perhaps most

19


challenging, however, were the secrecy norms that were overly inclusive: employees found these norms to be so stringent and broadly inclusive that they could not be followed without disrupting essential or routine workrelated, professional, or social interactions. Thus, relying on a welldeveloped set of secrecy norms intended to clarify the situation can actually muddy the waters even further for many well-meaning and diligent employees (Brodt & Sitkin, 2006). Concerning withholding personal information, it may be difficult to disentangle whether various negative outcomes of nondisclosure derive from the employee’s actions, or whether they relate to a larger issue that contributed to the nondisclosure in the first place (Ellis & Riggle, 1995). For example, employees who feel that the work environment is unwelcoming may choose to avoid disclosing personal information that they believe may be used against them (Sitkin & Roth, 1993). However, coworkers may simply notice that this individual seems ‘‘distant’’ or hesitant to reveal personal information, and these perceptions may lead to coworker behaviors (e.g., fewer social invitations) that would further reinforce existing perceptions regarding the collegiality of the workplace. Issues of causality aside, there is some evidence to suggest that employees who hide personal information experience negative emotional outcomes. For example, lesbians who do not disclose their sexual orientations to coworkers experience more psychological strain (Ragins et al., 2007), more anxiety, less positive affectivity, and lower self-esteem (Jordan & Deluty, 1998) than employees who do disclose this personal information. On the other hand, employees may still withhold personal information in order to protect themselves from negative reactions of managers and coworkers.

The Organization From an organizational perspective, there are a host of additional consequences. For instance, the consequences of secrecy norms for organizations reflect some of the challenges faced by individuals, but at a broader level. For example, when guidance provided by norms is unclear and employees use considerable individual judgment in deciding what to do, the resulting diversity of knowledge transfer choices may not be in the organization’s best interest (Sitkin & Brodt, 2006). For instance, employees who need to know information to do their jobs effectively may not be getting it whereas those who do not need it may have easy access. Moreover, organization members who witness such diversity of knowledge transfer

20

JANE WEBSTER ET AL.

behaviors may impute a variety of motives to their co-workers, some of which may be uncharitable and create disruptions in the work environment. Perhaps the most notable consequence of secrecy norms for organizations, however, is the recognition that individuals rely on secrecy norms as a powerful informal organization mechanisms to help them deal with knowledge hiding and hoarding. People naturally look to their social environment (Gabbert, Memon, & Allan, 2003; Gilbert, Giesler, & Morris, 1995) and thus secrecy norms will play a large part in the choices they make about what to reveal or conceal. Despite their prevalence, these norms are not a panacea and organizations that rely exclusively on a system of norms to manage knowledge withholding will undoubtedly encounter significant challenges (Brodt & Sitkin, 2006). To avoid relying on norms, some organizations create formal policies and contracts, such as intellectual property contracts or IPs (Hannah, 2004). These IPs specify the organization’s claims and rights over knowledge/ products that are created by employees. These contracts are intended to protect the interests of the organization by giving the organization the right to find, collect, store, and disseminate knowledge that their employees create. Yet, this has not solved many of the sharing problems and in some cases employees still hoard information, even when threatened and facing severe penalties. The resource or political view fails to account for why employees hoard or hide knowledge even in the face of severe costs; however, a territoriality lens helps shed light on why employees, who willingly sign intellectual property contracts before anything has been created, are resistant once they have actually developed an idea. These contracts, and the companies who develop them, do not recognize the employee’s considerable investment of the self in the idea and the high emotional and psychological attachment to the knowledge. Even when sharing ideas would be in the best interest of the organization, individuals may feel it is their right to choose when or if to share them. As organizations are beginning to realize, creating knowledge is one thing, sharing it is quite another. Unfortunately, the more that norms and formal policies dictate knowledge sharing, and the more pressure that is created for such cooperation, the worse this problem may become. In fact, resistance to sharing may increase when one feels others are demanding it. Ruback and colleagues (Ruback & Juieng, 1997; Ruback & Snow, 1993; Ruback, Pape, & Doriot, 1989) found that people actually spend longer with an object (i.e., a parking space, telephone booth) if they sense that others are waiting to use the object. This is consistent with work on psychological reactance theory (Brehm, 1966).


21

Reactance theory suggests that people react against threats against their control of an object or others’ attempts to influence them. People respond to these perceived influence attempts by engaging in the form of behavior that is threatened by the loss. Thus, if one feels their right to choose a particular object is threatened they will in fact choose that object. Extrapolating this effect to knowledge withholding in the workplace, individuals may be even more likely to hide their knowledge and ideas when pressured to share than when left to make their own choices. In these cases, the organization may not even be aware of the problem, which makes it that much more difficult to manage. Recognizing the underlying motives is an important step to correctly identifying and then subsequently dealing with knowledge withholding. As noted above, employees may engage in withholding knowledge to protect from, or in response to, infringement. For example, withholding knowledge could be an example of anticipatory defending that is driven by fears that others will take or use the idea in ways that the originator does not intend. Employees who suddenly refuse to participate, quit, or try to sabotage an idea could reflect reactionary defenses indicating that the knowledge worker believes the firm has encroached on his or her territory or property. An alternate problem with respect to knowledge withholding lies in knowledge receiving. In addition to being less willing to share their knowledge, employees may not be willing to fully listen to or incorporate others’ knowledge. Stronger feelings of ownership lead to overvaluing the object (Reb & Connolly, 2007). This could lead to not considering the full range of ideas as in team brainstorming processes. People may also resist others’ ideas because it affects their territory (knowledge). People may not put in the effort to understand knowledge because it is not their creation. All of these reasons create serious impediments to organizational creativity.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS Organizations need to attend to and address the dynamics of knowledge withholding in the workplace, including employees’ motivations for doing so. Although organizations can do little to alter individual characteristics that lead to the withholding of knowledge, they can create a climate for sharing characterized by trust, reciprocity, and fairness, and scrutinize the nature of their policies and procedures in guiding employees’ decisions about sharing. They can also manage territorial issues by accentuating and

22

JANE WEBSTER ET AL.

harnessing the benefits of territoriality, while mitigating and eliminating some of its negative repercussions.

Implications for Human Resource Practices For Human Resource (HR) managers, one implication is clear: organizations cannot rely on technological solutions alone to manage the transfer of knowledge. Indeed, without addressing the underlying interpersonal and organizational issues, employee knowledge is likely to remain hidden. In this section, we describe some implications for HR practice, namely selection, training, and assessment, treatment of specific occupational groups, managing territoriality, and implementing KM systems. Selection, training, and assessment. Although knowledge withholding is a recently defined organizational phenomenon, initial research findings do offer some potential suggestions for reducing the incidence of knowledge hiding and increasing the transfer of knowledge. For example, certain personality characteristics such as Machiavellianism5 may lead to increased knowledge hiding. Selection systems designed to screen for extreme scorers may help to reduce the number of employees who are predisposed to hide their knowledge. Further, training in the use of KM systems must be supported by real expectations that organizational knowledge will be shared; that is, there needs to be a culture of sharing in the organization. As with any organizational initiative, employees must perceive that senior management supports knowledge sharing and is promoting a climate for sharing within the organization. There is some evidence that management support for knowledge sharing can predict a positive knowledge sharing culture (Connelly & Kelloway, 2003). Thus, efforts to inhibit knowledge hiding should include an emphasis on communicating to employees that knowledge hiding is actively discouraged, and demonstrating that knowledge sharing is indeed rewarded. For example, performance evaluation criteria could include assessment and recognition of desired knowledge sharing behaviors. However, as described further below, HR professionals need to ensure that these evaluation criteria would reward employees for their quality of sharing, rather than for their quantity of sharing. As such, organizations should consider how knowledge hiding behaviors might be assessed as part of performance evaluation systems, and how knowledge sharing behaviors could be recognized and rewarded, both formally as well as informally. All of these actions should contribute to increased perceptions


23

of fairness and trust, and set the stage for the effective transfer of knowledge within organizations. Nonstandard workers. The above discussion builds primarily upon research that has been conducted in the context of permanent employees who perform their work during a regular and predictable schedule, for a single employer. However, given the dramatic growth of alternative employment contracts and outsourcing (e.g., Gilley & Rasheed, 2000; Kalleberg, Reynolds, & Marsden, 2003; Mauno, Kinnunen, Ma¨kikangas, & Na¨tti, 2005), it is important to consider how these ‘‘nonstandard workers’’ may experience knowledge withholding. Although the stereotypical temporary worker or contractor performs only routine tasks, such as clerical work or data entry, nonstandard workers are actually frequently employed in the IT sector and other knowledge-based occupations (Ang & Slaughter, 2001). In fact, the decision to go outside the boundaries of the organization is often driven by a need for access to knowledge or skills not currently found within the organization itself (Connelly & Gallagher, 2006). The use of nonstandard workers to add new knowledge to the firm, however, assumes that these workers will freely share their knowledge with their permanent or full-time counterparts and that knowledge will be shared freely with them. This is not necessarily the case. There are several factors that encourage nonstandard workers to hide their knowledge. For example, because of concerns about job security, nonstandard workers may hide their knowledge in order to encourage their employers to engage their services for a longer period of time. Although not exploring knowledge hiding directly, Sias, Kramer, and Jenkins (1997) suggest that contingent workers are less likely to share knowledge compared to newly-hired permanent employees. Further, social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) suggests that individuals maintain a positive self image by categorizing themselves into ‘‘in-groups’’ whose members are perceived more favorably than the members of the ‘‘out-groups.’’ Differences in employment status alone may cause contingent workers to be categorized in an ‘‘out group.’’ Several other theories may also help to explain why permanent employees and nonstandard workers’ withhold knowledge with each other. For example, Broschak and Davis-Blake (2006) use Blalock’s (1967) theory of majority–minority group relations to explain why contact between minority (nonstandard) and majority (standard) group members is likely to evoke negative reactions towards minority group members, especially those who are more tangibly different from the majority (i.e., temporary workers rather than part-time employees).

24

JANE WEBSTER ET AL.

Because of these tensions, permanent employees may not necessarily be receptive to nonstandard workers who endeavor to share their knowledge. Although nonstandard workers’ knowledge may be valuable, it is not necessarily valued (Castaneda, 2003). As shown in the experimental research using ‘‘hidden profiles,’’ group members have a tendency to discount or ignore information that is provided by newcomers or outsiders (e.g., Kane, Argote, & Levine, 2005). Managers seeking to encourage knowledge transfer among nonstandard and regular employees have several options: they can focus on the socio-emotional factors that might present barriers to effective knowledge exchange, or they can focus on offering appropriate incentives. Unfortunately, initiatives that would presumably encourage nonstandard workers to share their knowledge with regular employees (e.g., increasing social interaction and trust, reducing status distinctions and social norms that promote hiding) may risk blurring the distinction between workers’ nonstandard or permanent status within the organization, with the attendant legal consequences. The remaining approach, offering incentives for knowledge exchange, for example by renewing the contracts of nonstandard workers who avoid hiding their knowledge, assumes that such behaviors can be readily measured. Managing territoriality. Our chapter also highlights another factor in knowledge withholding that HR professionals need to recognize and address. Given that employees create ideas and are thus likely to be very territorial over the knowledge they create, how can organizations encourage the transfer of ideas? First it is important to recognize the underlying motives for knowledge withholding and then to identify the ways in which people withhold knowledge. It is unlikely that organizations can reduce people’s feelings of ownership over knowledge, and as we have suggested, doing this would be erroneous. There are a variety of benefits from owning including greater commitment and effort. Instead, organizations and managers need to work on strategies that capitalize on employees’ natural tendencies toward territoriality and ownership of their creations. In fact, feelings of ownership can be used to decrease the hoarding of knowledge. As Hannah (2004) found, to the extent that employees see knowledge generation as part of their identity in the organization, they are more likely to share. This transfers the focus of identity from the idea to the job or role within the organization. To the extent that employees identify with the role (i.e., knowledge generator) they are more committed to the role and thus to generating more knowledge. Although they may still see the ideas as their own, their needs will be met by sharing (not hoarding) the information. As Constant et al. (1994, p. 406)


25

have argued, ‘‘sharing expertise, in addition to (or instead of) imposing personal costs, may produce significant personal benefits to the information provider because it permits self-expression and demonstrates self-consistency. Therefore, even in the absence of strong organizational norms of ownership or prosocial attitudes, people may be inclined to share expertise.’’ Further, organizational ownership does not imply a reduction in an individual’s sense of ownership; in fact, employees do not view organizational and individual ownership of knowledge as a zero-sum game but as reinforcing each other (Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2001). A second strategy that organizations could use in some cases is to allow the knowledge worker who generates the idea to take control of the project. This would encourage employees to share ideas because sharing does not mean losing control of their ideas. Moreover, the originator is likely to work the hardest to see the idea through. The one downside, as noted above, is that employees may be less receptive to others’ inputs on their ideas. A third strategy that would address some of the territoriality issues raised above is to develop a culture of sharing. Organizations could encourage people to view objects (in our case knowledge) as secondary territories belonging to the group (organization) (Brown & Menkhoff, forthcoming). The individual may still have strong feelings of personal ownership but not the exclusivity that comes with feelings of territoriality (i.e., this is mine and not yours but rather this is mine and ours). In support of this, Constant et al. (1994, p. 400) found that a belief in organizational ownership of work encourages and mediates attitudes favoring sharing. Implementing knowledge management systems. KM systems are ‘‘a class of information systems applied to managing organizational knowledge. That is, they are IT-based systems developed to support and enhance the organizational processes of knowledge creation, storage/retrieval, transfer, and application’’ (Alavi & Leidner, 2001, p. 114). KM systems are generally classified into one of two major types, either a repository of codified knowledge (such as ‘‘lessons learned’’) or a network support linking employees (such as knowledge directories) (Alavi, 2000). Technologies such as intranet knowledge repositories (e.g., FAQs, wikis, databases) and communication tools (e.g., email, IM, phones) have been identified as possible KM solutions. Whatever the type of KM system, it is not hard to find instances of KM failures in organizations (Hart & Warne, 2006; Nidumolu, Subramani, & Aldrich, 2001). In these instances, employees may share knowledge with KM systems for incentive reasons, resulting in too much information of questionable quality and information overload (Garud & Kumaraswamy, 2005). In fact, some research has demonstrated

26

JANE WEBSTER ET AL.

that anticipation of extrinsic rewards results in negative attitudes towards knowledge sharing in organizations (Bock, Zmud, Kim, & Lee, 2005). Thus, KM systems may end up destroying the free flow of tacit knowledge, resulting in calculative social exchanges rather than spontaneous ones (Garud & Kumaraswamy, 2005). When considering how KM systems can best be used so as to facilitate knowledge transfer among employees, it is important for HR professionals to go beyond the traditional perspective of implementing systems that are technically reliable and easy to use and to consider the important lessons outlined above concerning withholding knowledge. For example, if we extend the notion of the benefits of territoriality, we can suggest that KM systems be designed to help employees identify with their roles as knowledge generators. Some research supports this notion: Wasko and Faraj (2005) found that one reason that employees contribute knowledge to KM systems is to enhance their professional reputations.

Implications for Research Although withholding knowledge was highlighted as an important area of study over a century ago (Simmel, 1906), it did not develop into a mainstream area of organizational study (Erickson, 1979). Researchers are just beginning to highlight its importance now (e.g., Greenberg, Brinsfield, & Edwards, 2007). Some of the topics that warrant future research lie at the core of the issues we have discussed. For example, further explorations of the drivers behind knowledge withholding and attributions made by targets of this behavior are needed. Early on we distinguished between two types of knowledge withholding, knowledge hoarding or the accumulation of knowledge, and knowledge hiding or concealing knowledge requested by another. Unfortunately, little empirical research investigates their similarities and differences (Connelly et al., 2008) and we are not aware of any research that explores whether they have differing influences and outcomes. This is a key area for future research. Another vital issue to address is the prevalence of withholding behaviors. It is important to understand the degree to which the various mechanisms that people hide and hoard are practiced. We are aware of only one study that examines the incidence of hiding behaviors in organizations (Connelly et al., 2008) and none that explore the prevalence of hoarding. We believe that territoriality and feelings of ownership may be very central, even though to this point they have not received much attention. Yet, it is


27

important to understand the many ways and the incidence rates of such behaviors before adopting strategies to deal with them. Therefore an important study with significant implications for both practice and research is an overview of the prevalence of the different hiding and hoarding strategies. Withholding behaviors are difficult to study. Fortunately, recently developed measures of knowledge hiding behaviors (Connelly et al., 2006), ownership (Avey, Avolio, Crossley, & Luthans, 2007; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004), territorial behaviors (Brown, forthcoming), and perceptions of territoriality (Avey et al., 2007) are now available. For example, these could be used to link ownership of ideas with withholding behaviors and to study strategies knowledge workers use to prevent others from accessing or modifying their knowledge territories. As described earlier, little research has examined the relationship between individual differences and withholding behaviors. We suggested several to investigate, including Machiavellianism, goal orientation, power, and status. Another potential individual characteristic relates to territoriality, and whether it might be innate, or more malleable. Research on secrecy norms points out the importance of studying how employees come to understand and make sense of organization policies and procedures, as well as the multitude of associated social norms. Research on knowledge hoarding and hiding might benefit from having a better understanding of the relationship between formal policies and procedures and the social norms that attempt to clarify and situate them. What organizational and managerial factors contribute to the emergence of secrecy norms, particularly ones that muddy rather than clarify choices for employees? We know that managers’ words and deeds are salient to employees and can often compensate for HR policies and procedures that are perceived to be unfair (Korsgaard, Brodt, & Whitener, 2002); perhaps multi-level research at the intersection of the organization and manager– subordinate relationships could help clarify the dynamics of knowledge hiding and withholding. More generally, research on cross-cultural issues around sharing (e.g., Ford & Chan, 2003) needs to be extended to knowledge withholding in organizations. We can also draw inspiration from recent work in the area of organizational justice. Recent studies have explored the impact of injustice on observers (i.e., coworkers, customers) (Bies & Greenberg, 2002; Skarlicki, Ellard, & Kelln, 1998; Skarlicki & Kulik, 2005). This extends the research beyond the dyadic relationship between employees and coworkers or employees and managers. In our own case, it is important

28

JANE WEBSTER ET AL.

to consider how knowledge withholding affects the relationships between the hider and those who are directly and indirectly affected. Furthermore, future research should also consider potential contagion. If people perceive someone as being resistant to transferring knowledge, they may develop negative attitudes towards this ‘‘hider,’’ which may in turn affect their own decisions to transfer knowledge to this person. A related issue that needs to be addressed is the extent to which withholding behaviors are correctly identified as such. Certainly the reactions by others may change depending on the meaning they ascribe to the knowledge worker’s behavior. Perhaps there may be more sympathy when the motivation is seen as ownership rather than political gain. Thus we call for studies from multiple perspectives, including the employee withholding the knowledge as well as those from whom the knowledge is withheld. Of course in some cases such as not telling this would be difficult to know from an outsider’s view. The validity of these studies will be increased to the extent that longitudinal designs can be employed. Multiple measurements in time can be used to assess possible contagion effects. Longitudinal studies also allow stronger inferences of causality. Experiments allow the strongest statements of causality but in many cases lack external validity. Nevertheless, they may be useful for assessing people’s resistance to others modifying their ideas. Experiments can also be useful to explore people’s willingness to share information. For example, people could be given bits of information and measured to see how much or what they share. Recognizing that cross-sectional studies still dominate the organizational research landscape there are still several steps that can be taken to address the major concerns. An important issue that researchers need to be concerned with is the tendency towards socially desirable responding. Obviously assurances of anonymity are important. One strategy that may have success is web based reporting. The online approach increases anonymity, which is especially valuable for gathering sensitive information (see Bampton & Cowton, 2002, for a discussion on the pros and cons of this approach). In converse to all of the interest and activity directed toward promoting knowledge management is the harsh reality that not all organizational employees will share their knowledge freely. In this chapter, we have described the phenomenon of knowledge withholding and identified how it manifests itself in organizations (e.g., knowledge hoarding and knowledge hiding). There is much still to learn about knowledge withholding and how and when to discourage these behaviors in organizations. Some potential

29


answers have emerged but research in this area is still in its infancy. It is hoped that this paper will serve as a guiding framework for future studies aimed at exploring knowledge withholding, identifying ways to mitigate it, and building processes for enhancing knowledge sharing.

NOTES 1. The term knowledge transfer is frequently used to describe the movement of knowledge across organizational boundaries (e.g., Mowery, Oxley, & Silverman, 1996); here, we focus on transfer between individuals, consistent with others, such as Lichtenstein and Hunter (2006) and Szulanski (1996). 2. Previous research has examined behaviors targeted at organizations, such as silence and voice (Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003; Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003), which are outside the scope of this chapter. We focus on individual behaviors that are targeted at other individuals (consistent with knowledge sharing research focused on dyads: e.g., Quigley, Tesluk, Locke, & Bartol, 2007). Further, in contrast to withholding knowledge, lying includes a broader set of behaviors that may include actively altering information (Thompson, Iacovou, & Smith, 2005). Unlike the larger concept of lying, withholding knowledge does not necessarily violate legal or moral standards. Indeed, employees may engage in knowledge hiding in order to protect confidential information (e.g., medical records). 3. There are several similarly related constructs in the wider organizational behavior literature, such as organizational citizenship behaviors and counterproductive work behaviors (Kelloway, Loughlin, Barling, & Nault, 2002) and positive and negative affectivity (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). In each case, the related variables are negatively yet highly correlated, but should be considered separately in order to be understood more fully. 4. This can be a matter of formal policy but more often takes the form of an informal norm. 5. Machiavellianism is highly situation specific, however, and may only become relevant if circumstances warrant. This suggests that HR professionals examine not only the applicant but the interaction between the applicant and the work environment in factoring Machiavellianism into their selection decisions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank Dianne Ford, Belle Rose Ragins, Catherine Shea, Sandy Staples, and John Trougakos for comments on an earlier version of this chapter, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Arts Research Board at McMaster University, and the Monieson Centre at Queen’s University for financial support.

30

JANE WEBSTER ET AL.

REFERENCES Alavi, M. (2000). Managing organizational knowledge. In: R. W. Zmud (Ed.), Framing the domains of IT management: Projecting the future through the past (pp. 85–104). Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex Education Resources. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25, 107–136. Altman, I. (1975). Environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory, and crowding. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Altman, I., & Chemers, M. M. (1980). Culture and environment. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Andriessen, J. H. E. (2006). To share or not to share, that is the question. Conditions for the willingness to share knowledge. Working paper #IS-2006-02, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands. Ang, S., & Slaughter, S. A. (2001). Work outcomes and job design for contract versus permanent information systems professionals on software development teams. MIS Quarterly, 25, 321–350. Ashforth, B. (1989). The experience of powerlessness in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 207–242. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39. Avey, J. B., Avolio, B., Crossley, C. D., & Luthans, F. (2007). Psychological ownership: Theoretical extensions, measurement and relation to work outcomes. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, August, 2007, Philadelphia, PA. Bampton, R., & Cowton, C. J. (2002). The E-Interview. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 3(2). Accessed June, 2008 from http://217.160.35.246/fqs-texte/2-02/2-02bamptoncowton-e.htm Bartol, K., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, 19, 64–76. Barzel, Y. (1989). Economic analysis of property rights. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Becker, F. D., & Mayo, C. (1971). Delineating personal space and territoriality. Environment and Behavior, 3, 375–381. Beggan, J. K., & Brown, E. M. (1994). Association as a psychological justification for ownership. Journal of Psychology, 128, 365–380. Bies, R. J., & Greenberg, J. (2002). Justice, culture, and corporate image: The swoosh, the sweatshops, and the sway of public opinion. In: M. J. Gannon & K. L. Newman (Eds), Handbook of cross-cultural management (pp. 320–334). Oxford, England: Blackwell. Blakely, G. L., Andrews, M. C., & Moorman, R. H. (2005). The moderating effects of equity sensitivity on the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20, 259–273. Blalock, H. M. (1967). Toward a theory of minority-group relations. New York: Wiley. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29, 87–112. Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.


31

Brodt, S. & Sitkin, S. (2006). The paradox of secrecy norms in organizations: When norms are incomplete, incompatible, and overly-inclusive. Working paper. Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Broschak, J. P., & Davis-Blake, A. (2006). Mixing standard work and nonstandard deals: The consequences of heterogeneity in employment arrangements. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 371–393. Brown, B. B. (1987). Territoriality. In: D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds), Handbook of environmental psychology 2 (pp. 505–531). New York, NY: Wiley. Brown, B. B., & Altman, I. (1981). Territoriality and residential crime: A conceptual framework. In: P. J. Brantingham & P. L. Brantingham (Eds), Environmental criminology (pp. 55–76). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Brown, B. B., & Werner, C. M. (1985). Social cohesiveness, territoriality, and holiday decorations: The influence of cul-de-sacs. Environment and Behavior, 17, 539–565. Brown, G. (forthcoming). How to claim your corner at work: Assessing employee territoriality. Journal of Environmental Psychology. Brown, G., Lawrence, T. B., & Robinson, S. L. (2005). Territoriality in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30, 577–594. Brown, G., & Robinson, S. L. (2007). The dysfunction of territoriality in organizations. In: Janice Langan-Fox, Cary L. Cooper, & Richard Klimoski (Eds), Research companion to the dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and symptoms. Cheltenham, UK: Edgar Elward Publishing. Browning, L. D., & Folger, R. (1994). Communication under conditions of litigation risk: A grounded theory of plausible deniability. In: S. B. Sitkin & R. J. Bies (Eds), The legalistic organization (pp. 251–280). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Caldwell, F. (2004). Enterprises are challenged to benefit from ‘‘grass-roots’’ KM. Gartner Research, #G00123834. Castaneda, L. W. (2003). The impact of contingent workers on knowledge flow within the firm. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, Seattle, WA. Clegg, S. R. (1989). Frameworks of power. London: Sage. Connelly, C. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2003). Predictors of employees’ perceptions of knowledge sharing cultures. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 24, 294–301. Connelly, C. E., & Gallagher, D. G. (2006). Independent and dependent contracting: Meaning and implications. Human Resources Management Review, 16, 95–106. Connelly, C. E., Zweig, D., & Webster, J. (2006). Knowledge hiding in organizations. Paper presented as part of the symposium ‘‘Don’t say a word: Explaining employees’ withholding of knowledge from coworkers’’ (David Zweig, Chair), the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, Dallas, TX. Connelly, C. E., Zweig, D., Webster, J., & Trougakos, J. (2008). Don’t say a word: Knowledge hiding in organizations. Working paper, McMaster University, Canada. Constant, D., Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1994). What’s mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes about information sharing. Information Systems Research, 5, 400–421. Czikszentmihalyi, M., & Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981). The meaning of things. New York: Cambridge University Press. Davenport, T. H. (1997). Known evils: Common pitfalls of knowledge management. CIO (June 15), 34–36.

32

JANE WEBSTER ET AL.

DePaulo, B., & Kashy, D. (1998). Everyday lies in close and casual relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 63–79. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629–636. Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Donovan, M. A., Drasgow, F., & Munson, L. J. (1998). The perceptions of fair interpersonal treatment scale: Development and validation of a measure of interpersonal treatment in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 683–692. Dupre, K. E., Inness, M., Connelly, C. E., Barling, J., & Hoption, C. (2006). Workplace aggression among teenage part-time employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 987–997. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational approaches affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048. Dyson-Hudson, R., & Smith, E. A. (1978). Human territoriality: An ecological reassessment. American Anthropologist, 80, 21–41. Edney, J. J. (1975). Territoriality and control: A field experiment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 1108–1115. Edney, J. J. (1976). Human territories: Comment on functional properties. Environment and Behavior, 8, 31–47. Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461–475. Ellis, A. L., & Riggle, E. D. B. (1995). The relation of job satisfaction and degree of openness about one’s sexual orientation for lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 30, 75–85. Erickson, P. E. (1979). The role of secrecy in complex organizations: From norms of rationality to norms of distrust. Cornell Journal of Social Relations, 14(2), 121–138. Esser, A. H. (1968). Dominance hierarchy and clinical course of psychiatrically hospitalized boys. Child Development, 39, 147–157. Esser, A. H., Chamberlain, A. S., Chapple, E. D., & Kline, N. S. (1965). Territoriality of patients on a research ward. In: J. Wortis (Ed.), Recent Advances in Biological Psychiatry (vol. 7, pp. 36–44). New York: Plenum Press. Fehr, B., Samsom, D., & Paulhus, D. L. (1992). The construct of Machiavellianism: Twenty years later. In: C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 9, pp. 77–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Fine, G. A. (1998). Morel tales: The culture of mushrooming. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ford, D. P., & Chan, Y. E. (2003). Knowledge sharing in a multi-cultural setting: A case study. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1, 11–27. Ford, D. P., & Staples, D. S. (2006). Perceived value of knowledge: The potential informer’s perception. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4, 3–16. French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The basis of social power. In: D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research. Gabbert, F., Memon, A., & Allan, K. (2003). Memory conformity: Can eyewitnesses influence each other’s memories for an event? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 533–543. Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2005). Vicious and virtuous circles in the management of knowledge: The case of Infosys Technologies. MIS Quarterly, 29, 9–33.


33

Gilbert, D., Giesler, R., & Morris, K. (1995). When comparisons arise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 227–236. Gilley, K. M., & Rasheed, A. (2000). Making more by doing less: An analysis of outsourcing and its effects on firm performance. Journal of Management, 26, 763–790. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday. Gray, P. H. (2001). The impact of knowledge repositories on power and control in the workplace. Information Technology & People, 14(4), 368–384. Greenberg, J., Brinsfield, C. T., & Edwards, M. S. (2007, April). Silence as deviant work behavior: The peril of words unspoken. In: M. Mitchell (Chair), Understanding dark organizational behavior: Investigating motives of workplace deviance. Symposium presented at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York, NY. Grover, S. (1993). Project management as a language game. Industrial ManagementþData Systems, 93, 10–19. Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Hannah, D. R. (2004). Who owns ideas? An investigation of employee’s beliefs about the legal ownership of ideas. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13, 216–230. Hannah, D. R. (2005). Should I keep a secret? The effects of trade secret protection procedures on employees’ obligations to protect trade secrets. Organization Science, 16, 71–84. Hart, D., & Warne, L. (2006). Comparing cultural and political perspectives of data, information, and knowledge sharing in organizations. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(2), 1–15. Hislop, D. (2002). Mission impossible? Communicating and sharing knowledge via information technology. Journal of Information Technology, 17, 165–177. Hislop, D. (2003). Linking human resource management and knowledge management via commitment: A review and research agenda. Employee Relations, 25, 182–202. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Staples, D. S. (2001). Exploring perceptions of organizational ownership of information and expertise. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18, 151–183. Jordan, K. M., & Deluty, R. H. (1998). Coming out for lesbian women: Its relation to anxiety, positive affectivity, self-esteem, and social support. Journal of Homosexuality, 35, 41–63. Kalleberg, A. L., Reynolds, J., & Marsden, P. V. (2003). Externalizing employment: Flexible staffing arrangements in US organizations. Social Science Research, 32, 525–552. Kane, A. A., Argote, L., & Levine, J. M. (2005). Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 56–71. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1966). The social psychology of organizations (2nd edition). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Kelloway, E. K., & Barling, J. (2000). Knowledge work as organizational behavior. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2, 287–304. Kelloway, E. K., Loughlin, C., Barling, J., & Nault, A. (2002). Self-reported counterproductive behaviors and organizational citizenship behaviors: Separate but related constructs. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 143–151. Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284. Knapp, M. L. (1978). Non-verbal communication in human interaction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

34

JANE WEBSTER ET AL.

Korsgaard, M. A., Brodt, S., & Whitener, E. (2002). Trust in the face of conflict: The role of managerial trustworthy behavior, and organizational context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 312–319. Lane, J. D., & Wegner, D. M. (1995). The cognitive consequences of secrecy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 237–253. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Lawler, E. E. (1971). Pay and organizational effectiveness: A psychological view. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Levine, J. (1989). Reactions to opinion deviance in small groups. In: P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 187–231). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23, 438–459. Liao, H., Joshi, A., & Chuang, A. (2004). Sticking out like a sore thumb: Employee dissimilarity and deviance at work. Personnel Psychology, 57, 969–1000. Lichtenstein, S., & Hunter, A. (2006). Toward a receiver-based theory of knowledge sharing. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(1), 24–40. Lyman, S. M., & Scott, M. B. (1967). Territoriality: A neglected sociological dimension. Social Problems, 15, 236–249. Martiny, M. (1998). Knowledge management at HP consulting. Organizational Dynamics, 27(2), 71–77. Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., Ma¨kikangas, A., & Na¨tti, J. (2005). Psychological consequences of fixed-term employment and perceived job insecurity among health care staff. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 209–237. McAllister, D. J., Lewicki, R. J., & Bies, R. J. (2000). Hardball: How trust and distrust interact to predict hard influence tactics use. Unpublished paper. Georgetown University, Washington, DC. Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1453–1476. Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., Silverman, B. S. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, Special Issue: Knowledge and the Firm, 17(Winter), 77–91. Nidumolu, S., Subramani, M., & Aldrich, A. (2001). Situated learning and the situated knowledge web: Exploring the ground beneath knowledge management. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18, 115–150. Nonaka, I. (1991). The Knowledge-Creating Company. Harvard Business Review, 69, 96–104. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 14–37. Nuttin, J. M., Jr. (1987). Affective consequences of mere ownership: The name letter effect in twelve European Languages. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 381–402. O’Neill, B. S., & Adya, M. (2006). Knowledge sharing and the psychological contract. Managing knowledge workers across different stages of employment. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(4), 411–436. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Boston, MA: Pitman Publishing, Inc. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.


35

Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26, 298–310. Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Review of General Psychology, 7, 84–107. Polyani, M. (1969). Knowing and being. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Pruitt, D., & Carnevale, P. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks-Cole. Prusak, L., & Cohen, D. (2001). How to invest in social capital. Harvard Business Review (June), 86–93. Quigley, N., Tesluk, P. E., Locke, E. A., & Bartol, K. M. (2007). A multilevel investigation of the motivational mechanisms underlying knowledge sharing and performance. Organization Science, 18(1), 71–88. Ragins, B. R. (2008). Disclosure disconnects: Antecedents and consequences of disclosing invisible stigmas across life domains. Academy of Management Review, 33, 194–215. Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences of perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1244–1261. Ragins, B. R., Cornwell, J. M., & Miller, J. S. (2003). Heterosexism in the workplace: Do race and gender matter? Group & Organization Management, 28, 45–74. Ragins, B. R., Singh, R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2007). Making the invisible visible: Fear and disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1103–1118. Reb, J., & Connolly, T. (2007). Possession, feelings of ownership and the endowment effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 107–114. Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scale. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572. Rodgers, L., & Freundlich, F. (1998). Nothing measured, nothing gained. Employee ownership report, XVIII, No. 1. Oakland, CA: National Center for Employee Ownership (http:// www.ownershipassociates.com/nothingm.html). Ruback, R. B., & Juieng, D. (1997). Territorial defense in parking lots: Retaliation against waiting drivers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(9), 821–834. Ruback, R. B., & Snow, J. N. (1993). Territoriality and nonconscious racism at water fountains: Intruders and drinkers (Blacks and Whites) are affected by race. Environment and Behavior, 25, 250–267. Ruback, R. B., Pape, K. D., & Doriot, P. (1989). Waiting for a phone: Intrusion on callers leads to territorial defense. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 232–241. Rudmin, F. W., & Berry, J. W. (1987). Semantics of ownership: A free-recall study of property. The Psychological Record, 37, 257–268. Schneider, B. E. (1987). Coming out at work: Bridging the private/public gap. Work & Occupations, 13, 43–487. Seiter, J. S., Bruschke, J., & Bai, C. (2002). The acceptability of deception as a function of perceiver’s culture, deceiver’s intention, and deceiver-deceived relationship. Western Journal of Communication, 66, 158–180. Sias, P. M., Kramer, M. W., & Jenkins, E. (1997). A comparison of the communication behaviors of temporary employees and new hires. Communication Research, 24, 731–754. Simmel, G. (1906). The sociology of secrecy and of secret societies. The American Journal of Sociology, 11(4), 441–498. Simmel, G. (1950). The sociology of George Simmel. New York: Free Press.

36

JANE WEBSTER ET AL.

Sitkin (1986). Secrecy in organizations: The determinants of secrecy behavior among engineers in three Silicon Valley semiconductor firms. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Sitkin, S., & Brodt, S. (2006). Coping with the paradox of secrecy norms in organizations. Working paper, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic remedies for trust/distrust. Organization Science, 4(3), 365–390. Skarlicki, D. P., Ellard, J. H., & Kelln, B. R. C. (1998). Third-party perceptions of a layoff: Procedural, derogation, and retributive aspects of justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 119–127. Skarlicki, D. P., & Kulik, C. (2005). Third party’s reactions to employee mistreatment: A justice perspective. In: B. Staw & R. Kramer (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 183–230). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Smith, H. W. (1983). Estimated crowding capacity, time, and territorial markers: A crossnational test. Sociological Inquiry, 53, 95–99. Snowden, D. (2002). Complex acts of knowing: Paradox and descriptive self-awareness. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6, 100–111. Sommer, R. (1974). Tight spaces: Hard architecture and how to humanize it. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Steele, F. (1970). The open organization: The impact of secrecy and disclosure on people and organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Stevenson, R. B. (1980). Corporations and information: Secrecy, access and disclosure. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Sundstrom, E., & Sundstrom, M. G. (1986). Work places: The psychology of the physical environment in offices and factories. New York: Cambridge University Press. Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27–43. Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 9–27. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Thompson, R., Iacovou, C., & Smith, H. J. (2005). Distortion in information systems project status reporting. Administrative Sciences Association of Canada Annual Conference. Toronto, Ontario. Tsoukas, H. (1996). The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist approach. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 11–25. Tuan, Y. (1980). The significance of artifact. Geographic Review, 70, 462–472. Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1359–1392. Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organization citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 439–459. Van Maanen, J., & Pentland, B. T. (1994). Cops and auditors: The rhetoric of records. In: S. Sitkin & B. Bies (Eds), The legalistic organization (pp. 53–90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wasko, M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29, 35–58.


37

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. Williams, K., Govan, C., Croker, V., Tynam, D., Cruickshank, M., & Lam, A. (2002). Investigations into differences between social- and cyberostracism. Group dynamics: Theory, research and practice, 6, 65–77. Wittenbaum, G., Hollingshead, A., & Botero, I. (2004). From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: Moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Communication Monographs, 71(3), 286–310. Wollman, N., Kelley, B. M., & Bordens, K. S. (1994). Environmental and intrapersonal predictors of reactions to potential territorial intrusions in the workplace. Environment and Behavior, 26, 179–194. Zweig, D., & Webster, J. (2004). Validation of a three-factor measure of goal orientation. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 36, 232–243.

JOB AND TEAM DESIGN: TOWARD A MORE INTEGRATIVE CONCEPTUALIZATION OF WORK DESIGN Frederick P. Morgeson and Stephen E. Humphrey ABSTRACT The design of work has been shown to influence a host of attitudinal, behavioral, cognitive, well-being, and organizational outcomes. Despite its clear importance, scholarly interest in the topic has diminished over the past 20 years. Fortunately, a recent body of research has sought to reenergize research into work design by expanding our view of work design from a narrow set of motivational work features to one that incorporates broader social and contextual elements. In this chapter we seek to review the literature on work design and develop a framework that integrates both job and team design research. We begin by briefly reviewing the history of work design in order to provide needed historical context and illustrate the evolution of job and team design. We then define work design, particularly as it relates to incorporating job and team design elements and transitioning from a view of jobs to one of roles. Following this, we identify a comprehensive set of work design outcomes that provide the basis for understanding the impact that different work characteristics can have on individuals and teams. We then offer an extended discussion of our integrative model of work design, which Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Volume 27, 39–91 Copyright r 2008 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0742-7301/doi:10.1016/S0742-7301(08)27002-7

39

40

FREDERICK P. MORGESON AND STEPHEN E. HUMPHREY

includes three sources of work characteristics (task, social, and contextual) and the worker characteristics implied by these characteristics. Having defined the range of work and worker characteristics, we then discuss some of the fit and composition issues that arise when designing work, as well as discuss the mechanisms through which the work characteristics have their impact on outcomes. Finally, we discuss research into informal forms of work design.

INTRODUCTION You can’t take pride any more. You remember when a guy could point to a house he built, how many logs he stacked. He built it and he was proud of it y It’s hard to take pride in a bridge you’re never gonna cross, in a door you’re never gonna open. You’re mass-producing things and you never see the end result of it. (Mike Lefevre, Steelworker, p. xxxi) It’s a pretty good day layin’ stone or brick. Not tiring. Anything you like to do isn’t tiresome. It’s hard work; stone is heavy. At the same time, you get interested in what you’re doing and you usually fight the clock the other way. You’re not lookin’ for quittin’. You’re wondering you haven’t got enough done and it’s almost quittin’ time. (Carl Murray Bates, Stonemason, p. xlvi) My job as a reservationist was very routine, computerized. I hated it with a passion. Getting sick in the morning, going to work feeling, Oh, my God! I’ve got to go to work. (Beryl Simpson, Airline Reservationist, p. 49) I like my work because you’re not stuck in a lousy office. And I think people are very interesting. You get beautiful material y Pay’s good, I got no complaints y I plan staying in it a long time. It’s a very important field. This is one industry that affects all industries. Security. It’s also very helpful to the police department. We supply the police with a hell of a lot of information. (Anthony Ruggiero, Industrial Investigator, p. 144)

These quotes from Studs Terkel’s (1972) classic book Working provides a vivid first-person account of how the nature of work can have a profound effect on ones life. Whether it is a lack of connection to the results of ones work, meaning derived from the work itself, overly routinized work, or social relationships and interactions at work, the design of work plays a central role in numerous aspects of individual, team, and organizational functioning. In fact, considerable research has shown that how work is designed can influence a host of attitudinal, behavioral, cognitive, wellbeing, and organizational outcomes (see Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007 for a meta-analytic summary).

Job and Team Design

41

There are at least three reasons why work design is so important. First, work is a central part of life and society. Individuals will typically spend half their waking lives involved in some form of formal work and as the quotes that began this chapter attest, the nature of the work individuals perform has a tremendous impact on their lives. As Warr and Wall (1975, p. 11) put it, ‘‘y work will always matter to people y they will always love it and hate it, and that society, through changing the nature of some work, should help people to love it more than hate it.’’ Work design is a structured approach to understanding what people love and hate about work as well as what can be done to make them love it more. Second, there are trends in the general business environment that have a considerable impact on the nature of work. Manufacturing industries were once predominant, where work was marked by the creation of products through routinized, simplified jobs. Although such work remains, the last 20 years has witnessed the growth of service- and knowledge-oriented industries, where the key to success is providing high quality service and creating innovative products, often by using self-managing teams of workers. In addition, the forces of globalization and technological advancement have affected all industries, leading some to suggest that the competitive environment has been ‘‘flattened’’ (Friedman, 2005). In such an environment, collaboration, adaptability, and problem-solving become particularly important. Partly in response to these changes, work structures have continued to evolve, with the widespread introduction of team-based and virtual forms of work. Work design research and practice is at the forefront of understanding how these changes affect work-related outcomes. Third, work design has considerable practical significance to managers, workers, and organizations. Unlike many other organizational aspects such as culture and structure, managers actually have considerable influence and control over work design choices. Managers are often charged with designing or redesigning the work of their subordinates, often needing to customize the work designs to the particular competencies of individual workers. For their part, workers are also proactive ‘‘crafters’’ of their work roles, often dynamically redesigning their own work to suit their particular capabilities, interests, or situation. Finally, organizations are concerned about achieving a potentially diverse set of outcomes, including productivity, cost control, innovation, learning, and worker morale. Research on work design provides insight into how to design work to achieve these different outcomes. For example, recent research has shown that work design features such as empowerment and teams can have a positive impact on organizational productivity (Birdi et al., in press).

42


Despite the clear importance of work design, scholarly interest in the topic has diminished over the past 20 years, leading some to conclude that ‘‘y this decline in research may be appropriate. After twenty years of research, a clear picture of the psychological and behavioral effects of job design has emerged’’ (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999, p. 262). Although one of the most popular topics of research in the 1970s and 1980s, relatively little scholarly research has been published in the ‘‘top-tier’’ journals since the late 1980s (Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). This literature has shown some recent signs of life, however, through the empirical work of Parker and colleagues (Parker, 1998, 2003; Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 1997; Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006), Morgeson and colleagues (Humphrey et al., 2007; Morgeson & Campion, 2002; Morgeson, Delaney-Klinger, & Hemingway, 2005; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006; Morgeson, Johnson, Medsker, Campion, & Mumford, 2006) and Grant and colleagues (Grant, 2007; Grant, 2008a; Grant et al., 2007). This more recent research has sought to reenergize research into work design by expanding our view of work design from a narrow set of motivational work features to one that incorporates broader social and contextual elements. In this chapter we seek to add to the momentum by reviewing the literature on work design and developing a framework that integrates across job and team design research. As we will show, the literatures on job and team design have evolved somewhat independently. This is unfortunate, as these literatures share many of the same constructs, suggesting a similarity that is not represented in current models of work design. The structure of the chapter is as follows. First, we begin by briefly reviewing the history of work design. This not only provides needed historical context, it also helps us better understand the evolution of job and team design. Second, we define work design, particularly as it relates to incorporating job and team design elements and transitioning from a view of jobs to one of roles. Third, we identify a comprehensive set of work design outcomes that provides the basis for understanding the impact that different work characteristics can have on individuals and teams. Fourth, we offer an extended discussion of our integrative model of work design. This includes three sources of work characteristics (task, social, and contextual) and the worker characteristics implied by these characteristics. In this discussion, we have chosen to focus primarily on contemporary research and the latest developments in the field. Readers who are interested in an extended discussion of particular studies should consult more comprehensive reviews of the topic (e.g., Morgeson & Campion, 2003; Parker & Wall, 1998). Fifth, having defined the range of

Job and Team Design

43

work and worker characteristics, we discuss some of the fit and composition issues that arise when designing work. Sixth, we discuss the mechanisms through which the work characteristics have their impact on outcomes. Seventh, we discuss research into informal forms of work design.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF WORK DESIGN The history of work design extends back to the advent of organized work. For example, the ancient Egyptians had specialized roles throughout their society as well as for building the great pyramids (Andreu, 1997). Similarly, for thousands of years armies have been marked by specialized and differentiated work roles. In addition, when work is performed for the first time, there are numerous decisions that are made concerning what should be performed, the sequencing of activities, and the extent to which the work will be dependent on others. Thus, even prior to a systematic study of work, issues of work design were commonplace. Principles of work design were first codified in the writings of Smith (1776) and Babbage (1835), who forwarded the notion of a division of labor and articulated how such a division could enhance productivity and efficiency. Taylor’s (1911) ‘‘Scientific Management’’ took the concept of a division of labor and created techniques designed to specialize and simplify work down to its most basic elements (see also Gilbreth, 1911). This approach assumes that management would divide and design work and then create mechanisms (e.g., supervision, incentive systems) to shape and control worker behavior. Techniques such as these were used to revolutionize automobile manufacturing, with its first widespread application in 1913 at Ford Motor Company’s Highland Park, Michigan assembly line. Despite the numerous drawbacks to such an approach (e.g., simplified, repetitive, boring jobs), many of its principles still underlie modern work design (Wall & Martin, 1987). The next major influence in work design research was the research conducted between 1924 and 1933 at the Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne Works in Cicero, Illinois (Homans, 1950; Mayo, 1946; Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939). Although this research made a number of important discoveries, key for work design research was the discovery that work-related social relationships are important and can exert a powerful effect on work attitudes and behavior. This included social relationships arising from informal work groups as well as supervisory

44


relationships. As such, this represents the first recognition that there might be considerable value in designing work around small groups or teams. The power of autonomous group work designs was confirmed in research conducted at the Tavistock Institute in Great Britain. Trist and Bamforth (1951) examined how changes from small group-structured ‘‘hand-got’’ coal mining methods to more independent individual ‘‘long wall’’ methods affected worker reactions. They found that when the social environment was altered via changes in work design, workers reacted negatively and productivity declined. The resulting socio-technical systems theory that arose from this research offered a general set of design principles which suggested that optimal organizational functioning would occur only if the social and technical systems were designed to fit each other (Trist, 1981). One of the key practical recommendations of socio-technical systems theory was the use of autonomous work groups (Parker & Wall, 1998). The next major innovation in work design research was the motivator– hygiene theory (also known as two-factor theory) of Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1959). According to Herzberg et al., the world of work can be divided into two sets of factors. Motivators were intrinsic features of the work itself that were thought to lead to job satisfaction. Hygiene factors were features of the broader work context (i.e., extrinsic to the work) and included such things as supervisory and peer relationships and working conditions. If not satisfied, these hygiene factors were thought to lead to job dissatisfaction. Thus, this theory suggested that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction have different causes. Although this theory has been subject to numerous criticisms (see Locke, 1976 for a summary), it had a profound influence on subsequent work design research. By promoting a vision of two worlds of work and claiming that only intrinsic job features were important, it set the course for the next 40 years of work design research as primarily one of focusing on a limited set of intrinsic job features. As such, it led many to ignore the potential role of interpersonal relationships and work context, two factors shown to be important by prior research. The next major influence in work design research was job characteristics theory (Hackman & Oldham, 1975, 1976). Although earlier research in this tradition incorporated social elements [e.g., Turner & Lawrence (1965) identified required social interaction and opportunities for social interaction and Hackman & Lawler (1971) identified dealing with others and friendship opportunities], the model articulated by Hackman and Oldham focused on the five intrinsic job characteristics of autonomy, skill variety, task identity, task significance, and feedback from the job itself. As such, it ignored the social environment and broader work context. Job characteristics theory has

45

Job and Team Design

been extremely influential and has dominated the area of work design. Despite the many problems associated with job characteristics theory (Roberts & Glick, 1981), it has been suggested that, ‘‘the job characteristics model has rapidly become the dominant paradigm in organization psychology’s search for the alchemist’s stone’’ (Evans, Kiggundu, & House, 1979, p. 354). Although Griffin (1982, p. 43) warned that ‘‘researchers and managers must take care to not stop searching for better, more complete, and more accurate formulations for task design and to continually evaluate current formulations, such as job characteristics theory’’ and subsequent research expanded the focus beyond job characteristics theory’s narrow set of intrinsic job features (e.g., Campion, 1988; Campion & Thayer, 1985; Karasek, 1979; Kiggundu, 1981; Sims, Szilagyi, & Keller, 1976), it is only relatively recently that a comprehensive account of intrinsic and extrinsic work design elements have been offered (Morgeson & Campion, 2003; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Beginning with a wide range of work design features provides an initial framework through which the job and team design literatures can be integrated. Prior to articulating this framework, however, we first need to develop a definition of work design that spans the job and team domains.

DEFINING WORK DESIGN To provide a comprehensive definition of work design, we first must understand something about jobs and teams and the elements of each. A job can be defined as a collection of related positions that are similar in terms of the work performed or goals they serve for the organization, where a position is the ‘‘set of duties, tasks, activities, and elements able to be performed by a single worker’’ (Brannick, Levine, & Morgeson, 2007, p. 7). Job design thus refers to the ‘‘content and structure of jobs that employees perform’’ (Oldham, 1996, p. 33). Defined in such a way, the focus of job design research tends to be on the tasks and activities that job incumbents perform on a dayto-day basis. Implicit in this definition is that certain worker characteristics are necessary for successful job performance and that there must be a match between these characteristics and the job requirements, although such worker characteristics have rarely been articulated. A team can be defined as ‘‘(a) two or more individuals who (b) socially interact (face-to-face or, increasingly, virtually) (c) possess one or more common goals; (d) are brought together to perform organizationally

46


relevant tasks; (e) exhibit interdependencies with respect to workflow, goals, and outcomes; (f) have different roles and responsibilities; and (g) are together embedded in an encompassing organizational system, with boundaries and linkages to the broader system context and task environment’’ (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006, p. 79). Team design thus refers to the specification of team membership; definition and structure of a team’s tasks, goals, and members’ roles; and the creation of organizational support for the team and link to the broader organizational context (Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993; Guzzo & Dickson, 1996; Hackman, 1987; Perretti & Negro, 2006; Stewart, 2006). Common across these definitions is a focus on the work performed (in terms of tasks and activities). Historically, this is where research on job design has ended. But a narrow focus on jobs and the work itself only considers the relationship between worker and product (Davis & Taylor, 1979). This focus may have made sense when jobs were routine and independent, where standardization and efficiency were the primary work design goals. But as the research reviewed earlier suggests, there exist a set of social and contextual aspects of work that can have a profound influence on worker outcomes. In addition, changes in technology and working arrangements, ‘‘has demanded closer coordination and cooperation among workers and has therefore brought the social component into prominence’’ (Davis & Taylor, 1979, p. xiv). This focus is explicit in team design, and many team design principles apply even if the focus is individually oriented jobs. One of the challenges associated with broadening the focus in work design revolves around an exclusive focus on jobs. Although jobs are important organizing units, they focus primarily on activities related to the creation or transformation of work products. A more flexible organizing unit is that of a role, which is ‘‘a set of rules and expectations from the employee as well as the organization, which direct all his occupational or ‘at work’ behavior’’ (Davis & Taylor, p. xiii). There are at least three advantages to focusing on roles. First, role requirements can emerge from the task, social, physical, and organizational environment. As such, it can accommodate the task domain (which is the focus of jobs) as well as the wider social, physical, and organizational context. Second, a role focus enables the consideration of prescribed or established task elements as well as discretionary or emergent task elements (Davis, 1979; Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991). Thus, instead of focusing solely on formal job requirements, a role perspective enables consideration of work elements that may emerge idiosyncratically or informally. Third, a focus on roles provides more explicit recognition that

Job and Team Design

47

certain individuals are a better fit for different roles and that considering the composition of workers in a given work unit is important. Given these definitions and distinctions, work design can be defined as the study, creation, and modification of the composition, content, structure, and environment within which jobs and roles are enacted. As such, it concerns who is doing the work, what is done at work, the interrelationship of different work elements, and the interplay of job and role enactment with the broader task, social, physical, and organizational context. This definition encompasses both job and team design and forms the foundation for the rest of the chapter.

WORK DESIGN OUTCOMES To begin to understand work design, it is important to articulate the different outcomes that may result from different work design features. One of the major limitations in work design research has been the tendency to focus on a relatively small set of outcomes (Parker & Wall, 1998). Our goal is to expand this set, even though there may not have been work design research investigating some of these outcomes. In describing a more complete range of work design outcomes, we seek to link various work design features to these different outcomes. This is important, in part, because research has demonstrated that the positive effects of one outcome often result in negative effects on other outcomes (Campion, Mumford, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005). For example, high levels of skill variety are typically related to high levels of satisfaction, which is a positive outcome. Unfortunately, high levels of skill variety also are typically related to high compensation requirements, which is a negative outcome (at least from the organization’s perspective; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Similarly, creating a team-based reward often has positive effects on the quality of work, but can also hurt work quantity (Beersma et al., 2003). Work design outcomes can be grouped into the major categories of attitudinal, behavioral, cognitive, well-being, and organizational (Table 1). Attitudinal outcomes reflect feelings about the job, team, and organization. This includes various aspects of satisfaction (e.g., job and team satisfaction; Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Warr, Cook, & Wall, 1979), team viability (the extent to which team members wish to stay together as a team; Hackman, 1987; Sundstrom, DeMeuse, & Futrell, 1990), organizational commitment (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002), job involvement

Behavioral

Performance Satisfaction Quantity Job Supervisor – Efficiency Coworker – Amount Quality Team Growth – Innovation Team viability – Accuracy Organizational – Customer service Citizenship commitment Job involvement – Interpersonal Internal work – Organizational Counterproductive behaviors motivation Absenteeism Turnover

Attitudinal

Table 1.

Anxiety Stress Emotions Burnout/exhaustion Overload Work/family Occupational safety Physical health

Learning/development Role perceptions Role ambiguity Role conflict Role breadth self-efficacy Turnover intentions Team identification

Well-Being

Cognitive

Key Work Design Outcomes.

Compensation Training demands Skill requirements Organizational performance

Organizational

48 FREDERICK P. MORGESON AND STEPHEN E. HUMPHREY

Job and Team Design

49

(Brown, 1996), internal work motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000), and goal striving (Kanfer, 1990). Behavioral outcomes reflect the specific actions of workers or teams. Traditionally, the focus has been on the quantity (e.g., efficiency or amount) and quality (e.g., innovation, accuracy, and customer service) of performance. However, innovation (Axtell et al., 2000), creativity (Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004), and citizenship behaviors are all important. Citizenship behaviors (i.e., behaviors designed to benefit other individuals or the organization) have been alternately labeled organizational citizenship behavior (Organ, 1988), contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993), and extra-role behavior (Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995) includes factors such as helping (Grant et al., 2007), voice (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998), and the suggestion of improvements (Axtell et al., 2000). Other key behavioral outcomes include counterproductive behaviors (i.e., intentional employee behavior that is harmful to the legitimate interests of an organization; Dalal, 2005) and the withdrawal behaviors of absenteeism (Scott & Taylor, 1985) and turnover (Cotton & Tuttle, 1986). Cognitive outcomes reflect the thoughts about or developmental outcomes of the work. This includes a set of role perceptions such as role ambiguity (i.e., confusion on their role responsibilities; Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970), role conflict (i.e., the intersection between multiple roles on specific task and social responsibilities; Rizzo et al., 1970), role breadth selfefficacy (i.e., confidence that one can perform a role that is broader than specified technical requirements; Parker, 1998), flexible role orientation (i.e., the focus and ownership of the components of one’s role that span any given job; Parker et al., 1997), and team-member exchange (Seers, Petty, & Cashman, 1995). Other cognitive outcomes include learning and development (Edmondson, Bohmer, & Pisano, 2001), turnover intentions (Lee & Mitchell, 1994), and team identification (Van der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005). Well-being outcomes reflect the physiological and psychological reactions to a job. This includes such reactions as anxiety (e.g., Sprigg, Stride, Wall, Holman, & Smith, 2007), stress (e.g., Sprigg & Jackson, 2006), positive and negative emotions (e.g., Fisher, 2002; Saavedra & Kwun, 2000), burnout or exhaustion (e.g., Bakker, Demerouti, & Euwema, 2005; Le Blanc, Hox, Schaufeli, Taris, & Peeters, 2007; Van Yperen & Hagedoorn, 2003), work/ family issues (e.g., Valcour, 2007), occupational safety (e.g., Barling, Kelloway, & Iverson, 2003), and physical health outcomes such as coronary heart disease events (e.g., Aboa-E´boule´ et al., 2007). Finally, organizational outcomes reflect the specific requirements needed for effective performance of a job that must be supplied by the Human

50


Resource department as well as organizational level performance. This category of work outcomes includes worker compensation (Cordery & Parker, in press; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006), training demands (Campion, 1988; Campion & Thayer, 1985), skill requirements (Cappelli & Rogovsky, 1994), and organizational performance (Ketchen et al., 1997).

OVERVIEW OF INTEGRATIVE MODEL OF WORK DESIGN In order to develop a model of work design that integrates job and team design, we began by identifying the source of various work and worker characteristics. Our interest was in identifying the origin of different work and worker characteristics. We identified task, social, and contextual sources. Because these sources are independent of the target of investigation (i.e., jobs or teams), the sources can serve as an integrative mechanism across jobs and teams. Task characteristics arise from the task environment or the work itself. Social characteristics emerge from the social environment or when working with others. Contextual characteristics emerge from the physical and organizational environment. Specific work and worker characteristics for each of these sources is summarized in Table 2 and discussed in greater detail below. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the task environment is nested within a larger social environment and the social environment is nested within a broader physical and organizational environment. Thus, each of these environments contains work characteristics that influence one another. As such, a complete understanding of work design requires a consideration of all the different sources. In the sections that follow, we first define each of the work characteristics, and then selectively review the relationships between these work characteristics and the outcomes. Where possible, we sought to focus on metaanalytically estimated effect sizes. We then discuss the different worker characteristics and their implications for work design research. Task Characteristics Work Characteristics Work characteristics arising from the task environment have been studied more than the work characteristics arising from other sources. This is primarily attributable to the traditional focus of job design on the work

51

Job and Team Design

Table 2.

Work and Worker Characteristics by Source. Task

Work Characteristics

Worker Characteristics

Autonomy Task variety Significance Task identity Feedback from the job Job complexity Information processing Problem solving Skill variety Specialization

Job knowledge Technical skill Self-management skill Cognitive ability Task experience Proactive personality

Social

Contextual

Social support Feedback from others Interdependence Between jobs/roles Between teams Feedback, rewards, and goals Interaction outside the organization

Personality Conscientiousness Agreeableness Extraversion Team experience Teamwork KSAs

Physical ability Propensity to trust Organizational experience

Physical demands Work conditions Ergonomics Equipment use Boundary spanning Organizational support Reward systems Information systems Training systems Resource availability Managerial support Virtuality of work Consequence of failure

itself. In addition, the range of task characteristics previously studied has been somewhat limited, largely owing to the influence of job characteristics theory. Recent research has demonstrated that there are other important task characteristics (Humphrey et al., 2007; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). In this section, we first discuss the various work characteristics arising from the task environment. We then discuss how several characteristics of the workers impact work outcomes. Autonomy is ‘‘the freedom an individual has in carrying out work’’ (Humphrey et al., 2007, p. 1333). Concepts of empowerment and selfmanagement are highly similar but of more recent origin. Of the numerous work characteristics at the task level, autonomy is both the most studied and generally the most influential. Meta-analytic results (Humphrey et al., 2007) have shown that, in terms of behavioral outcomes, autonomy has been

52


Contextual Characteristics that arise from the physical and organizational environment

Social Characteristics that arise from the social environment

Task Characteristics that arise from the task environment

Fig. 1.

Integrative Framework of Work Design.

linked to both objective (r ¼ .17) and subjective (r ¼ .23) performance ratings, as well as absenteeism (r ¼ .15). It has been shown to reduce a number of well-being outcomes, including anxiety (r ¼ .10), stress (r ¼ .23), and burnout (r ¼ .30), as well as reducing cognitive outcomes such as role ambiguity (r ¼ .23) and role conflict (r ¼ .17). In addition, autonomy is related to a number of attitudinal outcomes, such as job satisfaction (r ¼ .48), organizational commitment (r ¼ .37), and internal work motivation (r ¼ .38). Interestingly, research has noted that the autonomy construct is multifaceted (Breaugh, 1985; Jackson, Wall, Martin, & Davids, 1993; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006), reflecting the ability to control the timing of work (i.e., work scheduling autonomy), the ability to control how work is performed (i.e., work methods autonomy), and the ability to make decisions at work (i.e., decision-making autonomy). Research has noted that although these dimensions are related to each other (r’s ranging from .63 to .71; Humphrey et al., 2007), they have unique predictive validity. For example, in terms of job satisfaction, work scheduling autonomy has a relatively small impact (r ¼ .11), work methods autonomy has a moderate impact (r ¼ .34), and

Job and Team Design

53

decision-making autonomy has a large impact (r ¼ .58). Future research is needed to determine how these facets of autonomy differentially impact numerous other work outcomes, as well as how they interact with each other to influence work. In addition to this form of individual worker control, group autonomy has also been defined as ‘‘the amount of control and discretion the group is allowed in carrying out tasks assigned by the organization’’ (Langfred, 2000, p. 567). Team self-management has been found to be positively related to such performance behaviors as effort, intra-group cooperation, communication, and peer helping behaviors (Bailey, 1998; Campion et al., 1993; Campion, Papper, & Medsker, 1996; Stewart, 2006), as well as attitudinal outcomes such as commitment and satisfaction (Janz, Colquitt, & Noe, 1997). Skill variety reflects the extent to which various skills are needed for job performance (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Because using numerous skills in the course of work is challenging, having skill variety in a job is thought to engage workers (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Meta-analytic results (Humphrey et al., 2007) have demonstrated that skill variety does have the expected effect, keeping workers motivated (r ¼ .42), involved (r ¼ .30) and satisfied (r ¼ .42). Skill variety, however, has not had a consistent impact on other work outcomes, with the confidence intervals in metaanalytic findings crossing zero for all behavioral, cognitive, and well-being outcomes. Task identity is the extent to which an individual completes an entire piece of work (Sims et al., 1976). According to job characteristics theory, being able to start and finish a piece of work (such as building a product or completing a unit of service) instills pride in the worker and keeps the worker motivated (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Compared to the other work characteristics at the task level, the meta-analytic effect sizes (Humphrey et al., 2007) of the relationship between task identity and attitudinal outcomes are relatively smaller in magnitude. For example, task identity is related to worker motivation (r ¼ .26), organizational commitment (r ¼ .19), job satisfaction (r ¼ .31), and subjective (but not objective) performance evaluations (r ¼ .17). In addition, task identity is related to lower absenteeism (r ¼ –.09), role conflict (r ¼ –.17), and burnout (r ¼ –.28). Task significance reflects the degree to which a job impacts the lives of others, both inside and outside the organization (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Although an original component of job characteristics theory, recent scholarly discussions have highlighted the increasing importance of task significance in today’s society (Grant, 2008b) due to employees’ interest in impacting others’ lives through their work (Turban & Greening, 1997).

54


In light of this argument, recent research (e.g., Grant, 2007, 2008a; Grant et al., 2007) has suggested that the moderate impact of task significance demonstrated in meta-analytic examinations (Humphrey et al., 2007) may be due to the dampening effect of certain other work characteristics (see our discussion of configurations of work characteristic in a later section). Nonetheless, meta-analytic results (Humphrey et al., 2007) have demonstrated that task significance impacts numerous attitudinal outcomes such as job satisfaction (r ¼ .41), organizational commitment (r ¼ .44), and work motivation (r ¼ .45). In addition, subjective performance ratings have been shown to be positively related (r ¼ .23), whereas burnout (r ¼ .29) has been shown to be negatively related to task significance. Interestingly, although task significance generally has a positive or neutral effect on work outcomes, it has been linked fairly strongly to perceptions of overload (r ¼ .38), suggesting that the ‘‘weight’’ of what workers are doing runs the risk of crushing them. Feedback from the job is ‘‘the extent to which a job imparts information about an individuals’ performance’’ (Humphrey et al., 2007, p. 1333). This work characteristic is reflected in a worker’s ability to receive timely and accurate feedback directly from the job he or she is performing. Timely feedback is central to motivational theories such as goal setting (Locke & Latham, 1990), as workers need this information in order to mark their performance in relation to the goals they hold, and modify their behaviors as appropriate (Vancouver, 2005). Not surprisingly, meta-analytic results (Humphrey et al., 2007) have demonstrated that feedback from the job has a strong positive relationship with numerous attitudinal work outcomes, including work motivation (r ¼ .42) and job satisfaction (r ¼ .43). It is also negatively related to role ambiguity (r ¼ .43) and role conflict (r ¼ –.32), as well as various wellbeing outcomes such as anxiety (r ¼ .32). Task variety is the extent to which employees are required to execute a large variety of tasks on the job (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006; Sims et al., 1976). Essentially, task variety reflects the concept of task enlargement (Herzberg, 1968; Lawler, 1969), such that being able to perform numerous tasks on the job is expected to make a job more interesting and enjoyable (Sims et al., 1976). Meta-analytic findings (Humphrey et al., 2007) have demonstrated that task variety is positively related to job satisfaction (r ¼ .46) subjective ratings of performance (r ¼ .23), and perceptions of job overload (r ¼ .38). Of the work characteristics discussed thus far, however, task variety has the least amount of empirical research examining its impact on work outcomes. Given its relationship with overload, it is likely that task

Job and Team Design

55

variety will have a negative impact on well-being, in part because such horizontal loading can often overwhelm individuals. Job complexity is ‘‘the extent to which a job is multifaceted and difficult to perform’’ (Humphrey et al., 2007, p. 1335). Complexity (or its inverse, job simplicity; Campion, 1988) has often been considered a mechanistic aspect of work, such that it is no different than any other principle of scientific management (Taylor, 1911). Following these principles, researchers argued and found that simplifying work led to efficiency gains (Edwards, Scully, & Brtek, 2000). Yet recent research has demonstrated that job complexity is a meaningfully distinct construct (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006) that has varied effects on work outcomes. The meta-analytic results of Humphrey et al. (2007) show that higher complexity is related to higher subjective performance ratings (r ¼ .37), standing in contrast to the typical efficiency suggestions oriented around simplifying work. Complexity is also related to higher levels of job satisfaction (r ¼ .37) and job involvement (r ¼ .24), but is also strongly related to perceptions of overload (r ¼ .59). Information processing is ‘‘the extent to which a job necessitates an incumbent to focus on and manage information’’ (Humphrey et al., 2007, p. 1335). Wall and colleagues (Martin & Wall, 1989; Wall & Jackson, 1995; Wall, Jackson, & Mullarkey, 1995) suggested that information monitoring and processing differs across jobs, such that knowledge requirements increase in the context of jobs that have high information processing requirements. There is limited research on the impact of information processing demands, but research suggests that information processing increases perceptions of job satisfaction (r ¼ .38), but also increasing compensation (r ¼ .37) and training requirements (r ¼ .33) on the job. Given its natural relationship to the ability requirements of work, information processing is likely to lead to greater learning and development in the job, but also to increase the skill requirements needed. Specialization is the degree to which specialized tasks are performed, or specialized knowledge and skill is needed for job performance (Campion, 1988; Edwards et al., 2000; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Specialization is fundamentally different than skill or task variety, in that those constructs reflect the breadth of activities and skills involved in a job, whereas specialization reflects the depth of knowledge and skill required in job completion. Although there is only limited research on the effects of specialization (e.g., Campion, 1988; Edwards et al., 2000; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006), there is reason to believe that specialization may be positively related with both job satisfaction and efficiency (Morgeson &

56


Campion, 2002), potentially helping to resolve one of the central tradeoffs in work design. Problem solving is the extent to which unique ideas or solutions are needed in a job (Jackson et al., 1993; Wall et al., 1995). Problem solving is similar to the idea of creativity, in that it reflects the notions of idea generation, dealing with nonroutine problems, and correcting errors (Jackson et al., 1993; Wall, Corbett, Clegg, Jackson, & Martin, 1990). Again, there is only limited research on this work characteristic. However, there is reason to suspect that it is both satisfying and demanding for the worker (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Worker Characteristics The work design literature has typically ignored the characteristics workers must possess to perform the roles implied by the work characteristics discussed above. Yet, research in other domains would suggest that a range of knowledge, skills, abilities and other characteristics (KSAOs) are needed. For example, job knowledge and technical skills would appear to be essential for if one were to effectively work in a job or team with high levels of autonomy or considerable task variety. Job knowledge reflects the declarative and procedural knowledge of the job and role whereas technical skill reflects the capability to perform the work itself. Given their relationships to job performance (Borman, White, & Dorsey, 1995; Schmidt, Hunter, & Outerbridge, 1986), job knowledge and technical skill provides needed resources for job or role holders in carrying out their formal and informal responsibilities. In addition, technical skill is directly related to the performance of work tasks (Morgeson, Reider, & Campion, 2005), and thus reflects a capacity to perform the broader roles that might be implied by many of the task work characteristics. Another skill that is likely important for many of the task characteristics is self-management skill. Self-management skills reflect competence in selfsetting goals, monitoring progress toward goal accomplishment, and providing self-administered consequences for goal attainment or failure (Manz & Sims, 1980). Such skill would be particularly important in jobs or roles with high degrees of autonomy, as workers often lack direct day-today supervision. Although this is consistent with the socio-technical principle of controlling variance at its source, there are numerous risks associated with worker autonomy in the absence of self-management skills. Burr and Cordery (2001) offer some evidence for the importance of selfmanagement skills. They found that self-management efficacy mediated the relationship between work method control (a form of autonomy) and task

Job and Team Design

57

motivation. Because self-efficacy beliefs are anchored in an individual’s actual skill level (Gist & Mitchell, 1992), such beliefs likely reflect past successful self-management experiences. This suggests that the positive influence of autonomy is due, in part, to the possession of self-management skills. Cognitive ability reflects a person’s general level of intelligence (Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). As such, it is a general resource that enables the effective performance of many of the work characteristics arising from the task environment (Morgeson et al., 2005). For example, job complexity, information processing, and problem solving all have an underlying cognitive ability component (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). In addition, workers with high levels of cognitive ability will likely perform better in jobs or roles with high levels of skill variety or when jobs or roles require high levels of specialization. Finally, team research has demonstrated that cognitive ability is positively related to team performance (r ¼ .27; Bell, 2007). As Tesluk and Jacobs (1998) noted, work experience is a multi-faceted construct. For the task characteristics, the most appropriate aspect of experience is task experience. Task experience reflects the amount of time spent performing a task and the number of times the task has been performed (Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). Task experience confers job knowledge, and thus provides workers with the ability to effectively enact their task responsibilities. Therefore, it is likely that having higher task experience will help workers perform successfully in jobs that have high task variety (i.e., breadth of knowledge) or specialization (i.e., depth of knowledge). Proactive personality reflects a disposition towards making anticipatory changes (Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999a). Proactive people identify opportunities for change and act on these opportunities (Bateman & Crant, 1993), use this proactivity to better clarify their role responsibilities (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007), and ultimately are more satisfied (Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 1999b) and successful in their careers (Seibert et al., 1999a). Being proactive is likely most important in jobs with autonomy, as proactive people will be able to ‘‘initiate better ways of doing core tasks’’ (Griffin et al., 2007, p. 330). Consistent with this reasoning, Parker and Sprigg (1999) showed that employees with a proactive personality responded positively to jobs that were high in job demands and autonomy, whereas for more passive individuals, job demands were strongly associated with strain regardless of the degree of autonomy. Parker and Sprigg concluded that proactive employees make use of the autonomy afforded them to manage demands, whereas more passive individuals do not take advantage of this opportunity.

58


Finally, need for achievement represents an individual need to maintain high standards and accomplish difficult tasks (Jackson, 1974; McClelland, 1965). Workers with high levels of need for achievement set more challenging goals (Phillips & Gully, 1997), which can produce higher levels of performance (Locke & Latham, 1990). In jobs with more autonomy, skill variety, task identity, and feedback from the job, having a higher need for achievement can be beneficial for job performance (Steers & Spencer, 1977). In particular, having both high need for achievement and high autonomy (specifically decision-making autonomy) can produce higher levels of performance by providing both the individual motivation and workprovided flexibility to challenge oneself. However, need for achievement may also have negative implications for well-being outcomes. Continually striving for high achievement can produce stress and burnout, particularly if workers do not have autonomy or are performing simplistic, repetitive tasks.

Social Characteristics Work Characteristics Although early research on job design identified the social environment as an important factor in work behaviors and reactions to work (e.g., Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Trist & Bamforth, 1951; Turner & Lawrence, 1965), most work design research has neglected these factors1 (Humphrey et al., 2007). Similarly, research on team design has generally focused on characteristics of workers (Bell, 2007), but neglected to study the tasks and roles team members perform (Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991). In this section, we first discuss several characteristics of work that emerge when working with others. We next discuss the unique worker characteristic constructs that arise in the social context. Social support is the extent to which there are opportunities for assistance and advice from supervisors and coworkers (Karasek, 1979; Karasek et al., 1998; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006; Sims et al., 1976). As noted earlier, ideas of social support and the opportunity to develop friendship opportunities at work was one of the key insights to emerge from the Hawthorne studies. One of the primary ways in which social support has been discussed is as a buffer against negative work outcomes (Johnson & Hall, 1988; Karasek et al., 1998). Not surprisingly, social support has been linked to several well being outcomes (Watson, 1988), with meta-analytic results demonstrating a small to moderate negative relationship to wellbeing outcomes (Humphrey et al., 2007).

Job and Team Design

59

Social support has been shown to impact a wide range of other worker outcomes. For example, meta-analytic results (Humphrey et al., 2007) have demonstrated that social support is strongly related to organizational commitment (r ¼ .82) and job satisfaction (r ¼ .56). Moreover, social support is one the most influential job characteristics in terms of turnover intentions (r ¼ .34). Social support also is related to role perception outcomes, including role ambiguity (r ¼ .32) and role conflict (r ¼ .31). Although Hackman and Lawler (1971) did not find a significant relationship between aspects of social support (i.e., friendship opportunities at work) and work motivation, later research has shown a small positive relationship (Hamm & Adams, 1992; Okebukola & Ogunniyi, 1984; Slavin, 1992, 1995). These results suggest that social support may be uniquely suited to manage some of the tradeoffs in work outcomes that result from increases to the task-level characteristics (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). This is consistent with the notion that social support provides a buffer against jobrelated demands (Karasek & Theorell, 1990). Feedback from others is the extent to which members of the organization provide information about job performance (Humphrey et al., 2007; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Although research has often considered feedback from others and feedback from the job as subsets of the same construct, recent research has shown that they are only moderately related (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). This is likely due to the different sources of feedback (as feedback from others arises from the social context, rather than from the task itself). For example, one can imagine jobs where there is considerable information arising from the work, but relatively little from the social environment (i.e., coworkers or supervisors). Accurate and timely feedback from supervisors and coworkers plays a central role in a number of organizational theories. For example, role theory suggests that supervisory feedback helps establish and clarify role expectations, resulting in reduced role ambiguity (Biddle, 1979; Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964). Similarly, Feedback Intervention Theory (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996) suggests that although feedback sometimes has a negative impact on performance, under many conditions it has a positive influence on performance. Given the importance of feedback, it is not surprising that that well being, satisfaction, and work motivation are improved when it is provided (Humphrey et al., 2007). This is likely due to the satisfaction derived from knowing what is expected on oneself, rather than having to behave in a feedback-free environment. Not surprisingly, feedback from others is negatively related to turnover intentions (Humphrey et al., 2007).

60


Interdependence is a multi-faceted construct reflecting the extent to which workers are connected to others (Saavedra, Earley, & Van Dyne, 1993). It is composed of task interdependence (i.e., the extent to which a job requires others, and other jobs require the output of the focal job; Kiggundu, 1981), goal interdependence (i.e., extent to which an individual’s goals overlap with another person’s; Saavedra et al., 1993), and outcome interdependence (i.e., the extent to which a worker’s feedback and rewards are linked to another person’s; Campion et al., 1993; Guzzo & Shea, 1992). Essentially, interdependence creates a more complex and motivating job (Kiggundu, 1983) by requiring interaction between multiple organizational members. There are multiple forms of interdependence. First, task interdependence can be received or initiated (Kiggundu, 1983). That is, the outputs of your job can serve as the input for another’s job (initiated) or the outputs of another’s job can serve as the input for your job (received). The pattern of received and initiated interdependence creates more complex forms of interdependence. For example, sequential interdependence (Thompson, 1967) represents a unidirectional flow of initiated and received interdependence, such that the output of person A’s role serves as the input of person B’s role, the output of which serves as the input for person C’s role, and so on. In contrast, intensive interdependence reflects the flow of behaviors both to and from all members of a team (Van de Ven, Delbecq, & Koenig, 1976). Second, interdependence may be between jobs or roles, teams, or even larger collectives (e.g., organizations). If interdependence exists solely between jobs or roles, the workers who share the interdependence are often thought of as a team. If interdependence resides between teams or any two collectives, a range of boundary spanning issues arise (Ancona & Caldwell, 1988), which introduces a host of complex coordination, information sharing, and resource exchange issues. Interdependence has been shown to influence worker outcomes in a number of ways. Its primary impact is upon the attitudinal outcomes of satisfaction and organizational commitment (Campion et al., 1993; Humphrey et al., 2007). Moreover, because interdependence often implies competition with out-group members, motivation is generally increased in high interdependence situations (Tauer & Harackiewicz, 2004). Because task interdependence necessitates higher levels of implicit coordination (Rico, Sańchez-Manzanares, Gil, & Gibson, 2008), it is not surprising that workers often perceive higher levels of overload in high interdependence situations (Humphrey et al., 2007). Yet, because task interdependence results in more communication between workers, tacit job knowledge is often transferred

Job and Team Design

61

(Berman, Down, & Hill, 2002), resulting in higher job performance (Humphrey et al., 2007; Saavedra et al., 1993). Interaction outside the organization reflects the extent to which an individual must interact and communicate with people external to the organization (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006; Sims et al., 1976; Stone & Gueutal, 1985). Whereas the other social characteristics primarily focus on information exchange and interaction within an organization, interaction outside the organization represents communication between an organizational member and a non-organizational member. As such, this work characteristic involves the broader social environment. For example, sales and service jobs often have a high level of interaction outside the organization because their jobs explicitly require them to interact with others. In contrast to the other social characteristics, less is known about the impact of interaction outside the organization on worker outcomes. Some preliminary work has shown that it is related to higher job satisfaction (Humphrey et al., 2007), but is also related to increased compensation requirements (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Cordery (2006) has conducted some innovative research exploring how organizations have begun to incorporate customers in the production process. Such ‘‘co-production’’ involves enlisting customers to perform part of the work, and then coordinating this work with individuals inside of the organization. Such co-production is likely to significantly affect roles that have considerable interaction outside the organization because these workers reside at the organization and customer boundary. Worker Characteristics As one moves to the social level, an additional set of worker characteristics become important. In general, these worker characteristics emerge because of the social demands placed on workers given the interdependencies and interpersonal aspects of these work characteristics. A great deal of attention has been given to understanding how personality characteristics can impact outcomes in teams and jobs that have a major social component. This is not surprising, as personality is inherently a social phenomenon in that the personality constructs are derived from adjectives used to distinguish individuals (Allport & Odbert, 1936). Although there have been periods of excitement regarding the impact of personality on team performance (Moynihan & Peterson, 2001), the empirical results are much more modest. For example, Bell’s (2007) recent meta-analysis demonstrated small relationships between conscientiousness (r ¼ .11), agreeableness (r ¼ .12), extraversion (r ¼ .09) and team performance. In jobs involving

62


interpersonal interaction (at the individual level), however, slightly stronger relationships have been found between conscientiousness (r ¼ .23), agreeableness (r ¼ .18), extraversion (r ¼ .12) and overall job performance (Mount, Barrick, & Stewart, 1998). At the social level, team experience (i.e., the amount of time spent with the current team) reflects a unique dimension of experience. Team experience is particularly important for team performance (Berman et al., 2002), in that teams with higher team experience can develop complex information exchange systems (e.g., shared mental models and transactive memory; Mohammed & Dumville, 2001). Having a shared representation of a task can improve coordination and helping behaviors (Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000), whereas knowing which team members possess unique knowledge and skills can directly influence performance by allowing the team to tap into relevant knowledge whenever necessary (Austin, 2003; Lewis, 2003). Finally, greater team experience can reduce role ambiguity and conflict, as team members will have had adequate time to communicate their expectations and responsibilities to others in the team (Seers et al., 1995). Additionally, there are a range of knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) that underlie effective teamwork. Stevens and Campion (1994) suggested that there is a set of interpersonal (including conflict resolution, collaborative problem solving, and communication) and self-management (including goal setting/performance management and planning/task coordination) KSAs essential for effective team performance. These teamwork capabilities become important in teamwork settings because of the increased social and interpersonal requirements (Stevens & Campion, 1994). Although research has linked overall teamwork-KSAs to individual performance (Morgeson et al., 2005; Stevens & Campion, 1999), there are some questions about the extent to which teamwork-KSAs are distinct from cognitive ability. In addition, past research has focused primarily on individual performance in team settings. Future research needs to be conducted with team-level outcomes. Need for affiliation reflects a persons’ desire for social contact and need to belong to a social group (McClelland, 1965). When assessing the potential value of the social characteristics of work, having individuals who both want and need to interact with others performing this work can be of great value. Workers high on need for affiliation may see interdependence with others as a prerequisite for job satisfaction, and may be disappointed if they do not have opportunities for formal or informal social interaction. Similarly, having high levels of need for affiliation can increase the identification of the

63

Job and Team Design

worker with the organization, particularly when the job contains high levels of social support (Wiesenfeld, Raghuram, & Garud, 2001), as social support provides a strong social cue that one ‘‘belongs.’’ Finally, a person who has a hardy personality tends to be committed to daily activities, perceives control over events that occur in life, and views change as a challenge, rather than a threat (Kobasa, 1979). This disposition has long been theoretically and empirically linked to the ability of a person to buffer stress and ward off the consequences of negative life events (Gentry & Kobasa, 1984). At work, having a hardy personality is likely to amplify the positive effects of numerous social characteristics. For example, a person high on hardiness is more likely to take advantage of social support, and to provide social support to others (Maddi, 2006). Moreover, because an implicit component of the hardiness construct is that one finds meaning in stressful and challenging situations (Maddi, 2006), having high levels of hardiness should allow a worker to treat feedback from others, regardless of whether it is positive or negative, as developmental rather than critical (Javo, Alapack, Heyerdahl, & Rønning, 2003). Thus, a hardy worker should thrive in a work setting that involves a high level of social interaction.

Contextual Characteristics Work Characteristics The broader physical and organizational context within which work is performed gives rise to numerous work characteristics. In the work design literature, the most commonly studied work characteristics include physical demands (i.e., the physical activity and effort involved in a job; Edwards, Scully, & Brtek, 1999; Stone & Gueutal, 1985) and work conditions (i.e., components of the work context, including noise, health hazards, and temperature; Campion & McClelland, 1991; Edwards et al., 1999). Metaanalytic results show that both of these characteristics relate to job satisfaction, with higher physical demands having negative relationships to satisfaction (r ¼ .17), whereas work conditions positively relate to satisfaction (r ¼ .23). Work conditions have also been shown to negatively relate to stress (r ¼ .42). The biological approach to work design (Campion, 1988) highlighted the relevance of ergonomics (i.e., the extent to which work allows for correct posture and movement; Campion & Thayer, 1985) as a contextual factor. Some research has demonstrated a linkage between ergonomics and both

64


job satisfaction (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006) and efficiency (Edwards et al., 2000). The perceptual/motor approach to work design (Campion, 1988) has advocated the importance of equipment use (i.e., ‘‘the variety and complexity of the technology and equipment used in a job’’; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006; p. 1324); however, research has not demonstrated a consistent impact of equipment use on work outcomes. Researchers have noted that boundary spanning (i.e., interaction within an organization, but outside one’s team or department; Ancona, 1990; Ancona, Bresman, & Kaeufer, 2002) is an important aspect of work for both individuals and teams. Boundary spanning reflects the connections to other individuals or collectives within an organization. It is important to be able to manage the flow of information and resources into and out of jobs and teams, as the information and resources are often critical for effective performance. For example, having knowledge of organizational resource constraints can lead to innovation, as individuals adapt their processes and outputs to fit these constraints (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). Boundary spanning has alternately been found to relate to perceptions of role overload, team viability (Marrone, Tesluk, & Carson, 2007), satisfaction, and effectiveness (Gladstein, 1984). Organizational support is another important aspect of the broader context within which work is performed. This includes the nature and quality of the reward systems, information systems that warehouse and distribute relevant knowledge, the formal training system used for developing and educating workers, the availability of resources necessary for performance, and the presence of managerial support (Campion et al., 1993; Hackman, 1987; Morgeson, Aiman-Smith, & Campion, 1997; Pearce & Ravlin, 1987). Only a handful of studies have explored how these aspects of organizational aspects influence outcomes. For example, Wageman (2001) found that welldesigned organizational support systems were related to better performance and satisfaction of both individuals and teams. In two studies of teams, Campion et al. (1993) and Campion et al. (1996) found that training systems demonstrated small relationships to satisfaction and manager judgments of effectiveness whereas managerial support generally evidenced stronger relationships with these same outcomes. Although this limited research is supportive, additional research is needed exploring the full range of contextual elements. Other research has suggested that the presence of a supportive organizational context is important to consider when redesigning jobs from traditional work group structures to semi-autonomous team structures (Morgeson et al., 2006). Morgeson et al. found that when organizational

Job and Team Design

65

reward and feedback and information systems were effective, redesigning work into a semi-autonomous team structure had no discernible effect on the performance behaviors of effort and problem solving, respectively. When these organizational support systems were poor, however, such a redesign produced large positive benefits. This suggested that work redesigns that enhance worker autonomy will be most effective in contexts where organizational support is poor. As such, these aspects of organizational support might also act as moderators between the work characteristics and outcomes. The physical arrangement of work is another important contextual work characteristic. In particular, the virtuality of work (i.e., the degree to which individuals are collocated and/or utilize technology for mediating their communication; Kirkman & Mathieu, 2005; Martins, Gilson, & Maynard, 2004) has been shown to affect a range of worker outcomes (see Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Martins et al., 2004). Work that is highly virtual may span geographical, temporal, or organizational boundaries, which creates an abundance of unique implications for work. Consider a team with high variance on temporal dispersion. A team that has several members located in Seattle, several members located in Amsterdam, and several members located in Singapore would have to manage the fact that the team spans nearly the entire globe. Essentially, this team would be serial processing between locations: as the Singapore team members were finishing their work day, the team members in Amsterdam would be starting theirs; when the team members in Amsterdam were finishing up, the team in Seattle would be starting. Such a design has positive aspects, in part because the team will always be active. Yet there are also negative aspects, in part because the team will likely be unable to be ‘‘fully operational’’ at any given time. For example, if a problem occurs at 11:00 am in Seattle, it may be difficult for team members in Amsterdam to respond (where it would be 8:00 pm) and team members in Singapore would be exceptionally challenged to respond (where it would be 3:00 am). Another implication of virtuality is that the extensive use of mediated communication may impact both cognitive and well-being outcomes. For example, in highly virtual teams, individuals are not as aware of individual responsibilities (perhaps producing redundant outputs) due to a lack of constant interaction. This can create role ambiguity and role conflict. Moreover, mediated communication can lead to depersonalization, such that individuals display more hostility (i.e., with less ‘‘filter’’ in their words and actions) toward coworkers, destroying the morale of the team (Martins et al., 2004).

66


Gajendran and Harrison (2007) recently conducted a meta-analytic summary of 46 studies in the area of telecommuting (‘‘an alternative work arrangement in which employees perform tasks elsewhere that are normally done in a primary or central workplace, for at least some portion of their work schedule, using electronic media to interact with others inside and outside the organization;’’ Gajendran & Harrison, 2007, p. 1525) that offers additional insight into how virtual working arrangements may affect a variety of individual-level outcomes. They found that telecommuting had small but largely beneficial effects on a range of outcomes, including enhanced perceived autonomy, job satisfaction, performance as well as reduced work–family conflict, turnover intentions, and role stress. Interestingly, they found that some of these outcomes were partially mediated through autonomy, which is not surprising given the considerable research demonstrating the positive benefits of enhanced autonomy. Finally, they found that ‘‘high-intensity’’ telecommuting had positive effects on work– family conflict but negatively impacted relationships with coworkers. A potentially important contextual factor which has been infrequently examined in work design is the impact of consequence of failure. Consequence of failure (sometimes referred to as error criticality) concerns ‘‘the degree to which incorrect task performance results in negative consequences’’ (Brannick et al., 2007, p. 52). Martin and Wall (1989) identified a more specific form of this factor (termed ‘‘cost responsibility’’), which reflected the cost of errors for production and machinery. From a work design perspective, consequence of failure is an important contextual factor because it shifts employees’ focus to prevention of errors, rather than attaining positive outcomes. In a prevention focus, employees are concerned with protection, safety, and responsibility. Furthermore, they are sensitive to negative outcomes and thus are vigilant against making mistakes and the actions that produce them (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1997). When work has a high consequence of failure, individuals will be focused on preventing errors. This will manifest itself in terms of how individuals react to aspects of the work and work environment. As Thompson (1967, p. 120) notes, ‘‘the more serious the individual believes the consequences of error to be, the more he will seek to evade discretion.’’ This evasion of discretion can be viewed as a move away from accountability or responsibility for work outcomes. When accountability is heightened, individuals become more defensive (Tetlock, Skitka, & Boettger, 1989), which reflects a basic strategy individuals have developed for coping with features of the work environment (Tetlock, 1985). Increased accountability also leads to risk avoidance (Tetlock & Boettger, 1994; Weigold &

Job and Team Design

67

Schlenker, 1991), which has further implications for reactions to work design features. It appears that when the consequences of errors are great, individuals seek to reduce accountability and tend to respond negatively to any increase. As Tetlock (1985, p. 307) notes, ‘‘the fact that people are accountable for their decisions is an implicit or explicit constraint upon all consequential acts they undertake.’’ This suggests that consequence of failure will moderate the relationship between several work characteristics and outcomes. First, we would expect that high consequence of failure work would cause workers to be less interested in high levels of autonomy because increased freedom in work scheduling, decision-making, and work methods allows more possibility for error and results in individual accountability for errors when they occur. Second, they will be less interested in work where they use a wide variety of skills, engage in a wide variety of tasks, or have particularly demanding jobs (in terms of job complexity or problem solving), in part because these work characteristics increases the chances of making errors (Campion & McClelland, 1993), and when one has a prevention focus, individuals want to avoid making mistakes (Higgins, 1997). As Martin and Wall (1989) found, cost responsibility interacted with attentional demand to negatively impact several well-being outcomes. On the other hand, workers are likely to react positively to interdependent work because the connection to others is likely to provide greater access to help when it is needed, which reduces overload and complexity. Likewise, they will be interested in work with higher levels of social support. Research demonstrates that individuals in a prevention focus experience agitated emotions when goal attainment is not achieved (Higgins, Shah, & Friedman, 1997). Thus, support from coworkers will not only help to buffer the inherent stress in the job, but will also help to regulate emotions. Worker Characteristics Several characteristics appear particularly important for a worker’s successful enactment of the context-level work characteristics. First, physical ability (i.e., ‘‘maximal gross muscular performance’’; Hogan, 1991, p. 754) appears to be particularly relevant for jobs with high physical demands. As noted by Campion (1983), workers who do not have the physical abilities necessary for the jobs they perform have higher incidences of injuries, and thus it is important to accurately asses both the physical demands of a job and the physical abilities of the worker. Another factor that may be important is propensity to trust. Propensity to trust is essentially the tendency (or lack thereof) to readily trust others. It is

68


important for performance in virtual teams (Jarvenpaa, Knoll, & Leidner, 1998), as the ability to build trust in a distributed team (where individuals will struggle to monitor other’s behavior and effort) is critical for successful team performance (Snow, Snell, & Davison, 1996). In addition, propensity to trust has been linked to preference for working in a team, partially through its relationship with trust in co-workers (Kiffin-Petersen & Cordery, 2003). Finally, specific organizational experience will be important for successfully dealing with many contextual work characteristics. Greater organizational experience will provide workers with the explicit and implicit knowledge that can enable effective performance. For example, if there is a great deal of boundary spanning present in the work, workers with greater organizational experience will have greater implicit and explicit knowledge of the range of connections among disparate stakeholders within the organization. In addition, workers with greater organizational experience will better understand the level of organizational support (or lack thereof) and how the presence or absence of organizational support may impact their particular work. This will enable them to take advantage the various support mechanisms or minimize the potentially disruptive impact a lack of organizational support may have on their work.

Considering Fit, Composition, and Configurations of Work With the work and worker characteristics thus defined, three additional issues arise. The first concerns the fit between workers and the different work characteristics. The second concerns how to compose teams. The third concerns how configurations of certain work characteristics are related to outcomes. We consider each of these in turn. Worker and Work Characteristics Fit Although past work design research has recognized that not all individuals will respond to work in the same way (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Kulik, Oldham, & Hackman, 1987), there are three key limitations to this research. First, only a narrow set of individual needs and satisfactions have been studied (Fried & Ferris, 1987). Thus, the broader set of work and worker characteristics discussed in the current chapter have been all but ignored. Second, the empirical results provided to date concerning the moderating effects of growth need strength and context satisfaction have been largely unsupported (see Tiegs, Tetrick, & Fried, 1992 for a summary and

Job and Team Design

69

large-scale test). This suggests that the factors previously identified and studied are not particularly important. Third, the primary focus in this literature has been on whether people are over or under-qualified for their jobs (Kulik et al., 1987). Yet, the broader literature on fit has demonstrated that the fit between people and their job, team, and organization matter for a wide variety of outcomes (Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). For the study of work design, the most important theoretical perspective on fit is the needs–supplies/demands–abilities duality (Kristof, 1996). Needs–supplies fit is said to exist if the context (i.e., the job, team, or organization) satisfies the needs or preferences of the worker (e.g., the job ‘‘challenges’’ the worker; Kulik et al., 1987). In contrast, demands–abilities fit is said to exist if the worker has the abilities necessary for fulfilling the context’s demands (e.g., the worker has the physical ability necessary to perform the job). As we have discussed in each of the sections of our work design model, each of the three levels of work design (task, social, and context) includes both work characteristics and worker characteristics. If one applies the fit perspective to the work and worker characteristics, it would be expected that the match between specific work characteristics and specific worker characteristics will produce positive work outcomes. For example, putting a worker with a proactive personality in a job with high levels of autonomy should lead to higher levels of performance (as the worker would take the initiative to innovate and adapt on the job; Griffin et al., 2007) and satisfaction (as the worker will continually feel challenged in his/her job; Parker & Sprigg, 1999; Seibert et al., 1999). In contrast, a bad fit between work and worker characteristics can be devastating for work outcomes. For example, if the same proactive person is in a low autonomy job, he/she would feel stifled and constrained, likely leading to low levels of satisfaction and high levels of turnover. A second perspective on the fit question comes from work on the gravitational hypothesis (McCormick, DeNisi, & Shaw 1979; McCormick, Jeanneret, & Mecham, 1972; Wilk, Desmarais, & Sackett, 1995; Wilk & Sackett, 1996). This perspective argues that workers ‘‘gravitate’’ towards and stay in jobs that they are both capable of performing and fit with their individual differences. That is, rather than taking the perspective that organizational action initiates the matching between workers and work characteristics, the gravitational hypothesis suggests that workers initiate the matching behaviors themselves. Providing support for this perspective, researchers have found that individuals with higher cognitive ability moved

70


into more complex jobs that have higher cognitive ability demands (and vice-versa; Wilk et al., 1995; Wilk & Sackett, 1996). This suggests that workers move towards jobs that fit their ability levels. Although this research primarily focused on the relationship between ability and job complexity, it is reasonable to suspect that workers will gravitate to jobs based upon the match between other factors beyond ability and complexity. As noted by Kulik et al. (1987), ‘‘the importance of matching individual abilities and skills to the job y has not been systematically addressed’’ (p. 294). Yet, there is sufficient theory to suggest that this match is critical. The model developed in this paper provides a framework within which to investigate issues of fit between workers and work characteristics. This would seem to be a potentially fruitful area for research given the importance of work design and the relative lack of attention to issues of fit in the work design literature. Composition Models If one is trying to determine how to design a team, it is critical to understand how worker characteristics impact a team. Yet, for nearly as long as researchers have studied teams, there have been questions about how to conceptualize individual attributes in a team context (Rousseau, 1985). The traditional approach to conceptualizing individual attributes at the team level is to take an additive approach (Chan, 1998) wherein the mean level of the individual attributes in a team is taken to represent the team. For example, the cognitive ability of a team would be thought of as the mean of the cognitive ability of all team members. Although this is the dominant approach to conceptualizing individual attributes in a team, it fails to consider how variance on these characteristics might affect outcomes. For example, a team composed of three individuals with high levels of cognitive ability and three individuals with low levels of cognitive ability (and thus have a moderate level of team ability if a simple average was used) would be viewed as identical to a team composed of six individuals with moderate levels of cognitive ability. Thus, researchers have attempted to compliment the additive approach with dispersion models (Chan, 1998) that account for the differences (or similarities) between team members. Harrison and Klein (2007) argue that within-team diversity can be conceptualized as one of three types: separation, variety, and disparity. Separation diversity can be thought of as the (horizontal) spread between members on a specified dimension. Going back to our previous example, if all team members had moderate ability, there would be low separation

Job and Team Design

71

diversity, whereas the team composed of three individuals with high ability and three people with low ability would have high levels of separation diversity. Separation diversity is often conceptualized as the standard deviation on a trait within a team. Variety, in turn, is thought of as the distinctiveness of individual traits within a team. For example, a team composed of four accountants would have low variety diversity, whereas a team composed of one accountant, one engineer, one marketing manager, and one supply chain manager would have high levels of variety diversity. Variety is often operationalized using Blau’s index (Simpson, 1949). Finally, disparity can be thought of as the (vertical) difference between members of a group. For example, a team composed of six first-line workers would be thought of as low disparity diversity, whereas a team composed of five firstline workers and the CEO would be thought of as having maximal disparity diversity. Disparity is often operationalized using the coefficient of variation (Harrison & Klein, 2007). One concern about current operationalizations of dispersion models is that many practitioners and researchers alike create (at best) moderate levels of diversity when theoretical models are based upon maximal diversity (Humphrey, Hollenbeck, Meyer, & Ilgen, 2007). For example, when considering the role of personality in team performance, although theory may argue for maximal diversity, teams are often designed with only moderate levels of diversity. Humphrey, Hollenbeck, Meyer, & llgen et al. (2007) argue that this can be corrected by using the population of workers available to ‘‘seed’’ teams based on specific worker characteristics that are important for team success. Use of the additive and dispersion models is expected to be derived from theoretical expectations of the relationship between individual attributes and team constructs. A different approach to composition is derived from matching the task being performed to the composition of the team. Steiner (1972) argued that tasks could classified as additive (i.e., task performance is the sum of individual effort), conjunctive (i.e., task performance is a function of the minimum level of performance by any team member), or disjunctive (i.e., team performance is the result of the best performance of any team member). Given the task type, LePine, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, and Hedlund (1997) and Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, and Mount (1998) argued that one can conceptualize the contribution of team members to task performance and thus one can apply specific rules for the aggregation of individual level characteristics. For example, if a task is conjunctive (e.g., work on a fixed assembly line), the overall performance of the team is determined by the speed of the slowest member. Thus, according to LePine et al. (1997) and Barrick et al. (1998), the team level analogue to individual

72


level personality traits in this task should be thought of as the minimum level of a personality trait in the team (keeping in mind the assumption that higher levels of a personality trait is assumed to be related to higher levels of performance). Another option available for conceptualizing individual attributes is to take a role composition approach to team composition (Humphrey, Morgeson, & Mannor, in press). Role composition considers how role holder characteristics impact performance, rather than putting the focus solely on individuals. Because multiple team members typically fill a given role, roles exist at a level lower than the team, but higher than the individual. The role composition approach takes many compositional cues from the additive and dispersion models, in that individual attributes can be conceptualized at the role level as the average or diversity of the role holders’ characteristics. Yet, it adds a level of complexity, in that different roles may exhibit different levels of influence on team performance (Humphrey et al., in press; Pearsall & Ellis, 2006). Thus, the challenge when designing team work is to understand the different roles in teams, what roles are most important for team success, and what worker characteristics are important for success in those roles. Configurations of Work Characteristics To date, almost all of the research on work design has focused on the main effects of characteristics on work outcomes.2 However, some recent research has begun to examine how specific configurations of characteristics produce unique outcomes. For example, Morgeson and Campion (2002) examined whether changes to both mechanistic and motivational work design (Campion, 1988) produced unique outcomes. They found that changing both of these work domains resulted in increased job satisfaction, without simultaneously changing training requirements or job complexity. In contrast, changes to only motivational or mechanistic designs resulted in gains on one criterion, with concomitant losses on another criterion. They therefore concluded that the combination of changes to several work characteristics was more effective. As another example, Grant (Grant, 2007; Grant et al., 2007) has explored how a specific task characteristic (i.e., task significance) interacts with a social characteristic (i.e., interaction outside the organization) to influence various work outcomes. In a theoretical article, Grant (2007) discussed how ‘‘job impact on beneficiaries’’ (i.e., task significance) interacts with ‘‘contact with beneficiaries’’ (i.e., interaction outside the organization) to increase effort, persistence, and helping behaviors. In an empirical test of this model,

Job and Team Design

73

it was found that this interaction impacted persistence, performance, and productivity (Grant et al., 2007). These findings are particularly interesting, as interactions were explored across levels (i.e., task and social), rather than within a level (c.f., Morgeson & Campion, 2002). As these two examples suggest, there are potentially synergistic configurations of work characteristics. Given the expanded set of work characteristics outlined in this chapter, there are many possible configurations. Although there are few theoretical models that describe how different work characteristics complement each other, this seems like a potentially fruitful area for future theorizing and research. Thus, future research should begin to explore more configurations, particularly configurations that span the task, social, and contextual domains.

Mechanisms through Which Work Design Affects Outcomes A key question in work design theory concerns the mechanisms through which work design affects attitudinal, behavioral, cognitive, well-being, and organizational outcomes. Typically, most research has focused on a narrow set of motivationally oriented mediational mechanisms. Recent research has helped clarify these motivational pathways. In addition, several other motivational and non-motivational mechanisms have been identified, offering some new possibilities for better understanding how work design impacts outcomes. Hackman and Oldham (1976) suggested that task-level work characteristics impact work outcomes through three critical psychological states: experienced meaningfulness (i.e., the extent to which a worker perceives that a job has value), experienced responsibility (i.e., the extent to which a worker feels accountable for job outputs), and knowledge of results (i.e., the extent to which a worker knows how he or she performed). Although they proposed that these three critical states were independent mediators, recent research has suggested that experienced meaningfulness captures most of the mediation effects (Johns, Xie, & Fang, 1992). Humphrey et al. (2007) confirmed this by conducting the first meta-analytic test of the job characteristics–critical psychological states–outcomes mediation model. Consistent with Johns et al., Humphrey et al. found support for a model in which experienced meaningfulness was the primary mediator of the task characteristics–work outcome relationship. Perhaps not surprisingly, subsequent research has focused specifically on the importance of experienced meaningfulness as a mediator. For example,

74


Grant (2007) suggested that task significance influences effort, persistence, and helping though a worker’s motivation to make a prosocial difference. In empirical research, Grant (2008a) found that task significance influences job performance through perceived social impact and perceived social worth, which can be thought of as two specific forms of experienced meaningfulness. In addition to these motivational explanations, several other mediating mechanisms have been offered. One involves the speed with which a worker can respond to problems (i.e., ‘‘quick response’’; Parker & Wall, 1998, 2001; Parker, Wall, & Cordery, 2001; Wall & Martin, 1987). A key principle of socio-technical systems theory is to control variance at its source. This would suggest that if workers were given decision-making autonomy, they will be best positioned to respond to problems in an efficient and effective manner. This logistical advantage suggests that workers will be able to respond to problems faster (Wall, Jackson, & Davids, 1992). Another potential mechanism concerns the extent to which workers acquire new knowledge and skill and otherwise develop as a result of their work activities (i.e., ‘‘learning and development; Parker & Wall, 1998, 2001; Parker et al., 1997; Wall & Jackson, 1995). If workers learn more about their work or broader organizational system, they are better able to anticipate and avoid future problems (Wall et al., 1992) as well as experience increased self-efficacy. There are a variety of ways in which workers can learn and develop on the job. For example, autonomy gives workers the chance to explore and experiment; task and skill variety provides an opportunity to be exposed more aspects of the work and develop a broader portfolio of skills; feedback from the job and others can offer developmental insight; interdependencies can enable social learning; managerial and coworker support creates a psychologically safe environment within which workers can communicate about and learn from mistakes; and specialization enables one to develop particularly deep knowledge about the work. Empirical research has supported the potential learning that can occur at work. For example, Leach, Wall, and Jackson (2003) found that enhancing employee decision-making autonomy among photographic paper-finishing workers resulted in increases in fault-management knowledge (i.e., how to respond to technical problems that occurred). Campion and McClelland (1993) explored how enhancing the knowledge aspects of work for clerical workers at a financial services company positively impacted learning. They found that adding job requirements involving understanding procedures or rules relating to different products resulted in increased satisfaction, less mental overload, and better customer service. This research thus offers

Job and Team Design

75

initial evidence that knowledge-based explanations may be able to extend our understanding of the mechanisms that mediate between work design and outcomes. But if work enables learning, it is also important to let workers actually use the knowledge and skill they have acquired. Thus, another potential mechanism concerns the extent to which individual and team skills are effectively utilized (i.e., ‘‘skill utilization’’). If work is designed in such a way as to tap into the existing knowledge and skill base of workers (either through enhanced autonomy or the use of team-based work designs), then one will be able to tap into both formal knowledge as well as tacit and local knowledge and skills (Morgeson et al., 2006; Parker et al., 2001; Wall & Jackson, 1995). Consistent with this, Parker (2003) found that when autonomy was reduced through lean production practices, employeereported skill utilization also declined. This suggests that increased autonomy should lead to increased utilization of employee skills, with a corresponding positive impact on outcomes. Many of the preceding mechanisms could be integrated within a broader self-regulation perspective. Holman, Clegg, and Waterson (2002, p. 203) have suggested that self-regulation theories potentially offer ‘‘a useful and alternative way of explaining the mechanism underpinning the motivational aspects of job design theory.’’ We would go further to suggest that selfregulation theories may offer a way to integrate across many of the mediational mechanisms discussed earlier. Parker and Ohly (in press) provide an extended discussion of how motivational processes such as goal generation and goal striving act as a key mediational mechanism between work characteristics, motivational states, and non-motivational factors. Empirical research in this area is likely to significantly enhance our understanding of the ways in which work design impacts outcomes. The preceding mediational mechanisms largely concern intra-individual processes. Given our expanded focus on social and contextual work characteristics, however, one might wonder if there are any explicitly social mediational mechanisms. The concept of social facilitation offers one potential explanation for how working with others might impact outcomes. The presence of others during task performance has been thought to increase level of drive (Zajonc, 1965), heighten an individual’s selfawareness, motivating him or her to reduce any discrepancies between actual and ideal performance (Duval & Wicklund, 1972), increase motivation to project an image of competence to others (Bond, 1982), and influence beliefs about expectancies and consequences of efforts (Ferris, Beehr, & Gilmore, 1978).

76


It is thought that social facilitation processes enhances dominant response tendencies. Thus, for individuals and groups, the presence of others is likely to have a positive effect on habitual or routinized behavior. Research on co-acting individuals (where individuals work independently in the presence of others) has been supportive of this notion, where social presence of others enhances performance on simple tasks but impairs performance on complex tasks (Bond & Titus, 1983). Yet research that has focused on collective work (where individuals work together) has found just the opposite. Working collectively tends to enhance performance on complex tasks and impair performance on simple tasks (Jackson & Williams, 1985). One way to reconcile these seemingly disparate findings is to consider how several social processes can influence individual and team behavior. When working with others, there are many opportunities to give and receive assistance and support, which can have a positive effect on a range of outcomes. Workload sharing among workers is also likely to occur, which can help avoid downtime and enable effective performance. Such workload sharing is particularly likely to occur when the work is complex and the workload is high. When work is simple and the workload is low, the performance costs associated with social loafing and free riding are lower because others can compensate for team members that are not fully contributing. When work is complex and workload is high, however, the efforts of all team members are needed for a team to perform successfully. As such, it is clearer to team members that their contributions are unique and needed, making social loafing and free riding less likely to occur. Teams can also develop norms that have a strong influence on work behavior. These norms can either constrain or enable different forms of performance. Working with others can also have a general motivational impact on behavior. As noted by Ferris et al. (1978, p. 345), ‘‘The presence of othersyserves as a motivating force to perform.’’ Finally, affective processes are likely to be operating in the context of teams. Due to common experiences, behavioral entrainment, or emotional contagion processes (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994; Kelly & Barsade, 2001), affective and emotional states are likely to converge (Barsade, 2002; Ilies, Wagner, & Morgeson, 2007; Totterdell, 2000; Totterdell, Kellett, Teuchmann, & Briner, 1998). Convergence can occur for both positive and negative affective states, which suggest a potential positive or negative effect on effort and performance. For example, if a worker encounters a particularly difficult and frustrating problem, this may cause them to be in a negative affective state that is then transferred to fellow workers or team members, with a potentially negative influence on work outcomes.

77

Job and Team Design

As another example, however, if a worker has a particularly positive interaction with a customer, the resulting positive affective state is also likely to be transferred, with more positive implications for work outcomes. Although many of these potential social facilitation mechanisms have not been explored in the context of work design research, they hold potential promise for expanding our understanding of how social and contextual work characteristics influence outcomes.

Informal Work Redesigns Implicit in the discussion thus far is that knowledge about work characteristics can be used to redesign work to achieve specific organizational goals. Traditionally, the focus has been on efforts on the part of management to implement work design changes (Campion et al., 2005). Although such top-down approaches are commonly employed (see Birdi et al., in press; Leach et al., 2003; Morgeson & Campion, 2002; Morgeson et al., 2006), the workers themselves often play a central role in redesigning their own work. In other words, workers often take the initiative to actively ‘‘craft’’ or ‘‘sculpt’’ their jobs (Bell & Staw, 1989; Frese, Garst, & Fay, 2007; Staw & Boettger, 1990; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Although different labels have been used to describe this process, they can all be viewed as a form of informal work redesigns that emerge as workers gain experience with the task, social, and contextual elements of the work. The notion of informal work redesigns is consistent with the role perspective outlined earlier, where individuals holding the same job will enact their roles in slightly different ways (Biddle, 1979; Davis, 1979; Graen, 1976; Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991; Katz & Kahn, 1978). The challenge for work design research thus revolves around understanding the nature of the changes workers make to their role and when they will take on broader or narrower roles. This is a particularly critical issue to understand because effective organizational functioning is dependent on workers having a flexible role orientation (Parker et al., 1997) or engaging in behavior that goes beyond formal job requirements (Barnard, 1938; Katz, 1964; Katz & Kahn, 1978). Research has begun to articulate the factors and processes through which individuals adopt broader roles at work. These include attitudes such as job satisfaction, commitment, and fairness perceptions (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002). Others have focused on the importance of leadership– follower relationships (Hofmann, Morgeson, & Gerras, 2003), role-breadth

78


self-efficacy (Parker et al., 2006), various personality characteristics (Bateman & Crant, 1993; LePine & VanDyne, 2001; Parker et al., 2006), and individual capabilities such as cognitive ability and job-related skill (Morgeson et al., 2005). Worker autonomy appears to be a particularly critical factor leading to broader and more flexible role orientations, personal initiative, and proactive behavior (Frese et al., 2007; Morgeson et al., 2005; Ohly, Sonnentag, & Pluntke, 2006; Parker et al., 1997; Parker et al., 2006). Essentially, autonomy provides workers with greater flexibility in how they define their role, in part because they have greater discretion to make workrelated decisions and decide on work methods and scheduling (Fried, Hollenbeck, Slowik, Tiegs, & Ben-David, 1999; Troyer, Mueller, & Osinsky, 2000). Autonomy tends to increase ownership of problems, enhances learning and development on the job (Leach et al., 2003), increases confidence in taking on broader roles (Parker, 1998), and causes workers to recognize a wider range of skills and knowledge as important for their roles (Parker et al., 1997), thus leading to broader role definitions and proactive forms of work behavior. This research represents an excellent start toward understanding the nature of informal work redesigns by providing a more nuanced view of how workers informally redesign their jobs and roles. Future research should continue to explore the range of factors that lead to broader work roles. The framework provided in this chapter offers some suggestions for additional work and worker characteristics to consider.

CONCLUSION As this chapter attests, the nature of work is critically important. As the existential philosopher Albert Camus noted, ‘‘Without work, all life goes rotten. But when work is soulless, life stifles and dies.’’ As the study, creation, and modification of the composition, content, structure, and environment within which jobs and roles are enacted, the discipline of work design play a central role in understanding what makes work matter to individuals. By integrating research on job and team design, we offered an integrative model of work design that considers a variety of work and worker characteristics across task, social, and contextual domains. It is our hope that this model helps stimulate future research and practice so that more people experience all that engaging, rewarding work can offer.

79

Job and Team Design

NOTES 1. This is not to say there has not been considerable research into the role of social environment. Research into work-related stress and job burnout has also demonstrated the benefits of social support (Halbesleben, 2006), but much of this research has occurred outside the domain of work design. 2. One major exception to this is research into the demand-control model of strain, which has focused on the interaction of a number of different work characteristics.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks to Jennifer Nahrgang for her help in developing the organizing framework. Also thanks to John Cordery, Adam Grant, Jillian Hmurovic, Jennifer Nahrgang, and Sharon Parker for their comments on an earlier version of this chapter. Their comments resulted in many meaningful improvements.

REFERENCES Aboa-E´boule´, C., Brisson, C., Maunsell, E., Maˆsse, B., Bourbonnais, R., Ve´zina, M., Milot, A., The´roux, P., & Dagenais, G. R. (2007). Job strain and risk of acute recurrent coronary heart disease events. Journal of the American Medical Association, 298, 1652–1660. Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. In: J. Peterson (Ed.), Psychological Monographs. Vol. 47. (No. 1, pp. 1–171). Washington, DC: APA. Ambrose, M. L., & Kulik, C. T. (1999). Old friends, new faces: Motivation research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25, 231–292. Ancona, D. G. (1990). Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 334–365. Ancona, D. G., Bresman, H., & Kaeufer, K. (2002). The comparative advantage of X-teams. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43, 33–40. Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1988). Beyond task maintenance: Defining external functions in groups. Group and Organization Studies, 13, 468–494. Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634–665. Andreu, G. (1997). Egypt in the age of the pyramids (translated from the French by David Lorton). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Austin, J. R. (2003). Transactive memory in organizational groups: The effects of content, consensus, specialization, and accuracy on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 866–878. Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., Waterson, P. E., & Harrington, E. (2000). Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 265–285.

80


Babbage, C. (1835). On the economy of machinery and manufactures. London: Knight. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. C. (2005). Job resources buffer the impact of job demands on burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 170–180. Bailey, D. E. (1998). Comparison of manufacturing performance of three team structures in semiconductor plants. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 45, 20–32. Bailey, D. E., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 383–400. Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & Iverson, R. D. (2003). High-quality work, job satisfaction, and occupational injuries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 276–283. Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377–391. Barsade, S. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644–675. Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–118. Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Moon, H., Conlon, D. E., & Ilgen, D. R. (2003). Cooperation, competition, and team performance: Towards a contingency approach. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 572–590. Bell, N. E., & Staw, B. M. (1989). People as sculptors versus sculpture: The roles of personality and personal control in organizations. In: M. Arthur, D. Hall & B. Lawrence (Eds), Handbook of career theory (pp. 232–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 595–615. Berman, S. L., Down, J., & Hill, C. W. L. (2002). Tacit knowledge as a source of competitive advantage in the national basketball association. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 13–31. Biddle, B. J. (1979). Role theory: Expectations, identities, and behavior. New York: Academic Press. Birdi, K., Clegg, C., Patterson, M., Robinson, A., Stride, C. B., Wall, T. D., & Wood, S. J. (in press). The impact of human resource and operational management practices on company productivity: A longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology. Bond, C. F. (1982). Social facilitation: A self-presentational view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1042–1050. Bond, C. F., & Titus, L. J. (1983). Social facilitation: A meta-analysis of 241 studies. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 265–292. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In: N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Borman, W. C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W. (1995). Effects of ratee task performance and interpersonal factors on supervisor and peer performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 168–177. Brannick, M. T., Levine, E. L., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Job analysis: Methods, research, and applications for human resource management (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Job and Team Design

81

Breaugh, J. A. (1985). The measurement of work autonomy. Human Relations, 38, 551–570. Brown, S. P. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 235–255. Burr, R., & Cordery, J. L. (2001). Self-management efficacy as a mediator of the relation between job design and employee motivation. Human Performance, 14, 27–44. Campion, M. A. (1983). Personnel selection for physically demanding jobs: Review and recommendations. Personnel Psychology, 36, 527–550. Campion, M. A. (1988). Interdisciplinary approaches to job design: A constructive replication with extensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 467–481. Campion, M. A., & McClelland, C. L. (1991). Interdisciplinary examination of the costs and benefits of enlarged jobs: A job design quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 186–198. Campion, M. A., & McClelland, C. L. (1993). Follow-up and extension of the interdisciplinary costs and benefits of enlarged jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 339–351. Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823–850. Campion, M. A., Mumford, T. V., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Work redesign: Eight obstacles and opportunities. Human Resource Management, 44, 367–390. Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429–452. Campion, M. A., & Thayer, P. W. (1985). Development and field evaluation of an interdisciplinary measure of job design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 29–43. Cappelli, P., & Rogovsky, N. (1994). New work systems and skill requirements. International Labor Review, 133, 205–220. Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246. Cordery, J. (May, 2006). One more time: How do you motivateycustomers? Applying work design principles to co-production arrangements in service organizations. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX. Cordery, J., & Parker, S. K., (in press). Work organization. In: P. Boxall, J. Purcell, & P. Wright (Eds). Oxford handbook of human resource management. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Cotton, J. L., & Tuttle, J. M. (1986). Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review with implications for research. Academy of Management Review, 11, 55–70. Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 117–132. Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1241–1255. Davis, L. E. (1979). Job design: Historical overview. In: L. E. Davis & J. C. Taylor (Eds), Design of jobs (2nd ed., pp. 29–35). Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing Company. Davis, L. E., & Taylor, J. C. (1979). Overview. In: L. E. Davis & J. C. Taylor (Eds), Design of jobs (2nd ed., pp. x–xxi). Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing Company.

82


Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. A. (1972). A theory of objective self-awareness. New York: Academic Press. Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 685–716. Edwards, J. R., Scully, J. A., & Brtek, M. D. (1999). The measurement of work: Hierarchical representation of the multimethod job design questionnaire. Personnel Psychology, 52, 305–334. Edwards, J. R., Scully, J. A., & Brtek, M. D. (2000). The nature and outcomes of work: A replication and extension of interdisciplinary work-design research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 860–868. Evans, M. G., Kiggundu, M. N., & House, R. J. (1979). A partial test and extension of the job characteristics model of motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 24, 354–381. Ferris, G. R., Beehr, T. A., & Gilmore, D. C. (1978). Social facilitation: A review and alternative conceptual model. Academy of Management Review, 3, 338–347. Fisher, C. D. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of real-time affective reactions at work. Motivation and Emotion, 26, 3–30. Frese, M., Garst, H., & Fay, D. (2007). Making things happen: Reciprocal relationships between work characteristics and personal initiative in a four-wave longitudinal structural equation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1084–1102. Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287–322. Fried, Y., Hollenbeck, J. R., Slowik, L. H., Tiegs, R. B., & Ben-David, H. A. (1999). Changes in job decision latitude: The influence of personality and interpersonal satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 233–243. Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1524–1541. Gentry, W. D., & Kobasa, S. C. (1984). Social and psychological resources mediating stressillness relationships in humans. In: W. D. Gentry (Ed.), Handbook of behavioral medicine (pp. 87–116). New York: Guilford Press. Gilbreth, F. B. (1911). Motion study. London: Constable and Company. Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of it determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183–211. Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499–517. Graen, G. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In: M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201–1245). Chicago: Rand McNally. Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32, 393–417. Grant, A. M. (2008a). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 108–124. Grant, A. M. (2008b). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 48–58.

Job and Team Design

83

Grant, A. M., Campbell, E. M., Chen, G., Cottone, K., Lapedis, D., & Lee, K. (2007). Impact and the art of motivation maintenance: The effects of contact with beneficiaries on persistence behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 53–67. Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327–347. Griffin, R. W. (1982). Task design: An integrative approach. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, and Company. Guzzo, R., & Shea, G. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In: M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 269–313). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press. Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307–338. Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 55, 259–286. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159–170. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hackman, R. J. (1987). The design of work teams. In: J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2006). Sources of social support and burnout: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1134–1145. Hamm, M., & Adams, D. (1992). The collaborative dimensions of learning. Norwood: Ablex. Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199–1229. Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York: Cambridge University Press. Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 48, 53–62. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. NewYork: Wiley. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300. Higgins, E. T., Shah, J., & Friedman, R. (1997). Emotional responses to goal attainment: Strength of regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 515–525. Hofmann, D. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Gerras, S. (2003). Climate as a moderator of the relationship between LMX and content specific citizenship: Safety climate as an exemplar. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 170–178. Hogan, J. C. (1991). Physical abilities. In: M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 753–832). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Holman, D., Clegg, C., & Waterson, P. (2002). Navigating the territory of job design. Applied Ergonomics, 33, 197–205.

84


Homans, G. C. (1950). The human group. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Humphrey, S. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., Meyer, C. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2007). Trait configurations in self-managed teams: A conceptual examination of the use of seeding to maximize and minimize trait variance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 885–892. Humphrey, S. E., Morgeson, F. P., & Mannor, M. J., (in press). Developing a theory of the strategic core of teams: A role composition model of team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1332–1356. Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98. Ilgen, D. R., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1991). The structure of work: Job design and roles. In: M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 165–207). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Ilies, R., Wagner, D. T., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Explaining affective linkages in teams: Individual differences in susceptibility to contagion and individualism–collectivism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1140–1148. Jackson, D. N. (1974). Personality Research Form manual. Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press. Jackson, J. M., & Williams, K. D. (1985). Social loafing on difficult tasks: Working collectively can improve task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 937–942. Jackson, P. R., Wall, T. D., Martin, R., & Davids, K. (1993). New measures of job control, cognitive demand, and production responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 753–762. Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (1997). Knowledge worker team effectiveness: The role of autonomy, interdependence, team development, and contextual support variables. Personnel Psychology, 50, 877–904. Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14, 29–64. Javo, C., Alapack, R., Heyerdahl, S., & Rønning, J. A. (2003). Parental values and ethnic identity in indigenous Sami families: A qualitative study. Family Process, 42, 151–164. Johns, G., Xie, J. L., & Fang, Y. (1992). Mediating and moderating effects in job design. Journal of Management, 18, 657–676. Johnson, J. V., & Hall, E. M. (1988). Job strain, work place social support, and cardiovascular disease: A cross-sectional study of a random sample of the Swedish working population. American Journal of Public Health, 78, 1336–1342. Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley. Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In: M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 75–170). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books. Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–308.

Job and Team Design

85

Karasek, R. A., Brisson, C., Kawakami, N., Houtman, I., Bongers, P., & Amick, B. (1998). The job content questionnaire (JCQ): An instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 322–355. Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9, 131–146. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed). New York: John Wiley. Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. (2001). Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 99–130. Ketchen, D. J., Combs, J. G., Russel, C. J., Shook, C., Dean, M. A., Runge, J., Lohrke, F. T., et al. (1997). Organizational configurations and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 223–240. Kiffin-Petersen, S. A., & Cordery, J. L. (2003). Trust, individualism and job characteristics as predictors of employee preference for teamwork. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 93–116. Kiggundu, M. N. (1981). Task interdependence and the theory of job design using multiple job ratings. Human Relations, 33, 339–351. Kiggundu, M. N. (1983). Task interdependence and job design: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 145–172. Kirkman, B. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. Journal of Management, 31, 700–718. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284. Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1–11. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124. Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person– group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342. Kulik, C. T., Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (1987). Work design as an approach to personenvironment fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 278–296. Langfred, C. W. (2000). The paradox of self-management: Individual and group autonomy in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 563–585. Lawler, E. E. (1969). Job design and employee motivation. Personnel Psychology, 22, 426–435. Leach, D. J., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (2003). The effect of empowerment on job knowledge: An empirical test involving operators of complex technology. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 27–52. Le Blanc, P. M., Hox, J. J., Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Peeters, M. C. W. (2007). Take care! The evaluation of a team-based burnout intervention program for oncology care providers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 213–227. Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (1994). An alternative approach: The unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Management Review, 19, 51–59.

86


LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52–65. LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., & Hedlund, J. (1997). Effects of individual differences on the performance of hierarchical decision-making teams: Much more than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 803–811. LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 853–868. LePine, J. A., & VanDyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with Big Five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 326–336. Lewis, K. (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 587–604. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In: M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1349). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Maddi, S. R. (2006). Hardiness: The courage to grow from stresses. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 160–168. Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1980). Self-management as a substitute for leadership: A social learning theory perspective. Academy of Management Review, 5, 361–367. Marrone, J. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Carson, J. B. (2007). A multi-level investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary spanning behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1423–1439. Martin, R., & Wall, T. D. (1989). Attentional demand and cost responsibility as stressors in shopfloor jobs. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 69–86. Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 805–8350. Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273–283. Mayo, E. (1946). The human problems of an industrial civilization (2nd ed). Boston, MA: Harvard University. McClelland, D. C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American Psychologist, 20, 321–333. McCormick, E., Jeanneret, P., & Mecham, R. (1972). A study of job characteristics and job dimensions as based on the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ). Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 347–368. Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52. Mohammed, S., & Dumville, B. C. (2001). Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: Expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 89–106. Morgeson, F. P., Aiman-Smith, L. D., & Campion, M. A. (1997). Implementing work teams: Recommendations from organizational behavior and development theories. In:

Job and Team Design

87

M. Beyerlein, D. Johnson & S. Beyerlein (Eds), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Issues in the implementation of work teams (Vol. 4, pp. 1–44). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2002). Minimizing tradeoffs when redesigning work: Evidence from a longitudinal quasi-experiment. Personnel Psychology, 55, 589–612. Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2003). Work design. In: W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski (Eds), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 423–452). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Morgeson, F. P., Delaney-Klinger, K. A., & Hemingway, M. A. (2005). The importance of job autonomy, cognitive ability, and job-related skill for predicting role breadth and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 399–406. Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321–1339. Morgeson, F. P., Johnson, M. D., Medsker, G. J., Campion, M. A., & Mumford, T. V. (2006). Understanding reactions to job redesign: A quasi-experimental investigation of the moderating effects of organizational context on perceptions of performance behavior. Personnel Psychology, 59, 333–363. Morgeson, F. P., Reider, M. H., & Campion, M. A. (2005). Selecting individuals in team settings: The importance of social skills, personality characteristics, and teamwork knowledge. Personnel Psychology, 58, 583–611. Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). Five-factor model of personality and performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human Performance, 11, 145–165. Moynihan, L. M., & Peterson, R. S. (2001). A contingent configuration approach to understanding the role of personality in organizational groups. In: R. I. Sutton & B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 327–378). London: Elsevier Science Ltd. Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., & Pluntke, F. (2006). Routinization, work characteristics and their relationships with creative and proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 257–279. Okebukola, P. A., & Ogunniyi, M. B. (1984). Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic science laboratory interaction patterns: Effects on students’ achievement and acquisition of practical skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 875–884. Oldham, G. R. (1996). Job design. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11, 33–60. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 835–852. Parker, S. K. (2003). Longitudinal effects of lean production on employee outcomes and the mediating role of work characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 620–634. Parker, S. K., & Ohly, S. (in press). Designing motivating jobs: An expanded framework for linking work characteristics and motivation. In: R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R. Pritchard (Eds), Work motivation: Past, present, and future. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press. Parker, S. K., & Sprigg, C. A. (1999). Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: The role of job demands, job control, and proactive personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 925–939.

88


Parker, S. K., & Wall, T. D. (1998). Job and work design: Organizing work to promote well-being and effectiveness. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Parker, S. K., & Wall, T. D. (2001). Work design: Learning from the past and mapping a new terrain. In: N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 90–109). London: Sage. Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Cordery, J. L. (2001). Future work design research and practice: Towards an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 413–440. Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (1997). ‘‘That’s not my job’’: Developing flexible employee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 899–929. Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636–652. Pearce, J. A., & Ravlin, E. C. (1987). The design and activation of self-regulating work groups. Human Relations, 40, 751–782. Pearsall, M. J., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2006). The effects of critical team member assertiveness on team performance and satisfaction. Journal of Management, 32, 575–594. Perretti, F., & Negro, G. (2006). Filling empty seats: How status and organizational hierarchies affect exploration versus exploitation in team design. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 759–777. Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal-setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 792–802. Rico, R., Sańchez-Manzanares, M., Gil, F., & Gibson, C. (2008). Team implicit coordination processes: A team knowledge-based approach. Academy of Management Review, 33, 163–184. Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150–163. Roberts, K. H., & Glick, W. (1981). The job characteristics approach to task design: A critical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 193–217. Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. In: B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 1–37). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in taskperforming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 61–72. Saavedra, R., & Kwun, S. K. (2000). Affective states in job characteristics theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 131–146. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274. Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., & Outerbridge, A. N. (1986). Impact of job experience and ability on job knowledge, work sample performance, and supervisory ratings of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 432–439.

Job and Team Design

89

Scott, K. D., & Taylor, G. S. (1985). An examination of conflicting findings on the relationship between job satisfaction and absenteeism: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 599–612. Seers, A., Petty, M. M., & Cashman, J. F. (1995). Team-member exchange under team and traditional management: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Group and Organization Management, 20, 18–38. Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999a). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 416–427. Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (1999b). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54, 845–874. Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933–958. Simpson, E. H. (1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163, 688. Sims, H. P., Szilagyi, A. D., & Keller, R. T. (1976). The measurement of job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 19, 195–212. Slavin, R. E. (1992). When and why does cooperative learning increase achievement? Theoretical and empirical perspectives. In: R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 145–173). New York: Cambridge University Press. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. London: W. Strahan and T. Cadell. Snow, C. C., Snell, S. A., & Davison, S. C. (1996). Use transnational teams to globalize your company. Organizational Dynamics, 24, 50–67. Sprigg, C. A., & Jackson, P. R. (2006). Call centers as lean service environments: Job-related strain and the mediating role of work design. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 197–212. Sprigg, C. A., Stride, C. B., Wall, T. D., Holman, D. J., & Smith, P. R. (2007). Work characteristics, musculoskeletal disorders, and the mediating role of psychological strain: A study of call center employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1456–1466. Staw, B. M., & Boettger, R. D. (1990). Task revision: A neglected form of work performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 534–559. Steers, R. M., & Spencer, D. G. (1977). The role of achievement motivation in job design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 472–479. Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press. Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management, 20, 503–550. Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1999). Staffing work teams: Development and validation of a selection test for teamwork settings. Journal of Management, 25, 207–228. Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32, 29–54. Stone, E. F., & Gueutal, H. G. (1985). An empirical derivation of the dimensions along which characteristics of jobs are perceived. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 376–396.

90


Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120–133. Tauer, J. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2004). The effects of cooperation and competition on intrinsic motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 849–861. Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: W.W. Norton. Terkel, S. (1972). Working: People talk about what they do all day and how they feel about what they do. New York: Pantheon Books. Tesluk, P. E., & Jacobs, R. R. (1998). Toward an integrated model of work experience. Personnel Psychology, 51, 321–355. Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. In: L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 297–332). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Tetlock, P. E., & Boettger, R. (1994). Accountability amplifies the status quo effect when change creates victims. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 1–23. Tetlock, P. E., Skitka, L., & Boettger, R. (1989). Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: Conformity, complexity, and bolstering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 632–640. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill. Tiegs, R. B., Tetrick, L. E., & Fried, Y. (1992). Growth need strength and context satisfactions as moderators of the relations of the job characteristics model. Journal of Management, 18, 575–593. Totterdell, P. (2000). Catching moods and hitting runs: Mood linkage and subjective performance in professional sports teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 848–859. Totterdell, P., Kellett, S., Teuchmann, K., & Briner, R. B. (1998). Evidence of mood linkage in work groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1504–1515. Trist, E. L. (1981). The sociotechnical perspective: The evolution of sociotechnical systems as a conceptual framework and as an action research program. In: A. H. Van de Ven & W. F. Joyce (Eds), Perspectives on organization design and behavior (pp. 19–75). New York: Wiley. Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. M. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting. Human Relations, 4, 3–38. Troyer, L., Mueller, C. W., & Osinsky, P. I. (2000). Who’s the boss? A role-theoretic analysis of customer work. Work and Occupations, 27, 406–427. Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 658–672. Turner, A. N., & Lawrence, P. R. (1965). Industrial jobs and the worker. Boston: Harvard University Press. Valcour, M. (2007). Work-based resources as moderators of the relationship between work hours and satisfaction with work–family balance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1512–1523. Vancouver, J. B. (2005). The depth of history and explanation as benefit and bane for psychological control theories. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 38–52. Van de Ven, A. H., Delbecq, A. L., & Koenig, R. (1976). Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. American Sociological Review, 41, 322–338.

Job and Team Design

91

Van der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 532–547. Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L., & McLean Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity. In: L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 215–285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Van Yperen, N. W., & Hagedoorn, M. (2003). Do high job demands increase intrinsic motivation or fatigue or both? The role of job control and job social support. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 339–348. Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices versus hands-on coaching. Organization Science, 12, 559–577. Wall, T. D., Corbett, J. M., Clegg, C. W., Jackson, P. R., & Martin, R. (1990). Advanced manufacturing technology and work design: Towards a theoretical framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 201–219. Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (1995). New manufacturing initiatives and shopfloor job design. In: A. Howard (Ed.), The changing nature of work (pp. 139–174). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wall, T. D., Jackson, P. R., & Davids, K. (1992). Operator work design and robotics system performance: A serendipitous field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 353–362. Wall, T. D., Jackson, P. R., & Mullarkey, S. (1995). Further evidence on some new measures of job control, cognitive demand and production responsibility. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 431–455. Wall, T. D., & Martin, R. (1987). Job and work design. In: C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 61–91). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons. Warr, P., Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1979). Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 129–148. Warr, P., & Wall, T. (1975). Work & well-being. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books. Watson, D. (1988). Intraindividual and interindividual analyses of positive and negative affect: Their relation to health complaints, perceived stress, and daily activities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1020–1030. Weigold, M. F., & Schlenker, B. R. (1991). Accountability and risk taking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 25–29. Wiesenfeld, B. M., Raghuram, S., & Garud, R. (2001). Organizational identification among virtual workers: The role of need for affiliation and perceived work-based social support. Journal of Management, 27, 213–229. Wilk, S. L., Desmarais, L. B., & Sackett, P. R. (1995). Gravitation to jobs commensurate with ability: Longitudinal and cross-sectional tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 79–85. Wilk, S. L., & Sackett, P. R. (1996). Longitudinal analysis of ability-job complexity fit and job change. Personnel Psychology, 49, 937–967. Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, 179–201. Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274.

PUSHING THE BOUNDARIES: A REVIEW AND EXTENSION OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL DYNAMICS OF INTERGENERATIONAL CONFLICT IN ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXTS Leigh Plunkett Tost, Morela Hernandez and Kimberly A. Wade-Benzoni ABSTRACT We review previous research on intergenerational conflict, focusing on the practical implications of this research for organizational leaders. We explain how the interaction between the interpersonal and intertemporal dimensions of intergenerational decisions creates the unique psychology of intergenerational decision-making behavior. In addition, we review the boundary conditions that have characterized much of the previous research in this area, and we examine the potential effects of loosening these constraints. Our proposals for future research include examination of the effect of intra-generational decision making on intergenerational beneficence, consideration of the role of third parties and linkage issues, investigation of the effects of intergenerational communications and negotiation when generations can interact, examination of the role of social power in influencing intergenerational interactions, investigation of Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Volume 27, 93–147 Copyright r 2008 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0742-7301/doi:10.1016/S0742-7301(08)27003-9

93

94

LEIGH PLUNKETT TOST ET AL.

the interaction between temporal construal and immortality striving, and exploration of the ways in which present decision makers detect and define the intergenerational dilemmas in their social environments.

INTRODUCTION Intergenerational decisions are those in which the interests of the self in the present are in conflict with the interests of others in the future; they represent a type of dilemma that is ubiquitous in contemporary organizations. Consider a few examples: An executive is faced with the decision of utilizing a more expensive but sustainable energy source that will conserve resources for future social actors but will cut into company profits, or instead using a non-renewable resource that will save the company money but pollute the environment. A director of a large non-profit organization must decide whether to embark upon a new strategic plan in the present that could considerably enhance the effectiveness of the organization’s current activities but will necessarily constrain the options available to her successors regarding future allocations of financial and human resources among the organization’s diverse service goals. A young analyst is finishing a two-year position at her company to pursue an MBA degree, and the new analyst taking her place would like to meet to discuss responsibilities and ease the role transition; she must decide whether to take time out of her own schedule to meet with and guide this new organizational member. A department head in a university is charged with redesigning organizational policies and procedures and must balance the interests and needs of both senior and junior faculty members. While these examples demonstrate that intergenerational decisions are quite common in organizational settings, intergenerational decisions can also be critically important to organizational success. The intergenerational behavior of organizations affects the organizational image that guides communities’, customers’, and employees’ views of the organization. As customers become increasingly concerned with sustainability issues and community stakeholders gain influence over regulatory policies, promoting a corporate image of concern for the future well-being of the environment and of local communities can have a positive effect on the bottom line (Maignan, Ferrell, & Hult, 1999). At the same time, promoting policies of responsible organizational citizenship can have a positive effect on employee morale, motivation, and organizational attachment and identification

Pushing the Boundaries

95

(Maignan et al., 1999; Rupp, Ganapathi, Aguilera, & Williams, 2006). Furthermore, beyond concerns about organizational image, it is undoubtedly beneficial for the long-term survival of the organization for decision makers to incorporate a concern for future organizational interests into decisions about current organizational activities. Such a focus on the future can ensure that the long-term interests of the organization are not sacrificed to achieve short-term goals. Our agenda in this chapter is threefold. First, we review previous research in the areas of intergenerational conflict and decision making with an emphasis on the implications of research findings for organizational leaders and decision makers. In doing so, we hope to highlight the ways in which previous research on intergenerational issues can illuminate organizational processes and can point to potential solutions to intergenerational dilemmas in organizations. Our review includes previous research on the effects of interpersonal distance, egocentric biases, time discounting, uncertainty, optimism biases, affinity with future others, stewardship, empathy, resource valence, mortality salience, and immortality striving on intergenerational decision-making behavior. Second, we seek to consider the effects of loosening the boundary conditions that have generally characterized previous intergenerational research. Much of the previous research in this area has involved four critical boundary conditions: first, that the present decision maker has absolute power over present decisions; second, that future others are completely powerless both because they have no voice in the present decision and because the decision maker is removed from the context of social exchange after the decision is made; third, in the majority of previous studies, time delay between present and future others has been held constant within a given study (see Wade-Benzoni, 2008 for an exception); and fourth, that the intergenerational dilemma in question is clearly defined and the interests of the self and future others are clearly specified. These boundary conditions have proved invaluable in enabling researchers to explore the psychological dynamics of intergenerational decisions and identify a number of critical variables such as time (Wade-Benzoni, 2002, 2006, in press; Wade-Benzoni et al., 2008a), interpersonal distance (Hernandez, Chen, & Wade-Benzoni, 2006; Wade-Benzoni, 2002, 2008; Wade-Benzoni, Hernandez, Medvec, & Messick, 2008b; Wade-Benzoni, Tenbrunsel, & Bazerman, 1996), resource valence (Wade-Benzoni et al., 2008a), uncertainty (Wade-Benzoni, 2002, in press; Wade-Benzoni et al., 2008b), mortality salience (Wade-Benzoni, 2006; Wade-Benzoni et al., 2008a), and power (Wade-Benzoni et al., 2008b), just to name a few, but in this chapter

96


we seek to consider the effects of loosening some of these constraints. How might intergenerational dynamics change if the power asymmetry between present decision makers and future others were not so absolute? What kind of impact would generational dynamics have in a negotiation context, in which future generations of organizational powerholders have the opportunity to influence the decisions of the present generation? Further, how do intergenerational conflicts interact with intra-generational conflicts? Can intergenerational decisions usefully be viewed as two-level games in which a present decision maker must not only balance his or her own present interests with the interests of future others but must also negotiate with his or her contemporaries to determine organizational actions? What else can we learn about how variations in the time delay between present and future generations affect intergenerational decision-making behavior? How might decision makers identify and construct meaning for intergenerational dilemmas and interests that are not clearly identified and specified in their social environments? Finally, the third goal of this chapter is, in considering answers to these types of questions, to propose future areas and directions of research that can enhance scholars’ understanding of intergenerational conflict and decision making. At the same time, we hope to further enhance the utility of this area of research for organizational actors themselves by highlighting practical applications of previous research findings and by pointing out aspects of future research areas that can have important practical applications. We begin with an overview of conceptual issues in intergenerational research, and we highlight the critical interaction between the interpersonal and intertemporal dimensions that characterizes intergenerational decisions. We then review previous research, emphasizing variables that can reduce feelings of psychological distance across generations and enhance stewardship behavior. Finally, we identify and discuss the boundary conditions of previous research and consider ways in which relaxing these boundary conditions can open up new areas of scholarly inquiry regarding intergenerational behavior.

A CONCEPTUAL OVERVIEW OF INTERGENERATIONAL CONTEXTS A key aspect of intergenerational relations is that the interests of present actors and future generations are not always aligned. Intergenerational decisions become problematic when the interests or preferences of the


97

present generation of decision makers are in conflict with the interests of future generations. For example, maintaining sustainable levels of beneficial resources for future generations may require that present actors forego the enjoyment of some of those benefits in the present, and avoiding the imposition of costly burdens on future generations often requires that present actors incur some of the costs of managing those burdens themselves. An intergenerational dilemma is faced, for example, when consumers wish to enjoy the present benefits of economic prosperity by consuming increasing amounts of non-renewable material goods despite the costs that such behavior will impose on future generations in the form of the depletion of resources and environmental degradation. Similarly, an intergenerational dilemma is faced when a corporation’s leadership decides to hide corporate losses through complex accounting procedures in order to inflate the current value of the company (and thus the benefits they gain through their leadership positions in the forms of salary and other financial incentives) despite the likelihood that such misdeeds will eventually be discovered and future generations of organizational actors and shareholders will have to deal with the burdens of declining stock prices, negative publicity, and potential corporate demise. Intergenerational decisions have much in common with classic social dilemmas. Classic social dilemmas involve situations in which the individual’s material self-interest is in conflict with the interests of the collective such that the individual receives a higher payoff for making selfish choices that harm the collective interests (Brewer & Kramer, 1986; Dawes & Messick, 2000; Kollock, 1998; Messick, 1999; Weber, Kopelman, & Messick, 2004). Thus, intergenerational dilemmas are similar to classic social dilemmas in that they involve situations in which individual-level rational self-interest leads to outcomes that are undesirable at some collective level. Research on social dilemmas has also examined situations in which long- and short-term interests are in conflict. Social delayed traps, for example, are situations in which the satisfaction of immediate self-interest conflicts with the long-term interests of the collective, while social delayed fences refer to situations in which immediate and costly effort is required to achieve a longterm collective goal (such that violating present self-interests produces positive long-term consequences for the collective) (Joireman, Kamdar, Daniels, & Duell, 2006b; Messick & Brewer, 1983; Platt, 1973). However, there is an important distinction between the structure of classic social dilemmas and intergenerational dilemmas. One structural feature that is consistent across research on social dilemmas is that the present decision maker is a member of the collective whose interests are at stake. In the context

98


of intergenerational decisions that have been studied in the past, this is not the case. Instead, the decision maker acts in the present and it is future others alone who experience the future consequences of the decision. Thus, intergenerational dilemmas are structured by two orthogonal dimensions: An intertemporal dimension and an interpersonal dimension. It is the interaction of the psychological dynamics of these two dimensions that creates the unique psychology of intergenerational decisions (Wade-Benzoni, 2008).

The Interpersonal Dimension The interpersonal dimension of intergenerational decisions produces a form of psychological distance between the decision maker and those who experience the repercussions of the decision. Psychologically distant concepts and events are those that are not aspects of an individual’s immediate experience of reality (Liberman, Trope, & Stephan, 2007). When making tradeoffs between the well-being of oneself and that of others, there is a tension between self-interest and the desire to benefit others. People may want to work towards ensuring the well-being of other people, but the consequences to the self feel more immediate and powerful than the consequences on others. Thus, interpersonal psychological distance, which can be great or small, refers to the extent to which an individual experiences a connection with or affinity for another individual or a collective entity (Hernandez et al., 2006). When interpersonal psychological distance is great, as is often the case in intergenerational contexts, decision makers tend to place less weight on the consequences of their decisions for others relative to the weight they put on the consequences to themselves (Loewenstein, 1996). The feeling of psychological distance between the self and the others who experience the future consequences creates a key psychological feature in intergenerational dilemmas that is shared by other interpersonal contexts in which the interests of one individual or group is in conflict with the interests of another individual or group: the potential for egocentric biases. Extensive research has demonstrated that when the interests of two individuals or groups are opposed, individuals who are personally involved in the situation exhibit biased perceptions of fairness (Babcock, Loewenstein, Issacharoff, & Camerer, 1995; Bazerman & Neale, 1982; Neale & Bazerman, 1983; WadeBenzoni et al., 1996; Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). Specifically, individuals’ fairness assessments of the various potential outcomes of a given dilemma tend to indicate that they view their preferred outcome as also the most fair and just outcome. This type of bias emerges as a result of

99


dual motivations on the part of the individual. On the one hand, the individual is motivated to present a positive image of herself as a fairminded, generous, and ethical person. On the other hand, she is also motivated to pursue her own self-interest by obtaining benefits and avoiding burdens. Biased judgments of fairness allow both motives to be pursued simultaneously, at least from the perspective of the present actor. Because egocentric biases produce a perception that the self-interested action or interpretation of events is also the most ethically legitimate one, the decision maker is freed, at least to an extent, from the dilemmatic aspect of the decision and can move forward to pursue her own self-interest less impeded by concerns of fairness or justice. Typically, in making such judgments, individuals do not realize that their judgments are skewed by a self-serving bias, and this effect has been demonstrated to generalize across cultures (Wade-Benzoni et al., 2002). Recent research in intergenerational decision making has demonstrated the existence and persistence of egocentric biases in intergenerational contexts. Findings indicate that individuals judge lower allocations to future generations as more fair when they are part of the current generation of decision makers than when they are part of the future generation who experiences the consequences of those decisions (Wade-Benzoni et al., 2008b). Thus, members of present generations have been shown to demonstrate egocentric biases (in comparison to neutral third-party judges), and these biases in turn produce a tendency to act in favor of the self and against the interests of future others (Wade-Benzoni et al., 2008b). However, the extent to which individuals are inclined to act in the interests of future others depends not only on the interpersonal distance between them, but also on factors produced by the intertemporal dimension of intergenerational contexts.

The Intertemporal Dimension As described above, in intergenerational decisions the decision maker is not a part of the collectivity that deals with the future consequences of the decision; instead, it is a separate future generation of individuals who does so. Thus, not only is there an interpersonal dimension of psychological distance between the decision maker and the future others whose outcomes they affect, but there is also an intertemporal dimension which exacerbates that distance. Future others are doubly removed from the decision maker’s immediate experience. In fact, in some intergenerational decisions, the particular future others who experience the future repercussions may be

100


impossible to identify (e.g., a future class of MBA students who has not yet even decided to apply for business school) or may be yet to be born (e.g., future generations of citizens who will deal with the repercussions of global climate change over the next several centuries). This intertemporal component of intergenerational contexts produces two key features that can exacerbate egocentric biases on the part of present decision makers: time discounting and uncertainty. Time discounting is a key manifestation of the intertemporal dimension of intergenerational decision making that can exacerbate egocentrism. Time delay between decisions and consequences can cause individuals to discount the value of future outcomes (even when the decision maker herself experiences the outcome) (Wade-Benzoni, 2008). Findings in the area of individual-level intertemporal choice indicate that people discount the value of commodities that they themselves will consume in the future due to a strong preference for immediate rather than postponed satisfaction (Loewenstein, 1992). If individuals discount the value of future commodities to themselves, then there is an even greater likelihood that individuals will discount the value of outcomes to future generations, and research has shown that decision makers do just that (Wade-Benzoni, 2008). Thus, in the context of intergenerational decision making, time discounting is an additional psychological mechanism that tends to promote self-interested behavior on the part of present decision makers. Furthermore, decisions about the future are inevitably characterized by greater degrees of uncertainty than are decisions based entirely in the present. With the passage of time, the intended outcome of decisions can be disrupted by unexpected events, and present decision makers have limited knowledge of how such events might transpire. For example, scholars have argued that the consequences of continued emissions of greenhouse gases could range from severe global warming to barely any environmental changes to even a cooling of certain areas of the globe (Hillerbrand, forthcoming). Because of the uncertainty of future events, decisions that involve a temporal component are often characterized by an optimistic bias such that individuals are inclined to assume that future outcomes will be better than expected. On that basis, individuals tend to use this uncertainty and corresponding optimism as an excuse to choose outcomes that favor themselves (Budescu, Rapoport, & Suleiman, 1990; Gustafsson, Biel, & Garling, 1999, 2000; Weinstein, 1980). In this way, when a present decision maker is faced with the decision of foregoing present benefits to preserve benefits for future generations, she may evaluate the prospective availability of the benefits in question for future others as much higher than objective


101

evidence indicates. On that basis, she may conclude that it is fair and ethical for her to follow her self-interest and consume more in the present. Similarly, when a present decision maker faces a decision of accepting present burdens in the interest of minimizing burdens for future others, she may convince herself that the possible events that could transpire over time make it likely that these burdens would be more manageable in the future anyway, thus legitimizing her present avoidance of those burdens. Indeed, research has demonstrated that the effects of uncertainty can exacerbate egocentric biases in intergenerational decisions (Wade-Benzoni et al., 2008b). However, in a later section of this chapter, we look at the nuances of this effect and discuss the ways in which priming participants with social power can mitigate this effect of uncertainty.

Combined Effects of the Interpersonal and Intertemporal Dimensions Thus, the combined effects the interpersonal and intertemporal components of intergenerational decision contexts produce egocentric biases, time discounting, and uncertainty, all of which can generally be viewed as conspiring to produce a tendency in present decision makers to prefer smaller but highly probable benefits for themselves now, as opposed to larger but less certain benefits for others in the future (Wade-Benzoni, 1999, 2002, in press, 2008; Wade-Benzoni et al., 1996, 2008b). This is a particularly dismal confluence, given that it is also often the case that the future consequences of present decisions increase over time. For example, long-term investments create benefits that increase as time passes, and the costs of present consumption can produce burdens for future generations that increase in magnitude over time. Consider the experience of the W.R. Grace Company, which disposed of toxic waste by simply dumping the waste on the ground near the community of Woburn, Massachusetts. While the action was inexpensive to the company in the short-run, the toxic waste contaminated groundwater in the community, and the contamination was linked to numerous cases of leukemia in children (Plater, Abrams, & Goldfarb, 1992). As a consequence of the attempt of a previous generation of company officials to avoid the burden of properly disposing of the waste, a future generation of organizational leaders had to deal with the much greater costs of lawsuits and damage to the company’s reputation, and a future generation of community members bore the even greater burden of life-threatening illness. The tendency of benefits and burdens to increase in magnitude over time points to the fact that it is imperative for the long-term

102


well-being of organizations and communities that present decision makers learn to balance the interests of present and future actors without allowing egocentrism, optimism, and time discounting to bias their perspectives and encourage self-interested actions. Research on intergenerational dilemmas, however, suggests that the prospects for intergenerational cooperation and beneficence are not as dismal as the main effects of egocentrism, time discounting, and uncertainty may suggest. Indeed, it is the critical interaction between the interpersonal and intertemporal dimensions of intergenerational decisions that produces the unique psychological dynamics that create a variety of interesting and non-intuitive effects on intergenerational behavior. Specifically, research has indicated that at its most extreme, uncertainty about the implications of one’s decisions for the outcomes of future others can actually decrease present self-interest and increase feelings of responsibility and stewardship toward those future others (Wade-Benzoni et al., 2008b). Also, research has indicated that allocation decisions to future others can, under certain circumstances, elicit greater concerns with ethics and with the nature of one’s long-term legacy, such that present individuals will exhibit generosity toward future generations in an attempt to extend the self into the future and buffer death anxiety (Wade-Benzoni, 2006; Wade-Benzoni et al., 2008a). In the following section, we review this research on intergenerational decision making in more detail, moving beyond the structural features of intergenerational contexts to highlight mechanisms that can reduce psychological distance between present decision makers and future others and enhance the feelings of stewardship and responsibility that present decision makers feel toward future others. Following that review, we then take a step back to examine in more detail the boundary conditions that have guided this previous research, and we begin to analyze how some of the relationships among our focal variables may change as these boundary conditions are relaxed.

INCREASING INTERGENERATIONAL BENEFICENCE THROUGH AFFINITY, POWER, STEWARDSHIP, AND LEGACIES Extant research has shown that intergenerational decisions are deeply influenced by a variety of cognitive and motivational factors that extend beyond the effects of the structural features of the decision-making context.


103

Intergenerational beneficence, or the extent to which members of present generations are willing to sacrifice their own self-interest for the benefit of future others, is more than just the result of a calculation of probabilities and values for optimizing current and future outcomes. Intergenerational allocations have been shown to involve such factors as the fear of leaving a negative legacy, the need for symbolic immortality, feelings of responsibility and connectedness to the future generation, and ethical concerns for the impact of current decisions on future others. In the sections that follow, we discuss these factors, and we focus, in particular, on the role of feeling connected to and feeling responsible for future generations. Throughout our discussion, we offer organizational examples relevant to these two themes.

Feeling Connected: Affinity as a Mechanism for Reducing Psychological Distance Psychological distance is a central issue in intergenerational decision making because when psychological distance is great, the intergenerational consequences of one’s actions lack a sense of immediacy, which can consequently limit intergenerational beneficence (Hernandez et al., 2006; Wade-Benzoni, 1996, 1999, in press; Wade-Benzoni et al., 2008a). One way to combat this psychological distance is to increase feelings of affinity with future others. Affinity refers to a combination of empathy, perspectivetaking, and perceived oneness and is a function of the extent to which the present decision maker feels empathetic toward and connected with future others (Wade-Benzoni, in press). In this section, we review previous research with implications for the effect of affinity on intergenerational beneficence. Specifically, we examine the roles of intergenerational identification, empathy, perspective-taking, and self-construal in increasing affinity and thus, in turn, increasing intergenerational beneficence. Intergenerational Identification Intergenerational identification refers to the perception or feeling of oneness with other (past and/or future) generations of organizational actors (WadeBenzoni, 2003). As such, the concept of identification is highly related to the concept of affinity in that the higher the degree of feelings of oneness a decision maker feels with other generations, the more likely that individual is to feel connected with future others, to engage in perspective-taking regarding the interests of future others, and to have empathy for future others. A wide range of factors affecting the extent of intergenerational

104


identification have been identified, including the decision maker’s motivation for self-enhancement, the decision maker’s holistic needs, group social identity, the specificity with which future others are identified, decision framing, and relations with previous generations (see Wade-Benzoni, 2003 for a detailed review). In this section, we focus specifically on the idea of increasing identification, and hence affinity, with future generations by linking to the past. Theorists have argued that understandings of the past can have a powerful impact on feelings about the future (Sherif, 1966). In intergenerational contexts, feeling identified with past generations may be more readily facilitated than identification with future others because past generations are more readily identified and specified, and the role that members of past generations played in creating the present group context makes the connection between past and present more easily clarified than the connection between the present and the future. However, to the extent that a decision maker identifies with past generations, that individual has already come to view different generations as members of one group. In this sense, then, enhancing identification with the past can help to overcome an obstacle to identification with future generations. As a result, the affinity that a decision maker feels with future generations can be increased by enhancing identification with past generations. This insight has important practical implications for organizations. Specifically, one way to encourage intergenerational beneficence through enhancing intergenerational affinity within the organization would be to highlight the beneficent actions of members of past generations. Highlighting the role of past actors in affecting the present context can have the effect of encouraging present decision makers to view the organizational ingroup as one that has continuity over time through sequences of generations, a perception that is likely to increase identification with, and affinity for, future generations. At the same time, highlighting the impact of past organizational actors can also serve as a reminder to present decision makers that, while future generations may not be presently identifiable to them, the decision makers themselves will be remembered by future others (just as past actors are presently remembered) and they will likely be evaluated by their impact on the future. Empathy Empathy is a social concern that encompasses a personal feeling of understanding for another’s situation or feelings. As empathy increases, so do feelings of affinity, and previous research has demonstrated that


105

empathic feelings can have a powerful impact on intergenerational decisions in organizational contexts. For example, Joireman and colleagues (Joireman, Daniels, George-Falvy, & Kamdar, 2006a; Joireman et al., 2006b) empirically studied how an employee’s anticipated time horizon within an organization would interact with an employee’s dispositional empathy and an employee’s dispositional concern with future consequences. Their findings showed that employees who would soon leave an organization, as compared to those employees who exhibited a long-term commitment to the organization, were less likely to engage in ‘‘organizational citizenship behaviors’’ (OCBs; Organ, 1988), actions benefiting others that go above and beyond an individual’s job function. Most importantly, this decline in OCBs was steeper for those low in empathy and those concerned with the future consequences of their actions. Thus, consistent with prior findings, employees who had a concern with future consequences but who were also low in empathy were less likely to exhibit OCBs when presented with a shortterm time horizon within the company because they believed they would not personally experience the long-term negative outcomes produced by their actions (e.g., Joireman, Anderson, & Strathman, 2003). These findings suggest that promoting a focus on future outcomes is not sufficient to induce intergenerational beneficence because when individuals focus on the future, the danger of opportunism is high when their commitment to the organization is low (i.e., short term). However, the effects of empathy appear to minimize this challenge. Therefore, for managers hoping to encourage intergenerational affinity and beneficence, it may be beneficial to search for evidence of empathy in recruitment applications (i.e., through letters of recommendation, references, interviews) since empathetic concerns may serve to buffer the potential effects of low commitment. Perspective-Taking Perspective-taking is a process of active consideration of the viewpoints of others. Perspective-taking has been shown to produce a number of beneficial consequences in organizations, such as increased self-other merging (Davis, Conklin, Smith, & Luce, 1996), increased social cooperation and tightness of social bonds (Galinsky, Ku, & Wang, 2005), increased empathic concern and altruistic behavior (Batson, Early, & Salvarani, 2006; Oswald, 1996), and improved inter-group relations (Galinsky & Ku, 2004). Thus, perspective-taking can increase affinity for others both by increasing identification with others and by encouraging feelings of empathy toward others. In the context of intergenerational relations, perspective-taking is

106


therefore likely to enhance feelings of intergenerational affinity and consequently to increase the likelihood of intergenerational beneficence. For these reasons, it is important for organizational actors to be encouraged to engage in perspective-taking with regards to the interests of future generations. Perspective-taking practices can be institutionally enforced by mandating procedural changes to decision-making processes that ensure consideration of future generations’ perspectives. Alternatively, intergenerational perspective-taking can be encouraged informally by infusing the organizational culture with messages encouraging the consideration of the interests of future others. When a norm of intergenerational perspective-taking exists within an organization, intergenerational affinity at the organizational level will be enhanced, as will intergenerational beneficence. Culture and Self-Construal One aspect of the level of affinity between the self in the present and others in the future is based on the extent to which individuals define themselves in terms of their relationship to these others. When individuals view a connection with future others as a critical component of their selfunderstanding, the affinity between the self and future generations is high. This affinity is in turn likely to enhance intergenerational beneficence. A critical determinant of the extent of intergenerational affinity and its effect on intergenerational beneficence lies in the way the self is construed (e.g., Brewer, 1991; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1989). Self-construal refers to subjective cognitions that define the self-relative to a specific level of social inclusiveness (e.g., Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988; Turner, Oakes, Haslam, & McGarty, 1994). For example, while the relational self reflects a self-concept that is defined by relational roles, the collective self reflects a self-concept that is defined by one’s social identity and is related to the collective’s group prototype (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). These different self-construals serve as frames of reference for evaluations of self-worth and affect the nature of individuals’ social motivations (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). They may co-exist within one individual, available to be activated in different times and different contexts. Research has demonstrated that national culture can have an important impact on which level of self-construal is activated in the decision maker and that the level of self-construal can, in turn, have a critical impact on behavior. In their study of asymmetric social dilemmas, Wade-Benzoni et al. (2002) showed that Japanese decision makers construed intergenerational


107

decisions in resource dilemmas as interdependent situations (a tendency characteristic of individuals utilizing a relational level of self-construal); they showed that Japanese decision makers were attuned with the interests of others in the group and were willing to take on burdens that were greater than their share in order to manage the sustainability of the resource. Conversely, U.S. decision makers appeared to adopt a personal level of selfconstrual and acted independently and defensively when given the same resource dilemma. Interestingly, the authors acknowledge that the relationally oriented behaviors of the Japanese decision makers could disappear when the future generation is perceived as an out-group. Consistent with these findings, Hernandez, Chen, and Wade-Benzoni (2008) argued that for East Asian cultures (such as Chinese, Japanese, and Indian cultures), the emphasis on relational ties with future generations can motivate individuals to sacrifice for future generations in order to maintain intra-group cohesiveness; in contrast, North American cultures (e.g., the United States and Canada) can become motivated and willing to sacrifice for future generations when their collective identity is primed and the collective is placed in competition with out-groups. This implies that one strategy to increase beneficence in Eastern cultures may be to emphasize the interpersonal relationships within the unit or company. In doing so, decision makers are more likely to construe intergenerational decisions as interdependent situations and thus will be willing to take on burdens that are greater than their share in order to promote the well-being of future generations. For managers working in Western cultures, in contrast, competition between units or with other companies may actually induce greater levels of intergenerational beneficence toward the in-group. In these types of situations, out-group disfavor could cause present generations to allocate more burdens to general future others (the competitors) in order to secure the well-being of specific future others (those belonging to their same unit or company in the future). In this way, a common enemy can serve as a unifying force. One implication of this suggestion is that the distinction between a future generation of ‘‘general’’ others (those belonging to an outgroup) versus a future generation of ‘‘specific’’ others (those belonging to the in-group) may be crucial to determining the effect of self-construal on intergenerational beneficence. Thus, the feeling of connectedness to future generations varies by the extent to which the decision maker’s level of self-construal corresponds to, or matches, the level of inclusion of general and specific others within the relevant group of future others. When the decision maker’s level of selfconstrual is consistent with the level of inclusion that characterizes future

108


generations, affinity is increased and, consequently, the likelihood of intergenerational beneficence is increased as well. Taken together, self-construal, intergenerational identification, empathy, and perspective-taking can all impact intergenerational affinity and can therefore function as pathways to reducing psychological distance and increasing intergenerational beneficence. Furthermore, because each of these mechanisms can be instituted within organizational contexts, they can be practically applied by managers to enhance intergenerational beneficence within organizations.

Feeling Responsible: The Counterintuitive Role of Power Although there may be a general tendency for people to have egocentric notions of fairness, it is not always the default reaction in intergenerational dilemmas. In fact, recent findings demonstrate quite the opposite effect. Mel Lerner’s work on justified self-interest proposes that people’s concerns about justice are not fundamentally and inevitably driven by self-interested motives (e.g., Holmes, Miller, & Lerner, 2002; Lerner, 1977; Lerner & Miller, 1978). He compares the traditionally normative perspective of justice with a more intuitive-based process (Lerner, 2001, 2003). He proposes that while normative notions of justice are based on societal norms that determine how people define and employ moral judgments, intuitive notions of justice are based upon people’s immediate sense of right and wrong. While the conventional process may lead to an application of normative rules that favor an individual’s self-interest (through the use of egoistic and self-justifying biases), self-interest in the intuitive process is not necessarily people’s automatic personal preference. In fact, in situations where people are confronted with matters of serious consequence, where people face actual or even merely threatened injustice, individuals may act upon an intuitive sense of justice with neither the need for reasoned justification nor a consideration of resultant detrimental personal consequences; ‘‘they will focus their attention and act in ways to maintain or restore justice, even when that is costly in terms of generally-desired resources’’ (Lerner, 2003, p. 397). Lerner’s theorizing on these two conceptualizations of fairness judgment processes suggests that individuals in a position of power do not necessarily act out of self-interest; instead, they may act out of an intuitive sense of right and wrong. For example, when confronted with a completely powerless other (i.e., under conditions of threatened injustice), a powerful individual’s


109

sense of responsibility runs counter to their feelings of self-interest. In such cases, people’s automatic preference may be to ensure the welfare of the other person rather than to ensure their own personal gain. This line of reasoning implies that the current generation, who by means of their intertemporal position holds unilateral power over the future generation, may be willing to sacrifice their own outcomes in order to help future generations. Indeed, power imbalance has been shown to induce feelings of social responsibility, which lead people to behave in a socially responsible way towards those who are in need (Greenberg, 1978; Handgraaf, Van Dijk, Vermunt, Wilke, & De Dreu, in press). For example, studies on dictator games have shown increased offers in conditions of complete power asymmetry, which suggests that a social responsibility norm emerges when confronted with a completely powerless other (Suleiman, 1996). Similarly, studies on intergenerational allocations have shown that a feeling of power over the outcomes experienced by future others may actually serve to temper self-interest and elicit stewardship behavior in decision makers (Wade-Benzoni et al., 2008b). Specifically, research has shown that the level of uncertainty inherent in an intergenerational dilemma can influence the power felt by the present decision maker and consequently have a critical impact on the decision. When uncertainty is high, such that the possible benefits future generations could receive from a present decision vary dramatically and include the possibility that they may receive nothing, individuals tend to feel an enhanced experience of power, and this power can motivate feelings of social responsibility. When, however, uncertainty is less extreme, present decision makers experience less of the psychological impact of their power and therefore tend to engage in a greater degree of selfinterested behavior. Wade-Benzoni and her colleagues (2008b) demonstrated this effect by showing that when present decision makers are primed with power, the level of uncertainty has relatively little impact on intergenerational decisions, such that beneficence is relatively high for subjects in both high uncertainty and low uncertainty conditions. When, however, present decision makers are not primed with power (i.e., subjects in control conditions), high levels of uncertainty produce amounts of intergenerational beneficence roughly equivalent to the beneficence of high power individuals, while individuals in the low uncertainty conditions demonstrate significantly more self-interest. Thus, previous research in this area has demonstrated that the experience of power can encourage stewardship behavior. Indeed, Wade-Benzoni and her colleagues (2008b) found that those who were primed with power judged

110


more generous allocations to future others as fairer, and this relationship between power and beneficence was fully mediated by stewardship attitudes. Stewardship is a fundamentally other-oriented activity where power exists through accountability to others. As Berkowitz (1972) describes: ‘‘For many people in our society, the perception that others are greatly dependent on them for their rewards theoretically arouses feelings of responsibility to these others. This felt obligation generally produces a heightened motivation to help the dependent persons’’ (p. 68). Different from principal–agent relations, where control is likely to be maintained through the use of institutional power to establish the desired levels of coercion, hierarchical control, and influence over rewards, ‘‘principal–steward’’ relationships are likely to use personal power, derived from perceived expertise or affective relationships where individuals identify with each other (Davis, Schoorman, & Donaldson, 1997; Fox & Hamilton, 1994). Stewardship is brought forth from a basis of power grounded in a socially oriented concern for others rather than the self. Moreover, stewardship behavior aims to place the longterm best interests of a group ahead of the decision maker’s self-interest (Davis et al., 1997; Hernandez, 2007), a counterintuitive notion to traditional uses of power. We turn now to exploring the mechanisms through which stewardship may be elicited in intergenerational decision making. In the following section, we build on previous work on terror management theory, mortality salience, immortality striving, and resource valence to consider how these factors can interact to affect present decision makers’ inclination to engage in organizational stewardship through intergenerational beneficence. We also explain how managers can leverage these factors in order to create social responsibility within their workforce.

Leaving a Legacy: Immortality Striving, Resource Valence, and Generativity Traditional theory and research on intergenerational behavior focused on the concept of ‘‘generativity,’’ which the eminent psychoanalyst Erik Erikson (1950) defined as ‘‘the concern in establishing and guiding the next generation.’’ Contemporary scholars have come to view generativity as concern for and commitment to the well-being of future generations (McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992). One manifestation of generativity is the desire to leave a positive legacy. Leaving a legacy entails engaging in behavior that will ensure an impact on other people in the future. The


111

enduring impact of one’s behavior over time is central to creating a legacy: one cannot create a legacy by having a fleeting impact, or by affecting merely one’s own future self (Wade-Benzoni, 2006). Concern for legacies leads people to engage in intergenerational beneficence because people want their legacies to be viewed as positive and ethical. Thus, factors that enhance individuals’ concerns for generativity and for their positive legacies can be expected to enhance the likelihood of intergenerational beneficence. In this section, we identify two factors that are likely to enact such concern: mortality salience and the allocation of burdens. Mortality Salience Research on terror management theory (TMT) is particularly useful for understanding people’s desires for a positive and ethical legacy. TMT, which is based largely on the work of Ernest Becker (1973) posits that a broad range of attitudes and behaviors are rooted in the basic human need to resist the notion that physical death is the end of individual existence (Greenberg, Pyszczynski, & Solomon, 1986; Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 1991). TMT theorists argue that, when death is outside of focal awareness but still highly accessible, individuals strive for immortality by attempting to become symbolically immortal through their work and actions (e.g., writing a book, creating works of art, and having enduring accomplishments) (Arndt, Greenberg, Pyszczynski, Solomon, & Simon, 1997; Arndt et al., 1997; Simon et al., 1997). Immortality striving through the creation of a personal legacy enables people to live on after physical death (Greenberg, Solomon, & Pyszczynski, 1997). It is an expression of generativity that originates from a personal need but is carried out publicly, through the future generations that outlive the creator of the legacy (Imada, 2004). People strive to defy death by creating legacies that live on through their children, family business, books, paintings, reputation, family name, or other products that will survive their physical existence. Through legacy creation, people can connect themselves to future others that will continue to exist in a social environment after they are no longer a part of it themselves. Believing that one has made a difference by leaving a group, an organization, or the world a better place is one way that people gain a sense of purpose and meaning in their lives (Wade-Benzoni, 2003, 2006). Intergenerational beneficence thus is guided in part by the intention to create a lasting, positive legacy. In this way, people are motivated to act as stewards, making meaningful social contributions to others. Individuals’ concerns for their legacies become especially motivating when mortality is salient. Specifically, when individuals are faced with

112


thoughts of human mortality, they are motivated to consider the ethical implications of their personal legacies and consequently they feel an enhanced concern that the legacy they leave is viewed positively (WadeBenzoni et al., 2008a). Acting to benefit future generations can help individuals to achieve the goal of creating or maintaining an ethical legacy, and therefore this concern for their ethical legacy increases the likelihood that they will engage in prosocial behavior to benefit future generations. Critically, while beneficence of any kind may contribute to the likelihood that one’s legacy will be viewed as ethical, intergenerational beneficence is particularly effective for this purpose because the temporal delay between decision and consequences creates a direct link between the actor and the future beneficiaries, thus providing the actor with a link to a social entity that will outlast their individual existence. This intertemporal link increases the actor’s feelings that the legacy will actually be experienced in a positive way by future generations. Resource Valence Although some researchers have characterized benefits and burdens as simply the inverse or absence of each other (Elster, 1992; Mikula, 1980), research in social psychology and organizational behavior suggests that the treatment of benefits and burdens are not psychologically equivalent and that distributing benefits and burdens results in very different decision processes (Griffith & Sell, 1988; Lamm & Kayser, 1978; Mannix, Neale, & Northcraft, 1995; Northcraft, Neale, Tenbrunsel, & Thomas, 1996; Okhuysen, Galinsky, & Uptigrove, 2003; Sondak, Neale, & Pinkley, 1995; To¨rnblom, 1988). Specifically, extensive research in psychology provides evidence that negative events elicit more physiological, affective, cognitive, and behavioral reactions and induce more cognitive analysis than do neutral or positive events (Taylor, 1991). Not only are negative events better able to capture observers’ attention, but they are also considered and contemplated for longer periods of time than are neutral or positive events (Abele, 1985; Bohner, Bless, Schwartz, & Strack, 1988; Pratto & John, 1991). In addition, individuals tend to perceive negative events as more complex, and as a consequence negative events inspire more causal attributional activity than do positive events (Peeters & Czapinski, 1990, Weiner, 1985). Research in negotiation contexts supports the idea that negative events have greater psychological impact than neutral or positive events. Negotiation research has directly compared the allocations of benefits and burdens, and results indicate that negotiators are willing to pay more to avoid a burden than to gain an equal benefit and would require much


113

greater compensation to accept a burden than to give up a benefit (Northcraft et al., 1996). Furthermore, individuals reject burdens more strongly than they pursue benefits (Sondak et al., 1995). Also, negotiating the allocation of burdens generates more self-interested and competitive behavior than negotiating the allocation of benefits (Okhuysen et al., 2003). Thus, in negotiation contexts, burdens have a greater psychological impact and inspire more self-interested behavior. Upon first glance, these findings might lead one to conclude that the allocation of burdens to future generations also generates more self-interested behavior and thus less intergenerational beneficence. However, one critical difference between negotiation contexts and intergenerational contexts is the complete power imbalance that characterizes intergenerational decision making. The absolute power asymmetry can inspire motivations toward social responsibility and stewardship (Wade-Benzoni et al., 2008b), and this effect of power asymmetry can transform the effect of resource valence on inclinations toward self-interested behavior. Indeed, research on the effect of resource valence on intergenerational decision making has found that present decision makers actually demonstrate greater beneficence toward future generations when allocating burdens compared to benefits (Wade-Benzoni et al., 2008a). A key reason for this finding is that people tend to consider imposing burdens on powerless others to be more morally problematic than neglecting to leave them benefits. For example, previous research has demonstrated that decision makers are hesitant to impose clearly aversive outcomes on powerless others (Sondak & Tyler, 2007). In addition, while people are inclined to favor their in-group when allocating benefits, they tend to refrain from engaging in discriminating behavior when allocating burdens (e.g., Blanz, Mummendey, & Otten, 1997; Mummendey et al., 1992; Otten & Mummendey, 1999). Given that leaving burdens to future generations is viewed as more morally problematic than neglecting to leave them benefits, and that the absolute power asymmetry that tends to characterize intergenerational dilemmas can inspire feelings of stewardship and social responsibility, it is also reasonable to expect that the allocation of burdens inspires greater concern for one’s ethical legacy. In this sense, then, the allocation of burdens enacts the same causal mechanism that is enacted by mortality salience. Both the allocation of burdens intergenerationally and the experience of mortality salience inspire a greater concern with generativity and with the positive nature of one’s ethical legacy. Consequently, both promote

114


intergenerational beneficence. In a series of five studies, Wade-Benzoni et al. (2008a) demonstrated that thoughts of death (i.e., mortality salience) and the allocation of burdens to the future generation (i.e., leaving a negative legacy) lead individuals to experience an increased concern for ethics, which consequently leads them to engage in intergenerational beneficence. The authors argue that this enhanced generosity and diminished self-interest in self-other tradeoffs result from a desire to extend the self into the future by creating an ethical legacy. Taken together, the evidence from research on mortality salience and resource valence suggests that managers can instill social responsibility in the workforce by highlighting the lasting, positive recognition the decision maker(s) will receive from future generations, the detrimental effects that could result from choosing not to act in intergenerationally beneficent ways, and the moral responsibility involved in organizational decisions that affect others. These characteristics of intergenerational decision making are particularly important for organizational leaders to consider; they are in a position to choose between wielding the tremendous social power of the organization toward stewardship, which works towards securing the welfare of all stakeholders, or self-interest, which as recent scandals have illustrated, can easily lead to the demise of the corporation and create devastating social consequences for the broader community. More broadly, the findings concerning the ways in which intergenerational affinity, power, immortality striving, and resource valence can encourage intergenerational beneficence highlight that intergenerational behavior is permeated with complex psychological phenomena that differ in a variety of ways from interpersonal processes that do not involve an intertemporal component. In the remainder of this chapter, we explore a variety of avenues for further research on these issues.

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH As mentioned above, the critical feature of intergenerational dilemmas is that a present decision maker (or group of decision makers) faces a dilemma in which the interests of the self in the present are opposed to the interests of others in the future. However, the previous research that produced the findings described above has generally added additional boundary conditions onto the decision-making context. The first of these boundary


115

conditions is that the present decision maker has absolute power over the present decision. That is, a single decision maker makes the decision and is accountable to no one else, either present or future. This also means that there are no linkage effects, or issues external to the decision, that might influence the present decision maker. Thus, the present decision maker is responsible for no one but herself and the outcomes to the powerless future others. Second, the future others who experience the future consequences are completely powerless. Not only do they have no voice in the present decision, but the present decision maker is removed from the social exchange context upon making the decision. As a result, the future others are also powerless to reciprocate any positive or negative outcomes in future decisions that they themselves may be empowered to make. Third, the majority of the research reviewed above operationalized time as dichotomous – present versus future. While the timelines have differed considerably across studies, relatively few studies have distinguished between the near future and more distant future and examined how this distinction might impact intergenerational decisions and behavior (for an exception, see Wade-Benzoni, in press). Finally, in previous research in this area, the future others in question have usually been identified and the opposition between present self-interest and the interests of the future others has been made clear. Consequently, research has yet to examine how effective decision makers are at detecting the presence of intergenerational dilemmas and what types of future others present decision makers are most likely to consider. As we hope has been demonstrated by our review of previous findings in the intergenerational decision-making literature, the use of these boundary conditions has been instrumental to the discovery of a wide variety of fascinating aspects of intergenerational behavior. However, it is also possible to loosen some of these boundary conditions while still maintaining the critical feature of intergenerational contexts: a present decision maker experiencing a conflict between the interests of the self in the present and the interests of others in the future. Thus, in this second portion of our chapter, our task will be to explore some of the potential effects of relaxing these boundary conditions (see Table 1 for an overview of these effects). In doing so, we present a number of new theoretical propositions, and we suggest a variety of directions for further research in this area, research that we think will be particularly useful for organizational scholars and practitioners. In order to facilitate this application to organizational contexts, we first briefly consider the various ways of defining a generation in an organizational context.

116


Table 1. Overview of the Potential Effects of Relaxing the Boundary Conditions of Previous Research. Boundary Conditions

Mechanisms for Relaxing the Boundary Conditions

Potential Implications of Relaxing the Boundary Conditions

Intra-generational negotiation The decision maker may be Absolute power of present becomes important in responsible to or dependent decision maker (i.e., in intergenerational decisions; upon others in the present previous research, a single intergenerational decisions may in order to achieve her decision maker makes the come to resemble two-level games desired outcomes, as may decision and is accountable in which decisions about the future be the case when linkage to no one else, either must be ratified by others in the effects emerge or when present or future) present. In addition, the presence third parties have a stake in of third parties may re-channel the decision powerful decision makers’ social responsibility inclinations away from future others and toward the present third parties Direct reciprocity may provide future Multiple generations may Absolute powerlessness of generations with only limited co-exist, raising future others (i.e., in power, thus increasing the opportunities for direct previous research, the competitive mindset of present reciprocity and future others have no voice decision makers and decreasing intergenerational in the present decision, and intergenerational beneficence. negotiation because the present Alternatively, if future generations decision makers have experience greater degrees of generally been removed power, present decision makers from the social exchange may consider intergenerational context after making their beneficence to be in their interest decisions, there is no as well, thus increasing generosity opportunity for direct to future others. In addition, reciprocity) intergenerational negotiation could produce opportunities for integrative agreements Greater temporal distance may lead Time delay held constant (i.e., Studies could distinguish present decision makers to view between the near future in the majority of the decisions at a higher level of and more distant future previous research in this construal. This higher level of and examine how this area, time has been viewed construal could interact with the distinction might impact as dichotomous – present decision maker’s concern for her intergenerational decisions versus future) (though see future legacy, causing her to focus (see Wade-Benzoni, Wade-Benzoni, in press for more on the desirability of a in press for an example of an exception) positive legacy and less on the this type of approach) difficulties involved in creating such a legacy. Thus, enhanced intergenerational beneficence could be a counter-intuitive consequence of greater time delay when consideration of the decision maker’s future legacy is involved.

117


Table 1. (Continued ) Boundary Conditions

Mechanisms for Relaxing the Boundary Conditions

Potential Implications of Relaxing the Boundary Conditions

Future research can build on work in Relatively clear identification Real-world decision makers the areas of ethical decision may face intergenerational of the nature of the making, issue construction, and decisions quite frequently intergenerational dilemma bounded ethicality to come to an without realizing that in question (i.e., in most understanding of how present future others will be previous research in this decision makers detect the impacted and/or without area, the present decision presence of intergenerational an adequate understanding maker is informed that dilemmas and come to an of what the interests of there are future others who understanding of the interests of those future others may be will experience the impact future others of their decision and the distinction between the interests of the present decision maker and the future others is made relatively clear)

Defining ‘‘Generation’’ in Organizational Contexts Previous research on intergenerational decision making has adopted a broader, and conceptually more rigorous, definition of ‘‘generation’’ than the conventional conception of a generation as a 20–30 year timeframe within a family or societal context. For example, Wade-Benzoni (2002) defines a generation as an individual or group that ‘‘occupies a role that may be an office, status, or set of responsibilities’’ such that the time period of role occupation is limited (p. 1012). Thus, a generation is an individual or group of individuals that occupies a role for a limited period of time. This time period may be either fixed (e.g., a class of MBA students) or flexible (e.g., directors of functional areas or chairs of academic departments), but the time period in the role must be understood to be finite. Thus, inherent in the concept of organizational generations is the idea of generational transition (Wade-Benzoni, 2002). That is, at some point, the present generation cedes its role, status, or responsibilities to a succeeding generation. For example, past, present, and future sets of organizational leaders can be thought of as generations of organizational leaders, and generational transition occurs when leadership is passed from a preceding generation to a succeeding one. The concept of organizational generations may be further specified by examining the concept at different levels of analysis. Considering the present

118


generation first, present generations may be composed of either an individual or a group of individuals. For example, a generation may be composed of a single individual while he or she occupies a specified role (e.g., CEO or department chair). At the group level, on the other hand, a generation may be either cohort-based or event-based and can refer to small teams or to all current members of an organization (Wade-Benzoni, 2002). A cohort-based generation is one in which a group of individuals shares a common temporal starting point in a common role. An example of this type of generation would be a new group of analysts hired just out of college or a new class of MBA students matriculating together. An event-based generation, on the other hand, is one whose membership is specified by the timing of the occurrence of a particular event. For example, when an organization undergoes a corporate restructuring, the group of individuals hired before the restructuring may be thought of as one generation, while the group of individuals hired after the restructuring may be thought of as a different generation. Specifying these various types of organizational generations is important because the extent to which the various boundary conditions specified in previous research are applicable to generations in organizational contexts may depend upon the type of present generation that is involved in an intergenerational dilemma. For example, when the present generation is composed of a single individual, the boundary condition of complete power for the present decision maker is much more likely to hold than it is when the present generation is composed of a group of individuals. In particular, if the present generation is composed of more than one individual, then any single individual within the present generation that is faced with an intergenerational decision may have to consult other members of her generation before a decision can be made. In such situations, intergenerational decisions may actually represent two-level games (Dawes & Messick, 2000; Putnam, 1988) in which not only must the present decision maker determine the course of action that she thinks is appropriate but then must also have the decision ‘‘ratified’’ by others in her generation. It is also useful to examine in more detail the levels of analysis that can be used to define future generations relevant to intergenerational decisions in organizations. Again, future generations may be composed of one individual (as is the case when a role, such as CEO, can only be occupied by one individual at a time), or a group of individuals. An even more critical distinction in considering future generations, however, is the extent to which future generations are broadly defined. A future generation may be conceived of as a future generation of social actors in general, as is


119

generally the case in intergenerational dilemmas involving the potential future effects of current natural resource use (e.g., resource depletion, global climate change, etc.). Alternatively, the boundaries of a future generation whose interests are at stake in intergenerational dilemmas faced by organizations may be narrowed down to future generations of organizational stakeholders. For example, decisions about long-term organizational strategies can affect a range of future stakeholders (including shareholders, customers, and employees, among others). The concept of future generations may be narrowed further to the consideration of future generations of organizational members only. For example, an intergenerational dilemma in an organization may involve the interests of a future generation of employees, as when decisions about human resource policy can affect the structure and functioning of the leadership pipeline and thus have a powerful effect on the prospects of success for prospective future generations of organizational leaders. Or an organizational intergenerational dilemma may concern the interests of a single future organizational actor, as is the case when the decisions made by a present CEO about the current use of material and financial resources can expand or limit the options available to a future CEO concerning how to leverage organizational assets and achieve organizational goals. Finally, it is not only the scope of inclusion of future actors along the interpersonal dimension that is critical in the specification of future generations; the scope applied to the intertemporal dimension is also relevant. Specifically, the extent to which a present decision maker considers the interests of a single future generation in the decision-making process versus considering the interests of all future generations may have an important impact on the decision. For example, when a decision impacts multiple generations of future others, rather than only a single generation, the decision maker is more likely to feel a greater degree of power and the future others are more likely to experience a greater degree of powerlessness due to the diffuse nature of their group. Thus, both the interpersonal scope and the intertemporal scope of inclusion of future actors as having a stake in an intergenerational dilemma can have important effects on the decision-making process and outcome. Specifically, the broader and more diffuse the group that composes the future generation(s), the more likely it is to have organizational challenges, and hence the more likely it is that it will remain in a relatively powerless position. Similarly, if the future generation of relevance is one that will only exist in the very distant future, then the boundary condition of complete powerlessness for the future generation will more likely hold. However,

120


if the future generation or generations in question have at least some members who are identifiable and able to act in the present, then those individuals may be able to provide the future with a voice. Those members may also be in control of resources that would provide a potential channel for reciprocity towards the present generation of decision makers. Therefore, the level at which both the present and future generations are specified can affect the extent to which the boundary conditions that have characterized previous research on intergenerational dilemmas are likely to hold. In the following sections, we begin to examine the potential effects of loosening some of those boundary conditions, and we highlight avenues of future research that can further illuminate the nature of intergenerational dilemmas in organizational contexts. We begin by discussing how intergenerational dynamics might change if the present decision maker does not have absolute power relative to others in the present. We then consider how the psychology of intergenerational decision making might change if future generations are not completely powerless, such that reciprocity and intergenerational negotiation becomes possible. In that section, we consider the nature of intergenerational interaction in organizations in more detail, particularly as such interaction is affected by power differences across generations. We then consider how future research might examine the relative effects of considering nearer versus more distant future others, and we examine the mental construction of intergenerational dilemmas on the part of present decision makers by building on work in the areas of bounded rationality and issue construction.

EFFECTS OF DIMINISHING THE POWER OF THE DECISION MAKER Research paradigms used in most previous work on intergenerational dilemmas have endowed the present decision maker with absolute power over the outcome for the self and for future others. In this section, we explore how intergenerational dynamics might be altered if this constraint is relaxed. Specifically, we first consider the utility of viewing intergenerational dilemmas as two-level games in which decision makers must not only determine their own opinion as to the appropriate course of action but must further negotiate with their contemporaries to achieve consensus or cooperation to pursue a course of action. Second, we consider the potential effects of third parties and linkage issues on intergenerational decisions and


121

attempt to determine the possible ramifications of other interests competing for the decision maker’s attention.

Intergenerational Decisions as Two-Level Games Two-level games are mixed-motive forms of social interaction in which outcomes are determined through two separate rounds of negotiation or decision making. In political science, two-level games are a frequent metaphor for the interplay between domestic politics and international diplomacy (Putnam, 1988). As used in that context, two-level games involve a negotiator reaching an agreement at the international level that must then be ratified at the domestic level. Consequently, the preferences of domestic actors constrain the range of options available to the negotiator at the international level. A similar dynamic exists in negotiations between unions and management, in which the union representatives must have any potential agreement ratified by the broader union membership. It is easy to imagine situations in which this metaphor would also be useful for intergenerational decision making. Specifically, if a present actor is faced with an intergenerational dilemma that requires collective action on the part of the present generation, then that intergenerational dilemma can be viewed as a two-level game in which the actor first forms a personal preference for the course of action to be taken and then is faced with the necessity of persuading her contemporaries to cooperate in enacting the necessary behavior. For example, individuals are often faced with the dilemma of whether to go to the trouble of recycling the materials that they use in order to conserve resources for future generations. This is an intergenerational dilemma because a present decision maker determines outcomes for future others. However, if only one or very few members of the present generation recycle, then their effort will likely have little effect. It is only when a considerable portion of the present generation agrees to recycle that a significant impact can be made. Thus, recycling presents a two-level intergenerational dilemma in which an individual is dependent upon intragenerational cooperation to achieve an intergenerational goal. The metaphor is useful for intergenerational dilemmas in organizational contexts as well. For example, a CEO may determine that it is in the longterm best interests of the corporation to make an expensive long-term investment that will be costly in the short-run but is likely to produce large pay-offs in the long-run. However, in order to enact such a plan, she will likely be required to obtain the approval of the board of directors.

122


One clear implication of expanding the view of intergenerational dilemmas to include situations in which the present decision maker is not a unitary actor with absolute power over the decision is that the need to inspire collective action among contemporaries is likely to make intergenerational beneficence more difficult and, consequently, less likely. Specifically, intergenerational beneficence may be rendered more difficult if others in the present generation are more inclined toward self-interest or if members of the present generation are inclined toward intergenerational beneficence but do not trust others in their generation to cooperate as well. Research on two-level social dilemmas can shed light on these issues and indicates that these concerns for the prospects of intergenerational beneficence are at least somewhat well-founded. For example, Insko and his colleagues (Insko, Schopler, Hoyle, Dardis, & Graetz, 1990) have demonstrated that when people act as individuals in social decision-making contexts they tend to be far more generous and cooperative than when they act as groups. Similarly, research on two-level social dilemmas has found that individuals act vigorously to protect the interests of their own groups, even when those groups are randomly constructed (Bornstein, 1992). This research suggests that group members encourage one another to take the greedy option. If this is so, then in two-level intergenerational dilemmas, members of the present generation may attempt to persuade one another to forego beneficence and serve their own self-interests. More recently, scholars have demonstrated that egocentrism exists not only at the individual level, but at the group level as well and that individuals may justify self-interested behavior by arguing that they were simply acting on behalf of their group. For instance, Diekmannn (1997) conducted an experiment in which individuals engaged in a production task either on their own or within a group. Individuals were then provided with feedback indicating their relative performance or the relative performance of their group as compared to another individual or group with whom they would have to share payment for the task. The performance feedback was ambiguous and open to interpretation. She found that individuals who worked alone claimed over half of the payment for themselves when their claims were to be private, but claimed less than half for themselves when told that their claims would be made public. Individuals who worked in groups, on the other hand, independently decided to keep more than half for the group in both public and private conditions. Furthermore, individuals allocating to their groups rated advantageous inequality as significantly fairer than did individuals allocating to themselves only. Diekmann interpreted these results to indicate that individuals use beneficence towards


123

other in-group members as an excuse to act unfairly toward out-group members. The beneficence enacted toward in-group members acts as a mask, obscuring the self-interested motivations that the action also serves. Therefore, when intergenerational dilemmas contain an intra-generational component, decision makers may construe the decision as an opportunity to demonstrate loyalty to their own generation rather than as an opportunity to demonstrate beneficence to future others. However, other research in the area of social dilemmas provides reason for more optimism about prospects for intergenerational beneficence. Kramer and Brewer (1986) found that when individuals involved in a depleting resource dilemma were divided into two groups, individuals tended to restrain their harvesting activities if informed that members of their ingroup were harvesting too rapidly (this restraint was ostensibly enacted in an attempt to compensate for the behavior of other ingroup members by harvesting less). Therefore, future research should explore the circumstances under which the need for intra-generational cooperation in intergenerational dilemmas will inhibit intergenerational beneficence, as well as the extent to which members of the present generation are more likely to encourage one another toward self-interest versus set an example of restraint and cooperation. Finally, when intergenerational dilemmas require cooperative action from other members of the present generation, power asymmetries among present actors may become more critical. This is because powerful actors are likely to be the only ones with the influence and resources to persuade other members of their generation to cooperate toward intergenerational beneficence. Similarly, if powerful actors prefer to act in the self-interest of present generations, less powerful actors may feel that it is futile to attempt beneficence when the more powerful actors who could make a larger impact are refusing to cooperate. For instance, consider a real-life intergenerational dilemma facing companies in the fisheries industry. Stocks of many fish are near collapse, and harvesting must be curtailed considerably to maintain sustainable levels of fish for future generations. However, individual companies within this industry must cooperate with one another to curtail harvests if they are to be successful. Thus, according to the logic presented here, it is likely that the largest fisheries set the course that the entire industry is likely to follow. If the largest fisheries refuse to curtail their harvests, small fisheries are unlikely to do so, reasoning that fish populations will be depleted regardless of their behavior. However, if the largest fisheries take responsibility to set a positive example of restraint and use their influence to persuade others in their industry to exercise restraint as

124


well, the prospects for achieving sustainability should be much better. Thus, future research could also explore the effect of power asymmetry within the present generation, as well as the effect of powerful actors’ behaviors, on the likelihood of intergenerational beneficence.

To Whom is the Decision Maker Responsible? Previous research on intergenerational decision making has utilized experimental paradigms that isolate the decision maker and the dilemma so that no third parties or linkage issues affect the decision. A third party is an individual or group that is not actively involved in the decision but whose interests the decision maker might view as relevant to the decision outcome. A linkage issue is an issue that is not at stake in the present decision, but the outcome of the present decision may have relevance to the range of options available when that issue comes up for decision or negotiation at a later point. As explained above, this constraint has permitted researchers to identify and analyze a broad range of effects in intergenerational behavioral contexts. However, in real-world decision-making contexts, this constraint may not hold, and the introduction of third parties or linkage issues into decision-making contexts could have significant and meaningful impact on intergenerational behavior, particularly with respect to the effect of power on intergenerational beneficence. As explained above, research on power asymmetry in dictator games and intergenerational decision making has indicated that absolute power asymmetry can induce feelings of social responsibility in powerful decision makers and lead them to inhibit their self-interest and enhance beneficence (Berkowitz, 1972; Chen, Lee-Chai, & Bargh, 2001; Greenberg, 1978; Handgraaf et al., in press). This is a particularly interesting finding, given that previous research on power asymmetry demonstrated a negative effect of power on social responsibility. For example, Samuelson and Allison (1994) found that powerful individuals who were labeled ‘‘supervisors’’ were more likely to take more than their fair share of a common resource, though this relationship did not emerge for powerful individuals who were labeled as ‘‘leaders’’ or ‘‘guides.’’ They interpreted these results as indicating that the label ‘‘supervisor’’ entails greater feelings of entitlement than do the other two labels. However, subsequent research confirmed the greater tendency toward self-interests for powerholders labeled ‘‘leaders’’ as well and demonstrated that this tendency is mediated by feelings of entitlement (De Cremer, 2003; De Cremer & Van Dijk, 2005; van Dijk & De Cremer, 2006).


125

The critical insight that the studies by Handgraaf and his colleagues (in press) and Wade-Benzoni and her colleagues (2008b) contribute to this line of research is that the effect of power on social responsibility behaviors depends on the extent of power asymmetry. When power asymmetry is not absolute, increasing degrees of power tend to increase self-interested behavior (Handgraaf et al., in press). However, when the power asymmetry becomes absolute, the social interaction is no longer viewed in a competitive frame but instead in a responsibility frame, and social responsibility and beneficence become the predominant behavioral reaction (Handgraaf et al., in press; Wade-Benzoni et al., 2008b). Thus, research has shown that the effect of social power on social responsibility is dependent upon the extent of power asymmetry such that there is a positive relationship between power and self-interested behavior up to the point that power becomes absolute; when power is absolute, social responsibility concerns are activated. An interesting extension to this line of research would be to consider the effect of the existence of third parties and linkage issues on powerholders’ interpretations of the appropriate targets of their responsibility. We suggest that third parties and linkage issues could have negative effects on intergenerational beneficence by diverting the decision maker’s attention away from future others. When a decision maker perceives that other constituencies or issues of interest to her may also be at stake in an intergenerational decision, her view of the appropriate target of her social responsibility motivations may be affected. For example, managers making intergenerational decisions in organizations are often acting as agents of the organization, rather than as independent and unitary actors. In such cases, the manager may have complete power over the present decision, and thus over the outcomes to future others, but the manager still feels ultimately responsible to the organization for organizational performance. In this type of situation, would the experience of complete power activate feelings of social responsibility to the future powerless others or instead to the organization to whom the decision maker feels ultimately accountable? This question not only directs researchers’ attention to an important organizational issue, but it also highlights an aspect of the relationship between complete power asymmetry and social responsibility that thus far remains unclear: is it the complete power of the powerholder or the complete powerlessness of future others that inspires the motivations toward social responsibility? If it is the latter, then the presence of third parties and linkage issues should not detract the decision maker from acting in the interests of powerless future others. If, however, it is the former, then

126


the decision maker might end up feeling a greater responsibility toward the source of her power than to the powerless others whose outcomes she determines. Finally, previous research on power and social responsibility has generally followed experimental paradigms that ensure that the social dilemma in question is well-defined and that the powerless others are clearly identified. However, it is more likely that in real-world decisionmaking contexts, the decision maker will need to engage in some degree of sense-making to identify the dilemma and the relevant actors (Weick, 1979, 1995; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). In such situations, the decision maker herself may be faced with the challenge of determining which group of future others’ interests are at stake in terms of both the interpersonal and intertemporal scope (e.g., future social actors in general, future stakeholders, all future employees, or just a future set of individual role holders, etc.). While we will discuss the construction of intergenerational dilemmas in more detail in a later section of this chapter, we note here that individuals’ constructions of their social environment are affected by their expectations and motivations and thus may be susceptible to egocentric biases. If decision makers construct intergenerational dilemmas in an egocentric fashion, then their tendency toward intergenerational beneficence may be diminished. For example, building on the work on egocentric biases at the group level (e.g., Diekmann, 1997), a present decision maker may encounter an intergenerational decision in which the interests of her ingroup in the present are in conflict with the interests of future others. In that instance, an egocentric bias may lead her to construe the decision more as an opportunity to demonstrate loyalty to her ingroup than as a decision that that places her in control of outcomes to powerless others. Furthermore, previous research has demonstrated that powerholders’ attention is highly goal-dependent (Overbeck & Park, 2001, 2006). Because powerholders’ goals are more likely to be closely associated with fairly narrowly defined groups of other individuals (e.g., shareholders rather than stakeholders in general), it is likely that powerholders are inclined to restrict the boundaries of the range of other individuals (both present and future) to whom they are responsible. Therefore, future research could explore how present decision makers construct their own understandings of which future others will be affected by their decisions, the extent to which egocentric biases at either the individual or group levels affect this process, and the tendency for powerful individuals to define the targets of their responsibility in either narrow or broad fashions.


127

EFFECTS OF ENHANCING THE POWER OF FUTURE GENERATIONS In this section, we examine the effect of enhancing the power of future generations on intergenerational behavior by considering situations in which present and future generations co-exist. As mentioned above, previous research on intergenerational decision making has focused on contexts in which future others are completely powerless to reciprocate the actions of present decision makers and have no voice about present decisions. In this section, we relax these restrictions and consider the dynamics of intergenerational behavior when generations co-exist and are able to interact. First, we consider how the potential for direct reciprocity and intergenerational negotiation may affect intergenerational decision making. Second, we consider how power differences across generations would be likely to affect intergenerational interaction in organizational contexts. Intergenerational Reciprocity and Negotiation Reciprocity typically means the direct and mutual exchange of benefits or burdens characterized by a quid pro quo mentality. Philosophers and theorists have typically pointed to the absence of direct reciprocity in many intergenerational situations as a major inhibitor of intergenerational beneficence (Care, 1982). That is, because future generations often cannot reciprocate the behavior of the present generation, the present generation is freed to make a self-interested decision without considering the consequences. Previous research in intergenerational decision making, however, has investigated a concept known as ‘‘intergenerational reciprocity’’ (Wade-Benzoni, 2002). When individuals cannot reciprocate the benefits or burdens left to them by previous generations, they may ‘‘reciprocate’’ by behaving similarly to future generations. In this sense, research has demonstrated that individuals pass on the benefits or burdens left to them by previous generations as a matter of either retrospective obligation (in the case of benefits) or retaliation (in the case of burdens). Thus, past generations can set a powerful norm of either beneficent or self-interested behavior that present and future generations are likely to follow. Given these previous findings, it is interesting to consider what would be the effects on intergenerational beneficence if present and future generations co-exist and the possibility exists for direct reciprocity. The previous discussion on the relationship between power and social responsibility

128


suggests one possibility: that the presence of direct reciprocity could increase the future generation’s power just enough to inhibit feelings of social responsibility in the present generation, thus leading to less intergenerational beneficence. However, this effect should depend on at least two other considerations. First, the possibility of intergenerational negotiation could present opportunities for integrative agreements across generations. Second, the future generation may have access to a sufficient amount of power that it becomes in the best interest of the present generation to cooperate with the now-powerful future others. If present and future generations co-exist, the possibility is opened for communication and thus for negotiation over intergenerational dilemmas. Negotiation between generations could have a considerable impact on outcomes. When future generations are voiceless, the general presumption (both in previous research and in practice) has tended to be that the preferences of the current generation can serve as a proxy for the preferences of the future generation. However, this assumption is not necessary if the generations can interact. It may be that a variety of opportunities for integrative agreements would open up if generations were able to negotiate directly. For example, open negotiation across generations may reveal that, rather than having competing interests as is often assumed, the generations may have complementary interests such that they can trade on their differences to build value for both groups. Furthermore, previous research on social dilemmas has demonstrated that communication can induce commitments among actors to cooperate for the good of the whole (Kerr & Kaufman-Gilliland, 1994; Sally, 1995). Thus, the ability of generations to interact may enhance intergenerational cooperation and beneficence. The effect of intergenerational reciprocity on intergenerational beneficence may also be dependent upon the amount of power with which future others are endowed. While we might expect from previous research (e.g., Handgraaf et al., in press; Wade-Benzoni et al., 2007) that beneficence would decrease if future others have some but little power, we may see an entirely different outcome if the power of future others is considerable. Specifically, if future others have considerable power to affect outcomes of importance to present decision makers (outside the intergenerational dilemma in question), then present decision makers may come to the conclusion that it is actually in their own long-term self-interest to act in a beneficent way toward the powerful future others. While we imagine that instances in which the future generation can actually over-power present actors are quite rare, they certainly may occur. For example, the future generation may hold a great deal of power if they have substantially greater


129

abilities and training in critical new technology and if such abilities are not easily acquired by the individuals presently holding powerful positions, or if such abilities can most easily be acquired by obtaining training from members of the future generation. Thus, in circumstances in which the future generation holds some substantial and meaningful amount of power to affect outcomes to present decision makers, the ability of future generations to engage in direct reciprocity may change the intergenerational dilemma to a situation where the present generation engages in intergenerational beneficence not because of feelings of generativity, social responsibility, or stewardship, but because it’s in their material self-interest to do so. Therefore, future research could explore how opportunities for direct reciprocity, intergenerational communication, and intergenerational negotiation affect intergenerational decision making. For example, studies could compare the behavior of present decision makers who encounter intergenerational decisions in which the future generation has the ability to reciprocate with present decision makers who encounter intergenerational decisions that are framed as opportunities for intergenerational reciprocity. It would be expected that those in the direct reciprocity conditions would adopt a more competitive mindset and would consequently exhibit less intergenerational beneficence. Those in the intergenerational condition, on the other hand, would be expected to ‘‘pay forward’’ the behavior that they received from previous generations, exhibiting beneficence when a beneficent norm has been established by previous generations and selfinterest when a self-interested norm has been established by previous generations. Furthermore, these opportunities for future research also open up additional research questions about the effect of direct reciprocity on intergenerational reciprocity. Specifically, if the opportunity for direct reciprocity exists, would individuals still demonstrate a tendency to engage in intergenerational reciprocity as well? Would the examples set by previous generations have the same norm-setting effect, or would this effect be eliminated by present and future generations engaging in direct forms of reciprocity?

Power Differences across Generations in Organizational Settings While we pointed out in the previous section that it is possible that future generations could actually come to hold more power than present decision makers, we expect this type of power asymmetry to be the exception rather

130


than the rule. More often, it is likely that present generations will still hold greater amounts of power over the general conduct of social and organizational activities than will the future generations. This is particularly likely because members of the present generation tend to control access to the resources that future others need to achieve their goals. For example, if we consider a present generation of top-level organizational leaders and a future generation of leaders for that same organization, it is likely that the members of the future generation that co-exist with the present (i.e., that are currently employed by the organization) hold lower and middle level management positions in the present. The present generation of organizational leaders thus holds a considerable amount of control over the future generation’s access to job opportunities, training, and promotions. At least some members of the present generation likely influence members of the future generation’s job performance evaluations, and they also have substantial influence over the ways in which the organizational leadership pipeline channels aspiring leaders into powerful roles. Thus, when generations co-exist within organizations, there is likely to be a substantial power asymmetry between them such that earlier generations have greater amounts of formal and informal power than do later generations. In previous sections we have discussed a very specific type of power: power to control outcomes to the self and others in specific decisionmaking contexts. In this section, we consider a more diffuse type of power, the social power that infuses daily interactions with a sense that some social actors have greater influence than others through both formal mechanisms, such as their control of resources and official positions, and informal mechanisms, such as their social status and social networks. Recent research on the effects of power on the powerholder indicates that powerful individuals have an inclination toward action and approach-related behaviors (Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & Magee, 2003; Galinsky, Magee, Inesi, & Gruenfeld, 2006; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003; Magee, Galinsky, & Gruenfeld, 2007) and focus their attention on goal-related pursuits (Chen, Ybarra, & Kiefer, 2004; Copeland, 1994; Overbeck & Park, 2001, 2006). These tendencies can affect powerholders’ approach to organizational activities in ways that can produce a divergence in perspectives across generations and could produce intergenerational conflict. One area in which such power asymmetry might produce a divergence in perspectives across generations is in the area of justice or fairness perceptions. Specifically, powerholders’ goal-oriented nature may inspire a greater concern for distributive, rather than procedural, justice. A focus on goals entails a focus on outcomes, and greater concern for outcomes should


131

be associated with greater concern for distributive aspects of organizational justice than with procedural aspects. However, extensive amounts of previous research has documented that procedural justice is critically important to less powerful individuals (e.g., Lind, Kanfer, & Earley, 1990; Lind, Kulik, Ambrose, & Park, 1993; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1989). Therefore, if powerholders focus on administering distributive justice but neglect issues of procedural justice, then the attempts of powerful individuals to produce perceptions of fairness within the organization may be unsuccessful. Furthermore, because justice perceptions have been found to be associated with numerous positive outcomes in organizational settings, including job performance and commitment (Aryee, Chen, & Budhwar, 2004), cooperation with organizational leaders (van Knippenberg & De Cremer, 2003), and organizational citizenship behaviors (Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998) among others, this divergence in perspectives of organizational justice between powerholders and less powerful organizational members, especially potential future organizational leaders, could have negative consequences for organizational performance. Critically, this divergence in fairness perceptions could further have a negative impact on attempts at intergenerational negotiation and cooperation. Therefore, future research should explore the ways in which the power asymmetry that is likely to characterize interactions between present and future generations in organizational contexts may produce divergences in the organizational justice perceptions of present versus future generations, as well as in other types of organizationally relevant domains. Furthermore, research should consider, to the extent that these perceptions of present and future generations do differ, the ways in which differences along these dimensions contributes to negative organizational outcomes and what types of interventions could minimize these negative effects.

THE TIME HORIZON OF FUTURE GENERATIONS In previous sections we discussed the effect of time delay between decisions and outcomes on intergenerational behavior. In this section, we consider a different type of time delay: time delay between the present generation’s possession of decision-making power and the role transition that brings about the transfer of that power to future generations. Such a time delay could be short, as in role transitions between sequential generations that occur on a weekly or monthly basis, or it may be quite long, such as the time delay between a present generation and one that will come to power in several decades.

132


Previous research on intergenerational decision making has generally manipulated time delay by making between-subjects comparisons across individuals allocating to present others (as in dictator games) or allocating to future others (as in intergenerational decisions). The extent of time delay has varied considerably, from a month, to five years, to decades or more. In this section, we consider how variations in the extent of time delay may affect intergenerational decision making, drawing on previous research on intergenerational decision making, as well as on research on temporal construal and immortality striving. Previous research on intergenerational decision making provides at least two reasons for researchers to expect that greater temporal delays between the present and future generations lead to decreases in intergenerational beneficence. First, as previous research on the effects of intertemporal distance and intergenerational decision making has shown, greater intertemporal distance increases the effects of time discounting and uncertainty. By definition, the decrease in perceived value due to time discounting is greater over greater periods of time. In addition, greater time delays increase uncertainty because they increase the probability that unforeseen events could affect outcomes. For example, Gilovich and colleagues (Gilovich, Kerr, & Medvec, 1993) found that the greater the temporal distance between the timing of a decision and the realization of the outcomes of that decision, the easier it is for decision makers to be optimistic about those outcomes. Thus, greater extents of temporal delay between generations enhance the effects of time discounting and uncertainty, and these effects lead to a greater likelihood of egocentric and optimism biases and, consequently, a decreased likelihood of intergenerational beneficence. Second, others from more distant future generations seem more interpersonally distant to present decision makers, and as discussed above, this interpersonal distance facilitates egocentric biases and diminishes tendencies toward intergenerational beneficence. When the temporal delay is fairly brief, it is much more likely that the present generation has personally interacted with members of the future generation, knows personal information about some of those members, or at least can identify them as specific individuals with potentially identifiable interests and needs. When, however, the temporal delay is considerable, the members of future generations may not yet be identifiable or may not yet be in existence. Thus, the interpersonal and intertemporal distance between present decision makers and future others increases with greater time delays between generations, and this distance is likely to increase egocentrism and diminish intergenerational beneficence.


133

However, other streams of research, particularly work on temporal construal and immortality striving, suggest that the effect of time delay on intergenerational behavior may be more complicated. When decision makers construct mental representations of the outcomes at stake in a decision and place values on those potential outcomes, they are construing events at a temporal distance. Research on temporal construal that has been conducted in the area of cognitive psychology has demonstrated that events that are construed at a greater temporal distance are construed at a higher level. High-level construal is characterized by a focus on general, goalrelevant aspects of the target that are construed as simple, coherent, and abstract (Liberman, Sagristano, & Trope, 2002; Liberman & Trope, 1998; Trope & Liberman, 2000, 2003). When conducting high-level mental construal, individuals focus on aspects of future events that are related to superordinate concerns and are central to the meaning of the event for them. Low level construal, on the other hand, is characterized by a focus on specific, goal-irrelevant aspects of the target that are construed as contextualized, incidental features (Liberman et al., 2002; Liberman & Trope, 1998; Trope & Liberman, 2000, 2003). When conducting low level mental construal, individuals focus on aspects of future events that are related to subordinate concerns, concerns that ultimately reflect insignificant details rather than the crux of the issue at hand. Research has demonstrated that high-level construal is associated with concerns about desirability, while low level construal is associated with concerns about feasibility (Liberman & Trope, 1998). For example, if a student discovers that an interesting lecture on a topic of great interest to her is to be delivered on her campus in six months, she is likely to place a high priority on attending the event and will likely look forward to it. However, when the event is only days away, she may feel inclined to skip the event because of the time it will take to walk across campus to find the building in which the talk will take place, or she may feel that she needs to save the time to focus on her classes. In this example, when the event is six months away, she construes the event at a high level, focusing on issues concerning desirability, such as the meaning of the event for her, the insights she might gain into her own research, and the colleagues she might meet and with whom she could share discussion. As the time of the event becomes immanent, however, she focuses on less significant details related to the feasibility of attending, such as the time and energy that attendance will require. Thus, research on temporal construal suggests that decision makers may focus more on aspects related to the desirability of outcomes when making decisions involving more distant future others, while they may focus more

134


on feasibility when making decisions involving the interests of temporally closer generations of future others. When considered in conjunction with the previous findings on immortality striving in intergenerational decisions, this effect of temporal construal has some interesting implications. Specifically, if concern with one’s future legacy is salient at the point of decision making and immortality striving is thus an active (if nonconscious) goal in the decision-making process, then greater time delays between present and future generations may actually enhance intergenerational beneficence. For example, if a decision maker is seeking to secure a positive future legacy, then when a decision is considered at a low level (as is likely when the temporal delay is relatively low), the decision maker may focus on the feasibility of achieving that legacy and may consequently consider the uncertainty that characterizes future outcomes and the interpersonal distance between herself and the future others. In such cases, the negative effects of time discounting, uncertainty, and egocentric biases may overwhelm the desire for a positive legacy. However, when the decision is construed at a higher level (as is more likely the case when the temporal delay between generations is greater), then the decision maker is much more likely to focus on the desirability of creating a positive future legacy, to the neglect of concerns about uncertainty and interpersonal distance. In such cases, the likelihood of intergenerational beneficence may be much higher. Moreover, the greater the time delay between present and future generations, the greater the opportunity to symbolically extend the self into the future. Therefore, future research could examine the ways in which the combined effects of temporal construal and immortality striving can either enhance or minimize concerns related to interpersonal and intertemporal distance and consequently minimize or enhance the likelihood of intergenerational beneficence.

BOUNDED ETHICALITY, ISSUE CONSTRUCTION, AND ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN INTERGENERATIONAL CONTEXTS Because previous research on intergenerational decision making has typically provided subjects with clearly defined intergenerational dilemmas in which the future others and the nature of the distinction between the interests of the self in the present and the interests of others in the future are


135

clearly specified, research has yet to examine the ways in which decision makers react to intergenerational dilemmas that the decision makers must detect themselves. To this end, previous research in the areas of ethical decision making, issue construction, and bounded ethicality can speak to the ways that these processes are likely to play out. In this section, we build on these previous literatures to consider how present decision makers might detect intergenerational dilemmas (i.e., when they will consider the interests of future others to be relevant to the decision-making process) and what types of future others present decision makers are most likely to consider. In real-world settings, intergenerational dilemmas are likely to lurk in a considerable proportion of the decisions that powerful individuals make. Indeed, to an unprecedented extent, today’s leaders have the power to shape the future in ways that will affect future generations’ health, wealth, and access to resources. Yet, it remains unclear the extent to which, and the frequency with which, powerful individuals give weight to the interests of future others in making these decisions. A fascinating stream of research on conflicts of interests has recently emerged to propose that most of the ethical violations associated with conflicts of interests do not occur because of the self-interested or greedy motivations of decision makers, but instead are due to the ways in which basic psychological processes limit the ability of decision makers to detect the existence of these conflicts of interest in the first place (Chugh, Bazerman, & Banaji, 2005). This research builds on Simon’s (1955) concept of bounded rationality, which refers to psychological limits on decision-making quality in general, to articulate a theory of bounded ethicality, which refers to psychological limits on the quality of ethical decision making. Chugh and her colleagues (2005) argue that decision makers have unconscious motivations to view situations in ways that are favorable to their own self-interests and that unconscious processes facilitate egocentric biases in the recognition of ethical dilemmas, thus diminishing the likelihood that these dilemmas will ever be detected. Based on this research on bounded ethicality, we might expect that when intergenerational dilemmas are less clearly defined and when the interests and identities of future others are less clearly specified, intergenerational beneficence will be considerably less likely. Issue construction in ethical decision making is an area of research that attempts to determine how individuals detect and understand ethical dilemmas, and it therefore has implications for understanding the circumstances under which individuals will recognize intergenerational dilemmas and interests. Research on issue construction in ethical decision making examines how individuals construct their own meaning from a set of

136


stimuli in the environment (Sonenshein, 2007). Sonenshein (2007) explains that as uncertainty increases, individuals have more opportunities to construct more idiosyncratic interpretations of social stimuli and that these interpretations tend to come from individuals’ expectations, motivations, and social influences. In business settings, he argues, dominant institutional logics (Friedland & Alford, 1991) tend to promote the perceptions that decisions are about only the economic performance of the organizations. As a consequence, individuals in business organizations are likely to use an economic frame in constructing ethical decisions. A considerable amount of previous research has documented the powerful effect that framing can have on ethical decision making. For example, Tenbrunsel and Messick (1999) have demonstrated that the structural features of interactions can shift the framing of a dilemma or decision from an ethical framing to a business framing, and such a switch can significantly diminish the likelihood of ethical behavior. Tenbrunsel and Messick (1999) reported a series of studies in which they examined the role of sanctioning systems on cooperative behavior. They found that the presence of sanctions shifted participants’ views of the dilemma from an ethical view to a business view and that this shift was accompanied by less cooperative behavior. Other types of perspective shifts in ethical decision making have been reported as well. For instance, Mulder and her colleagues (Mulder, van Dijk, & De Cremer, 2006) reported results indicating that sanctioning systems decrease trust in others. Apparently, the presence of the sanctioning system shifts the framing of the situation from a trust frame to a control frame and consequently creates presumptions about the motivations of others, replacing the trust observed in the absence of a sanctioning system with distrust. The distrust, in turn, diminishes cooperative behavior. Similarly, additional research has found that providing extrinsic rewards for donating blood actually decreased willingness to donate because the extrinsic rewards replaced the generosity frame with a self-interest frame and thus ‘‘crowded-out’’ the potential effects of generosity or ethical motivations (Frey & Oberholzer-Gee, 1997). All of these studies found that structural factors can function to shift individuals’ perspectives from an ethical perspective to a more self-interested perspective, altering the decision makers’ views of what was at stake in the decision-making context. These findings suggest, then, that the extent to which present decision makers have a dominant tendency to view decisions through a ‘‘business’’ or economic framework, the less likely they are to detect intergenerational dilemmas because they are less likely to consider the interests of future others (at least those future others whose interests are not


137

perfectly aligned with the interests of the organization) as relevant to the decision-making process. Of course, a critical avenue for future research to pursue is to attempt to determine what factors lead to these framings in the first place. As a first step in this direction, Tenbrunsel and her colleagues (Tenbrunsel, Smith-Crowe, & Umphress, 2003) have identified the concept of an organization’s ethical infrastructure, which is composed of the formal and informal elements, such as surveillance systems, ethical climates, and communication. They argue that these elements work together to affect ethical decision-making behavior within organizational settings. The research on framing in decision-making contexts also has implications for determining which groups of future others present decision makers may be most likely to consider in making their decisions. Specifically, it may be that present decision makers will limit the interpersonal scope of the future others whose interests they consider relevant in decision making to match the scope of the group of individuals that they consider to be their ingroup in the present. In other words, ingroup loyalty may persist across generations, leading individuals to exhibit a preference toward favoring the interests of future members of their ingroup over other future actors. For example, people who use a business frame in making decisions may be likely to view other organizational actors as members of their ingroup. Therefore, to the extent that they consider the interests of future others to be relevant in a decision, they may be more inclined to consider the interests of future organizational actors than to consider the interests of a broader range of future social actors. To the extent that they consider only a division of their organization to constitute their ingroup, it is likely that, when they do consider the interests of future others, they will consider the interests of future members of their division, and not a broader range of future organizational actors in general. Thus, future research could build on the work in bounded ethicality, issue construction, and ethical decision making to assess how it is that individuals go about detecting and understanding the nature of intergenerational dilemmas in organizations, as well as how they go about specifying what group or groups of future others have interests at stake in present decisions.

CONCLUDING REMARKS Present-day decision makers have an unprecedented power to affect the outcomes of future generations across a broad range of dimensions. Presentday decisions in the realms of business and politics affect the amount of sustainable resources left to future generations, the prospects for global

138


environmental change, the manageability of national-level budget deficits, the functioning of social security systems, and the quality of health and educational systems across the globe. Intergenerational decisions have considerable impact within organizations as well: present-day decisions can affect the long-term strategic options available to future leaders, shape the leadership pipeline to determine which future leaders are able to attain leadership positions, affect the organization’s public image decades into the future, and influence the long-term survivability of the organization in numerous other ways. For these reasons, we believe that the study of intergenerational decision making provides critical insight into the ways that societies, organizations, and groups develop and change over time and that this type of insight can be used as a tool to guide this development and change in ways that are productive and beneficial for the long-term success of any entity. In the first half of this chapter, we reviewed previous research on intergenerational decision making with an eye toward highlighting the practical steps that managers can take to enhance intergenerational beneficence. One step that managers can take to encourage intergenerational beneficence is to work to decrease the psychological distance between present decision makers and future others by increasing the affinity across generations. Self-construal, intergenerational identification, and perspectivetaking all play roles in affecting intergenerational affinity. Matching the framing of decisions to the level of self-construal predominant in the national culture of the decision maker can have a guiding effect on intergenerational decisions. In addition, intergenerational identification with future others can be encouraged by establishing a significant level of identification with past generations; when the achievements and records of past organizational actors are emphasized, present actors are led to think about the ways in which the group persists over time despite role transitions. Perspective-taking can also enhance identification with and empathy for future generations, so managers should encourage practices that incorporate the perspectives of future others into decision-making processes. In addition to these approaches to minimizing psychological distance, another approach to increasing intergenerational beneficence is to emphasize the link between the possession of power and responsibility for the interests of relatively powerless others. Emphasizing this link can have the effect of building a culture of stewardship within the organization. Finally, emphasizing the ethical legacies that intergenerational decisions create can encourage intergenerational beneficence as well. Previous research has produced a range of valuable insights into the nature of intergenerational decision-making behavior and the types of

139


practices that can encourage intergenerational beneficence. However, a vast range of questions related to this area of research remain to be answered, and in the second half of this chapter we have proposed a number of avenues for future research. Our suggestions have revolved around relaxing the boundary conditions from previous research in order to assess how removing certain restrictions will affect the relationships among key variables that have been discovered in previous research, as well as how the removal of these restrictions can further guide researchers to examine new variables and relationships. It is our hope that these ideas will inspire future research on the effect of intra-generational decision making on intergenerational beneficence, the effect of third parties and linkage issues in intergenerational decision making, the effects of intergenerational communications and negotiation when generations can interact, the role of social power in influencing intergenerational interactions, the interaction between levels of temporal construal and immortality striving, and the ways in which present decision makers detect and define the intergenerational dilemmas in their social environments. As research on these and other issues continues to enhance understandings of intergenerational behavior, the prospects for intergenerational cooperation and beneficence can be enhanced as well.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT We thank Joseph Martocchio for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

REFERENCES Abele, A. (1985). Thinking about thinking: Causal, evaluative, and finalistic cognitions about social situations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 315–332. Arndt, J., Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., & Simon, L. (1997). Subliminal presentation of death reminders leads to increased defense of the cultural worldview. Psychological Science, 8, 379–385. Arndt, J., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., & Simon, L. (1997). Suppression, accessibility of death-related thoughts, and cultural worldview defense: Exploring the psychodynamics of terror management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 5–18. Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., & Budhwar, P. S. (2004). Exchange fairness and employee performance: An examination of the relationship between organizational politics and procedural justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 94, 1–14.

140


Babcock, L., Loewenstein, G., Issacharoff, S., & Camerer, C. (1995). Biased judgments of fairness in bargaining. The American Economic Review, 85(5), 1337–1343. Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (2006). Perspective-taking: Imagining how another would feel versus imagining how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(7), 751–758. Bazerman, M. H., & Neale, M. A. (1982). Improving negotiation effectiveness under final offer arbitration: The role of selection and training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 543–548. Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. Free Press: New York. Berkowitz, L. (1972). Social norms, feelings, and other factors affecting helping an altruism. In: L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 63–108). New York: Academic Press. Blanz, M., Mummendey, A., & Otten, S. (1997). Normative evaluations and frequency expectations regarding positive versus negative outcome allocations between groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 165–176. Bohner, G., Bless, H., Schwartz, N., & Strack, F. (1988). What triggers causal attributions? The impact of valence and subjective probability. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 335–345. Bornstein, G. (1992). The free-rider problem in intergroup conflicts over step-level and continuous public goods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 597–606. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. L. (1996). Who is the ‘‘we’’? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83–93. Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 543–549. Budescu, D. V., Rapoport, A., & Suleiman, R. (1990). Resource dilemmas with environmental uncertainty and asymmetric players. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 475–487. Care, N. S. (1982). Future generations, public policy, and the motivation problem. Environmental Ethics, 4, 195–213. Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. T. (2001). Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 173–187. Chen, S., Ybarra, O., & Kiefer, A. K. (2004). Power and impression formation: The effects of power on the desire for morality and competence information. Social Cognition, 22(4), 391–421. Chugh, D., Bazerman, M. H., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). Bounded ethicality as a psychological barrier to recognizing conflicts of interest. In: D. A. Moore, D. M. Cain, G. Loewenstein & M. H. Bazerman (Eds), Conflicts of interest: Problems and solutions from law, medicine, and organizational settings. London: Cambridge University Press. Copeland, J. T. (1994). Prophecies of power: Motivational implications of social power for behavioral confirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 264–277. Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 791–808. Davis, M. H., Conklin, L., Smith, A., & Luce, C. (1996). Effect of perspective taking on the cognitive representation of persons: A merging of self and other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 713–726. Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20–47.


141

Dawes, R. M., & Messick, D. M. (2000). Social dilemmas. International Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 111–116. De Cremer, D. (2003). How self-conception may lead to inequality: Effect of hierarchical roles on the equality-rule in organizational resource-sharing tasks. Group and Organization Management, 28, 282–302. De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2005). When and why leaders put themselves first: Leader behavior in resource allocations as a function of feeling entitled. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 553–563. Diekmannn, K. K. (1997). ‘‘Implicit justifications’’ and self-serving group allocations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 3–16. Elster, J. (1992). Local Justice. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton. Fox, M. A., & Hamilton, R. T. (1994). Ownership and diversification: Agency theory and stewardship theory. Journal of Management Studies, 31, 69–81. Frey, B. S., & Oberholzer-Gee, F. (1997). The cost of price incentives: An empirical analysis of motivation crowding out. American Economic Review, 87(4), 746–755. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In: A. A. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 453–466. Galinsky, A. D., & Ku, G. (2004). The effects of perspective-taking on prejudice: The moderating role of self-evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(5), 594–604. Galinsky, A. D., Ku, G., & Wang, C. (2005). Perspective-taking and self-other overlap: Fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8(2), 109–124. Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17, 1068–1074. Gilovich, T., Kerr, M., & Medvec, V. H. (1993). Effect of temporal perspective on subjective confidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 552–560. Greenberg, J. (1978). Effects of reward value and retaliative power on allocation decisions: Justice, generosity, or greed? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(4), 367–379. Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1986). The causes and consequences of a need for self-esteem: A terror management theory. In: R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Public Self and Private Self. New York: Springer-Verlag. Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., & Pyszczynski, T. (1997). Terror management theory of self-esteem and social behavior: Empirical assessments and conceptual refinements. In: M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 61–139). New York: Academic Press. Griffith, W. I., & Sell, J. (1988). The effects of competition on allocators’ preferences for contributive and retributive justice rules. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 443–455. Gustafsson, M., Biel, A., & Garling, T. (1999). Outcome-desirability bias in resource management problems. Thinking and Reasoning, 5, 327–337. Gustafsson, M., Biel, A., & Garling, T. (2000). Eogism bias in social dilemmas with resource uncertainty. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3, 351–365.

142


Handgraaf, M. J., Van Dijk, E., Vermunt, R. C., Wilke, H., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (in press). Less power or powerless: Egocentric empathy gaps and the irony of having little versus no power in social decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Hernandez, M. (2007). Promoting stewardship behavior in organizations: A leadership model. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 121–128. Hernandez, M., Chen, Y.-R., & Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (2008). Toward an understanding of psychological distance reduction between generations: A cross-cultural perspective. In: Y.-R. Chen (Ed.), National culture and groups (Vol. 9). Elsevier: JAI Press. Hillerbrand, R. (forthcoming). The problem of uncertainty. In: A. Gosseries & L. H. Meyer (Eds), Theories of intergenerational justice. Oxford University Press. Holmes, J. G., Miller, D. T., & Lerner, M. J. (2002). Committing altruism under the cloak of self-interest: The exchange fiction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 144–151. Imada, T. (2004). Generativity as social responsibility: The role of generations in societal continuity and change. In: E. de St. Aubin, D. P. McAdams & T. C. Kim (Eds), The generative society. Caring for future generations (pp. 83–95). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Hoyle, R. H., Dardis, G. J., & Graetz, K. A. (1990). Individual-group discontinuity as a function of fear and greed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 68–79. Joireman, J., Anderson, J., & Strathman, A. (2003). The aggression paradox: Understanding links among aggression, sensation seeking, and the consideration of future consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1287–1302. Joireman, J., Daniels, D., George-Falvy, J., & Kamdar, D. (2006a). Organizational citizenship behaviors as a function of empathy, consideration of future consequences, and employee time horizon: An initial exploration using an in-basket simulation of OCBs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(9), 2266–2292. Joireman, J. A., Kamdar, D., Daniels, D., & Duell, B. (2006b). Good citizens to the end? Empathy and concern with future consequences moderate the impact of a short-term time horizon on organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1307–1320. Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284. Kerr, N. L., & Kaufman-Gilliland, C. M. (1994). Communication, commitment, and cooperation in social dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 513–529. Kollock, P. (1998). Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 183–214. Kramer, R. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1986). Social group identity and the emergence of cooperation in resource conservation dilemmas. In: H. Wilke, D. M. Messick & C. G. Rutte (Eds), Experimental social dilemmas (pp. 177–203). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Verlag Peter Lang. Lamm, H., & Kayser, E. (1978). The allocation of monetary gain and loss following dyadic performance: The weight given to effort and ability under conditions of low and high intra-dyadic attraction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 275–278. Lerner, M. J. (1977). The justice motive: Some hypotheses as to its origins and its forms. Journal of Personality, 45, 1–51.


143

Lerner, M. J. (2001). ‘‘Normative’’ and ‘‘intuitive’’ sense of justice. Newsletter for the International Society for Justice Research (June). Retrieved February 23, 2007 from http://www.isjr.org/Newsletter-Issue1-01.html Lerner, M. J. (2003). The justice motive: Where social psychologists found it, how they lost it, and why they may not find it again. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 388–399. Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030–1051. Liberman, N., Sagristano, M. D., & Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 523–534. Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5–18. Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Stephan, E. (2007). Psychological distance. In: E. T. Higgens & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (Vol. 2). New York: Guilford. Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. C. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 952–959. Lind, E. A., Kulik, C. T., Ambrose, M. L., & Park, M. V. d. V. (1993). Individual and corporate dispute resolution: Using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(2), 224–251. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press. Loewenstein, G. (1992). The fall and rise of psychological explanations in the economics of intertemporal choice. In: G. Loewenstein & J. Elster (Eds), Choice over time. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Loewenstein, G. (1996). Behavioral decision theory and business ethics: Skewed tradeoffs between self and other. In: D. M. Messick & A. E. Tenbrunsel (Eds), Codes of conduct: Behavioral research into business ethics (Vol. 214–227). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Magee, J. C., Galinsky, A. D., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2007). Power, propensity to negotiate, and moving first in competitive interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(2), 1–13. Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Hult, G. T. M. (1999). Corporate citizenship: Cultural antecedents and business benefits. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 455–469. Mannix, E. A., Neale, M. A., & Northcraft, G. B. (1995). Equity, equality, or need? The effects of organizational culture on the allocation of benefits and burdens. Organizational Behavioral and Human Decision Processes, 63, 276–286. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. McAdams, D. P., & de St. Aubin, E. (1992). A theory of generativity and its assessment through self-report, behavioral acts, and narrative themes in autobiography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 1003–1015. Messick, D. M. (1999). Alternative logics for decision making in social settings. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 38, 11–28.

144


Messick, D. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1983). Solving social dilemmas: A review. In: L. Wheeler & P. Shaver (Eds), Review of personality and social psychology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Mikula, G. (1980). On the role of justice in allocation decisions. In: G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction: Experimental and theoretical contributions from psychological research (pp. 127–167). New York: Springer-Verlag. Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 351–357. Mulder, L. B., van Dijk, E., & De Cremer, D. (2006). Fighting noncooperative behavior in organizations: The dark side of sanctions. In: A. E. Tenbrunsel (Ed.), Ethics in groups (Vol. 8, pp. 59–81). Elsevier. Mummendey, A., Simon, B., Dietze, C., Grunert, M., Haeger, G., Kessler, S., Lettgen, S., & Schaferhoff, S. (1992). Categorization is not enough: Intergroup discrimination in negative outcome allocation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 125–144. Neale, M. A., & Bazerman, M. H. (1983). The role of perspective-taking ability in negotiating under different forms of arbitration. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 36, 378–388. Northcraft, G. B., Neale, M. A., Tenbrunsel, A., & Thomas, M. (1996). Benefits and burdens: Does it really matter what we allocate? Social Justice Research, 9, 27–45. Okhuysen, G. A., Galinsky, A. D., & Uptigrove, T. A. (2003). Saving the worst for last: The effect of time horizon on the efficiency of negotiating benefits and burdens. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 269–279. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co. Oswald, P. A. (1996). The effects of cognitive and affective perspective taking on empathic concern and altruistic helping. Journal of Social Psychology, 136(5), 613–623. Otten, S., & Mummendey, A. (1999). To our benefit or at your expense? Justice considerations in intergroup allocations of positive and negative resources. Social Justice Research, 12, 19–38. Overbeck, J. R., & Park, B. (2001). When power does not corrupt: Superior individuation processes among powerful perceivers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 549–565. Overbeck, J. R., & Park, B. (2006). Powerful perceivers, powerless objects: flexibility of powerholders’ social attention. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 227–243. Peeters, G., & Czapinski, J. (1990). Positive-negative asymmetry in evaluations: The distinction between affective and informational negativity effects. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 3–60. Plater, Z. J. B., Abrams, R. H., & Goldfarb, W. (1992). Environmental law and policy: Nature, law, and society. St. Paul: West. Platt, J. (1973). Social traps. American Psychologist, 28, 641–651. Pratto, F., & John, O. P. (1991). Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of negative social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 380–391. Putnam, R. D. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization, 42(3), 427–460. Rupp, D. E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V., & Williams, C. A. (2006). Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: An organizational justice framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 537–543.


145

Sally, D. (1995). Conversation and cooperation in social dilemmas. Rationality and Society, 7(1), 58–92. Samuelson, C. D., & Allison, S. T. (1994). Cognitive factors affecting the use of social decision heuristics in resource-sharing tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 1–27. Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and cooperation. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 7–19. Simon, L., Greenberg, J., Harmon-Jones, E., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., & Arndt, J. (1997). Terror management and cognitive-experiential self-theory: Evidence that terror management occurs in the experiential system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1132–1146. Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (1991). A terror management theory of social behavior: The psychological functions of self-esteem and cultural worldviews. In: M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 93–159). New York, NY: Academic Press. Sondak, H., Neale, M. A., & Pinkley, R. L. (1995). The negotiated allocation of benefits and burdens: The impact of outcome valence, contribution, and relationship. Organizational Behavioral and Human Decision Processes, 64, 249–260. Sondak, H., & Tyler, T. (2007). What shouldn’t money buy? The psychology of alternative allocation procedures for benefits and burdens in groups. Working paper, University of Utah. Sonenshein, S. (2007). The role of construction, intuition, and justification in responding to ethical issues at work: The sensemaking-intuition model. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1022–1040. Suleiman, R. (1996). Expectations and fairness in a modified ultimatum game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 17, 531–554. Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilizationminimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 11, 67–85. Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Messick, D. M. (1999). Sanctioning systems, decision frames, and cooperation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 684–707. Tenbrunsel, A. E., Smith-Crowe, K., & Umphress, E. E. (2003). Building houses on rocks: The role of the ethical infrastructure in organizations. Social Justice Research, 16(3), 285–307. To¨rnblom, K. Y. (1988). Positive and negative allocation: A typology and model for conflicting justice principles. In: E. Lawler & B. Markovsky (Eds), Advances in Group Processes (Vol. 5, pp. 141–165). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506–520. Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323–338. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2000). Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in preference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 876–889. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403–421. Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454–463.

146


Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 830–838. van Dijk, E., & De Cremer, D. (2006). Self-benefiting in the allocation of scarce resources: Leader-follower effects and the moderating effect of social value orientations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(10), 1352–1361. van Knippenberg, D., & De Cremer, D. (2003). Cooperation with leaders in social dilemmas: On the effects of procedural fairness and outcome favorability in structural cooperation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 1–11. Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (1996). Intergenerational justice: Discounting, reciprocity, and fairness as factors that influence how resources are allocated across generations. Unpublished Dissertation, Northwestern University. Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (1999). Thinking about the future: An intergenerational perspective on the conflict and compatibility between economic and environmental interests. American Behavioral Scientist, 42(8), 1393–1405. Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (2002). A golden rule over time: Reciprocity in intergenerational allocation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1011–1028. Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (2003). Intergenerational identification and cooperation in organizations and society. In: E. A. Mannix, M. A. Neale & J. T. Polzer (Eds), Research on managing groups and teams: Identity issues in groups (Vol. 5, pp. 257–277). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (2006). Legacies, immortality and the future: The psychology of intergenerational altruism. In: A. E. Tenbrunsel (Ed.), Ethics in groups (Vol. 8, pp. 247– 270). Elsevier. Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (in press). Maple trees and weeping willows: The role of time, uncertainty, and affinity in intergenerational decisions. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research. Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (2008). The egoism and altruism of intergenerational behavior. Working paper, Duke University. Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Hernandez, M., Medvec, V. H., & Messick, D. M. (2008b). In fairness to future generations: The role of egocentrism and uncertainty in judgments of intergenerational allocations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 233–245. Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Okumura, T., Brett, J. M., Moore, D. A., Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Bazerman, M. H. (2002). Cognitions and behavior in asymmetric social dilemmas: A comparison of two cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 87–95. Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Sondak, H., Galinsky, A. D., Tost, L. P., Hernandez, M., & Larrick, R. P. (2008a). It’s only a matter of time: The role of mortality salience, resource valence, and ethics in intergenerational resource allocations. Working paper, Duke University. Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Bazerman, M. H. (1996). Egocentric interpretations of fairness in asymmetric, environmental social dilemmas: Explaining harvesting behavior and the role of communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 111–126. Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Weber, J. M., Kopelman, S., & Messick, D. M. (2004). A conceptual review of decision making in social dilemmas: Applying a logic of appropriateness. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 281–307. Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. New York: McGraw-Hill.


147

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. Weiner, B. (1985). ‘‘Spontaneous’’ causal thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 74–84. Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 806–820.

EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION BUSINESS STRATEGIES AND THE CONTINGENT FIT OF ALTERNATIVE HR SYSTEMS Rebecca R. Kehoe and Christopher J. Collins ABSTRACT This chapter develops a theoretical model using the equifinality perspective to connect multiple systems of HR practices to alternative organizational structure types. We argue that firms following an exploitation strategy maintain competitive advantage through high levels of efficiency and reliability in production and delivery of existing products or services. Firms following an exploration strategy maintain a competitive advantage through continuous innovation and knowledge exchange and combination. Hence, organizations are more likely to successfully execute either strategy by implementing an HR system that would create the organizational structural characteristics that support the workforce requirements of the chosen strategy.

Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Volume 27, 149–176 Copyright r 2008 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0742-7301/doi:10.1016/S0742-7301(08)27004-0

149

150

REBECCA R. KEHOE AND CHRISTOPHER J. COLLINS

INTRODUCTION In the last two decades, the importance and complexity of managing human assets in organizations have increased. Specifically, scholars and practitioners have recognized the importance of attracting and engaging employees, with an increasing number of studies demonstrating a relationship between human resource management practices and organizational performance (see Wright, Gardner, Moynihan, & Allen, 2005 for a review). Scholars in this realm have argued that firms can use human resource practices to elicit the attitudes and behaviors in employees that ultimately drive organizational success (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Collins & Smith, 2006). In prioritizing the HR function, organizations are faced with the complex decision of what types of HR practices are likely to be most effective in driving performance (Collins & Clark, 2003; Wright, Dunford, & Snell, 2001). Within this focus, a growing body of evidence has provided support for a best practice approach to HR. Specifically, researchers have consistently demonstrated an association between what have been variously called High Performance Work Systems, High Commitment HR models, and High Involvement HR systems and firm financial performance (Wright et al., 2005). The finding of a relationship between these commitment-based HR models and firm performance has been replicated across multiple settings. For example, researchers have identified this relationship in samples of service organizations (Batt, 2002), manufacturing firms (Arthur, 1992; MacDuffie, 1995), high tech firms (Collins & Smith, 2006), and in cross-industry analyses (Huselid, 1995). While the specific HR practices included in these commitment-based systems have varied across studies, these ‘‘best practice’’ models share certain defining characteristics. In particular, these models tend to emphasize employee fit to the organization over fit to specific job requirements in employee selection and typically include performance-based compensation schemes which reward group and organization-level performance outcomes (Arthur, 1992). Additionally, organizations following these models often use employee development, reward, and retention plans that encourage long-term employment relationships and promote strong internal labor markets, regular team-focused assignments, and an emphasis on firmspecific knowledge (Arthur, 1992; Tsui, Pearce, Porter, & Tripoli 1997). While the commitment-based HR model has thus far appeared to be significantly related to performance across contexts, a best practice approach to human resource management is inconsistent with some of the theoretical underpinnings of strategic human resource management

Exploration and Exploitation Business Strategies

151

(SHRM) (cf. McMahan, Virick, & Wright, 1999; Ulrich, 1997; Wright & McMahan, 1992) and with empirical research which indicates the existence of multiple HR systems within a particular industry (c.f. Hannan, Burton, & Baron, 1996). Wright and McMahan (1992) defined SHRM as ‘‘the pattern of planned human resource deployments and activities intended to enable an organization to achieve its goals’’ (p. 298) and further emphasized that SHRM entails the linking of HR practices with the strategic management process of the organization. Hence, to pursue a strategic approach to HR, individual organizations must identify and create the required workforce characteristics for their particular business strategies and goals, likely leading to the existence of multiple HR systems across successful firms in a given industry (Collins & Smith, 2006). This approach to understanding the role of HR in driving competitive advantages and firm performance incorporates contingency and equifinality perspectives and contradicts the existence of a single best practice approach to HR. The contingency perspective suggests that a firm’s structure and strategic approach should align with each other and with the demands of the firm’s environment (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967) and that, given a particular strategy, a superior system of management can be identified (Miles & Snow, 1984). While traditional contingency theory research specified that a single best management system existed for each strategy (or alternative contingency of interest) (c.f. Delery & Doty, 1996; Miles & Snow, 1984), we adopt a more recent conceptualization of the contingency approach, which allows for multiple superior management systems for each strategic alternative. Specifically, this view of contingency holds that the role of a contingency factor, rather than to constrain an organization’s choice of design (or management system), is to determine the functions that an organization’s design or management system must support (Gresov & Drazin, 1997). This more recent approach to contingency theory draws heavily on the principle of equifinality which holds that systems (e.g., organizations) can reach the same final state from different initial conditions and through different paths (Katz & Kahn, 1966). For example, given business strategy as the contingency of interest, the selection of a particular strategy would suggest not a single best management system but rather the functional requirements of management systems which would be successful in facilitating that strategy. Hence, under this more recent perspective of contingency and with the allowance for equifinality, successful organizations may choose from among multiple systems of management that support the functions required by their chosen strategy to drive performance.

152


If organizations are to consider their business strategies in the development of their HR systems, then it follows that different HR systems may drive performance equally effectively across firms, depending on the strategic and environmental requirements that each organization faces. For example, adopting a more traditional approach, Miles and Snow (1984) suggested that an organization must implement the single human resource model that coordinates with the demands of its chosen business strategy in order to achieve the highest possible levels of success. In a similar but more flexible approach, Schuler and Jackson (1987) proposed the behavioral perspective, which suggests that several strategy–HR system configurations may be successful provided that an organization has designed its HR management system based on the workforce characteristics required by its strategy. In contrast to all of these perspectives, the best practice model offers a one-system-fits-all solution to the HR function. This approach ignores the functional requirements of the strategies through which various organizations compete and is inconsistent with the foundation of SHRM. Further, empirical research has demonstrated the existence of multiple HR models within an industry across actual organizations. Through a combination of qualitative and quantitative research involving organizations’ founders and CEOs, Baron, Burton, and Hannan (1999) identified five human resource archetypes in a sample of high tech organizations. Extending the principle of equifinality, it is possible that some or all of these five archetypes are equally successful in eliciting the employee behaviors required by particular business strategies to drive organizational performance in this context. The purpose of our chapter is to develop a model of the relationships between multiple systems of HR practices and organizational performance based on the more recent view of contingency theory which includes the equifinality perspective. We develop our model by theoretically connecting multiple systems of HR practices to alternative organizational structure types that will be most effective for creating the employee behaviors and characteristics required to successfully carry out particular business strategy alternatives. Theoretical and empirical research has demonstrated that competition through different business strategies requires different organizational characteristics and outcomes, which can be achieved through the creation of appropriate organizational structure (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Hage, 1999). Further, scholars have argued that organizations can use their management systems to create desired structural characteristics which facilitate business strategy requirements (Galbraith, 1973; Galbraith & Kazanjian, 1986). Hence, we consider the success of various HR systems in

153


HR/Structure

Employee Outcomes

Performance

Business Strategy

Fig. 1.

HR, Structure, Strategy, and Performance.

facilitating organizations’ strategic requirements based on their likely abilities to create appropriate structural characteristics. We begin the following sections of the chapter by exploring the importance of fit between organizations’ business strategies and HR systems. Because of the difference in strategic and environmental complexity across industries, we have chosen to focus our propositions on a single industry – high technology. As a whole, the high tech industry is characterized by rapid technological changes, environmental instability, and unpredictable, dynamic competitive pressures (Snyder, Rupp, & Thornton, 2006). We will then identify the alternative business strategies in high tech and determine the workforce requirements and resulting best fitting organizational structures for organizations following each strategy. Finally, we will specify which of the HR systems identified by Baron et al. (1999) are likely to best support the structural needs of organizations under each strategic approach (see Fig. 1 for our overarching model of the HR to performance relationship). Through this process, we aim to demonstrate the equifinality of HR management and business strategy in a single-industry setting.

THE IMPORTANCE OF HR FIT TO ACHIEVE FIRM PERFORMANCE Researchers working in the area of SHRM have argued that an organization’s human resource management system can lead to improved organizational performance and provide a source of competitive advantage when successfully aligned with the strategic needs of the organization (e.g., Dyer, 1985; Wright et al., 2001). Specifically, when a human resource management system elicits the workforce characteristics leading to organizational competencies which drive competitive advantage in the market, firm performance will be positively affected (Collins & Smith, 2006).

154


Consequently, SHRM scholars have called for research to identify the specific competencies required for success in different strategic contexts and to determine the human resource management approaches which will elicit and support these competencies within organizations (Collins & Smith, 2006; Wright et al., 2001). Consistent with SHRM theory, the behavioral perspective argues that an organization can elicit the workforce characteristics necessary for successfully competing with its business strategy through appropriate HR initiatives. Specifically, Schuler and Jackson (1987) argued that organizations can strategically manage employees most effectively by determining the role behaviors needed from employees to meet the demands of the organization’s strategy and developing an HR system whose characteristics are supportive of these behaviors. Rather than emphasizing the knowledge, skills, and abilities that employees will need for specific tasks, Schuler and Jackson (1987) noted that organizations should focus HR development on the more general types of behaviors that employees will need to carry out to successfully perform their strategic roles within the firm. Taken together, SHRM theory and the behavioral approach offer two particularly relevant insights. First, different business strategies require unique sets of organizational and workforce competencies and behaviors, and in order to drive performance through HR an organization must identify the competencies that are required by its strategy and develop an HR system that effectively elicits and supports these competencies (Collins & Smith, 2006; Wright et al., 2001). Second, both the SHRM and behavioral approaches follow a systems perspective, emphasizing the development of the entire HR system over a focus on individual practices (Schuler & Jackson, 1987; Wright & McMahan, 1992). An approach to HR based on these principles is only feasible with the assumption of the revised version of contingency theory offered by Gresov and Drazin (1997). There is no question that organizations within an industry vary in the business strategies they adopt and in the competitive environments in which they operate and, therefore, in the characteristics they need in their workforces to survive and prosper (Burns & Stalker, 1994; Hage, 1965, 1980). If HR systems are to be tailored to elicit the workforce requirements specific to particular organizations’ strategies, then it must follow that there are multiple HR systems that drive successful organizations in an industry. Proposition 1. Multiple HR systems will be successful in driving performance within an industry.


155

MATCHING HR SYSTEMS TO BUSINESS STRATEGIES We have argued that multiple HR systems are likely to be successful in a given industry; however, based on contingency arguments from SHRM research, particular HR systems are likely to be more or less effective depending on an organization’s strategy. Because different strategies are used in different industries, we focus on a particular industry, high technology, in our investigation. Within the context of creation- and production-focused industries (such as high tech), scholars have identified two primary strategic alternatives: exploitation and exploration (Burns & Stalker, 1961; March, 1991). The exploitation strategy is characterized by competition based in established product domains within new and established consumer markets that are typically relatively stable and predictable (Burns & Stalker, 1994; Hage, 1980). Organizations can achieve competitive advantage through this strategy by successfully exploiting current firm knowledge, specifically through maintaining high levels of efficiency and reliability in the production of existing products (Levinthal & March, 1993; March, 1991). In contrast, organizations competing through the exploration strategy gain advantage by creating new products, often using novel technology and targeting marketing efforts at both existing and potential consumer markets (Burns & Stalker, 1961). Organizations following an exploration strategy often face an uncertain, dynamic environment, characterized by technological races among competitors and changing consumer demands (Damanpour, 1991; Hage, 1980). Scholars have recognized that the competitive demands of the exploitation and exploration strategies require markedly different organizational processes and competencies and have shown that firms that can create organizational structures aligned with their strategies are more likely to achieve a successful approach to competition (Damanpour, 1991; Hage, 1965; Zammuto & O’Connor, 1992). Indeed, scholars have noted that it is essential to create or develop the correct organizational structure if a firm is to successfully execute either strategy (Hage, 1965, 1980; Zammuto & O’Connor, 1992). Organizational structure, which generally combines four components – centralization, formalization, specialization, and communication patterns (Burns & Stalker, 1994; Hage, 1965) – can be defined as the distribution of authority, organization of tasks, and patterns of relationships across departments and functional units in an organization (Power, 1988, p. 67). Organizational structure has been conceptually identified as a plan for coordination and control within the firm, and firms ideally employ activities and implement

156


practices that support structural characteristics that are conducive to the firm’s competitive strategy (Hage, 1980). We argue that an organization can effectively use its HR system as a primary means to create structure because HR is an activity that touches employees and shapes relationships at every organizational level. Hence, in the following sections, we identify the structural requirements for building the employee behaviors and characteristics that match alternative business strategies, and identify HR systems that are likely to develop these appropriate ideal types of structures.

Exploitation and Mechanistic Structure As noted above, an exploitation strategy is one strategy archetype pursued by high tech firms. Organizations following an exploitation strategy compete through advantages in quality and/or efficiency in the production of existing products, often involving the mastery of and incremental improvements on current technologies and processes (March, 1991). The competitive environment for the exploitative firm is relatively stable with predictable competition and fairly steady consumer demand (Burns & Stalker, 1994; Hage, 1980). Because competition through the exploitation strategy depends on quality and efficiency in production, exploitative organizations can benefit from identifying and replicating effective production processes, which can help to ensure that the organization attains consistent levels of quality and quantity in production across departments and over time (Benner & Tushman, 2003; Hannan & Freeman, 1984). Organizations can achieve this process replication and the resulting increase in consistency through institutionalism and the standardization of work routines (Hannan & Freeman, 1984). By standardizing work routines, organizations are likely to increase both efficiency and proficiency in production processes. Specifically, Levinthal and March (1993) argued that repeating standardized routines is likely to reduce the time employees take to complete routines (reflecting increased efficiency) as well as reduce the variance in employees’ performance of routines (reflecting increased proficiency). Additionally, Benner and Tushman (2003) noted that standardization can be used as a form of tighter coordination of routines, which is also likely to result in increased efficiency in performance. The workforce characteristics that are most likely to be conducive to replication and most consistent with the exploitative tools of institutionalism and standardization are the ability to carefully and consistently follow rules


157

and routines (Hage, 1980) and the willingness to closely comply with managerial instruction (Burns & Stalker, 1994; Hannan & Freeman, 1984). Specifically, employees who consistently adhere to routines are most likely to maximize the production benefits of standardization (Levinthal & March, 1993), and employees who readily follow direction from management are most likely to accept norms of compliance, thereby reducing the managerial cost of collective action (Hannan & Freeman, 1984). Given the importance of institutionalism and work routine standardization and associated employee attributes for firms following an exploitation strategy, it is important to identify how exploitative organizations can be structured to increase institutionalism and standardization and the aligning workforce characteristics effectively. Not surprisingly, given the conditions of the exploitation strategy noted above, organizations that can create a mechanistic structure, which has been described as a hierarchical structure of control, authority, and communication, have been shown to be more successful in meeting the requirements of the exploitation strategy. The mechanistic structure is characterized by high centralization, high formalization, and an emphasis on vertical communication (Burns & Stalker, 1994; Hage, 1965, 1980). High centralization refers to the concentration of authority, information, and decision-making power among only the highest ranking managers in a firm and has been theoretically and empirically linked to the standardization of processes as well as to greater efficiency and fewer errors in production (Benner & Tushman, 2003; Hage, 1980). High formalization, characterized by precise definitions of work roles with expectations of strict adherence to job descriptions and rules, has also been theoretically and empirically linked to higher rates of production and fewer errors (Burns & Stalker, 1994; Hage, 1965, 1980). Specifically, Hage (1980) argued that formalization of offices leads to the development of employee expertise in a limited area, resulting in efficient performance and a lower likelihood of errors in the narrow range of activities for which any given employee is responsible. Finally, vertical communication in the mechanistic structure is characterized by the conveyance of instructions and orders down through the ranks of the organization from the top management (Hage, 1999; Zammuto & O’Connor, 1992), enabling tighter coordination of activities and greater managerial control of processes, which are likely to increase organizational efficiency (Benner & Tushman, 2003; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1997). In combination, the components of the mechanistic structure complement each other, and organizations that can create these structural characteristics are likely to support the requirements of the exploitation strategy

158


(Burns & Stalker, 1994; Hage, 1980). Specifically, by centralizing authority, emphasizing vertical communication, and formalizing work roles, organizations can create a work environment consistent with the standardization of routines (Blau & Scott, 1962; Burns & Stalker, 1994). For example, high centralization allows a few individuals at the top of the organizational hierarchy to determine the standard processes which will be implemented throughout the organization (Burns & Stalker, 1994). Then, through the use of vertical communication, managers can direct these processes uniformly down through the necessary organizational levels (Hage, 1980). Finally, employees in highly formalized work roles are likely to quickly master the standardized practices as each employee has a narrow scope of responsibility and is likely to repeat the same routinized practice regularly without the distraction of other tasks (Benner & Tushman, 2003; Hage, 1980). As discussed earlier, this repetition is likely to reduce both production time and error rates. Organizations creating a mechanistic structure are also more likely to achieve the institutionalization of norms favorable to the exploitation strategy. Specifically, the centralization and communication characteristics of the mechanistic structure are conducive to norms promoting deference to authority and established organizational purposes. For example, the concentration of power among top management leaves little room for lower level organizational members to effectively challenge management’s decisions (Hage, 1965). Downward communication patterns support the following of orders and reduce the likelihood of employees questioning routines or taking actions that are unaligned with the established processes (Burns & Stalker, 1994). Taken together, these components indeed promote the institutionalization of norms supporting deference by subordinates, thereby providing for efficient management of work processes. Finally, by implementing a mechanistic structure, organizations can more effectively respond to the stability of the competitive environment faced by exploitative firms. Specifically, the information processing needs and environmental demands on exploitative firms are predictable enough to warrant this structured, hierarchical form, which as discussed, allows for streamlined and consistent decision making in a context where efficiency and quality are critical (Hage, 1965, 1980). Through supporting the standardization and mastery of work processes, the institutionalization of relevant norms, and the processing of stable environmental demands, the creation of a mechanistic structure provides for the efficient reproduction of high quality products which is required for success in the exploitation strategy. How, then, can exploitative organizations create a mechanistic structure? Following Grasov and Drezin’s revised view of contingency theory, we


159

argue that different systems of human resource management may be equally effective at driving organizational performance by creating the organizational structure that drives employee behaviors and outcomes required by a particular business strategy. Consistent with this notion, we argue that across companies following either an exploitation or exploration strategy, there will be multiple HR models that support the desirable structure and therefore are positively associated with organizational performance. We base our predictions around HR models identified by Baron et al. (1999) in the high tech industry. The specified models – bureaucratic, autocratic, engineering, and commitment – vary on characteristics of employee selection, methods of coordination and control, and source of employment attachment, as well as on management’s underlying philosophy of the nature of the employment relationship. Having established that the creation of a mechanistic organizational structure is conducive to success in the context of an exploitation strategy, our next task was to identify the models of HR systems best suited to support a mechanistic structure. Given the notion of equifinality, it is possible that multiple HR models might be equally effective in supporting the mechanistic structure. Specifically, favorable HR models must support high levels of centralization and formalization and promote the use of vertical communication. As shown in Fig. 2, two of the HR models identified by Baron et al. (1999) – the bureaucratic model and the autocratic model – are likely to be most effective in supporting this structure and

Bureaucratic HR Model

- Skills fit to job - Commitment to company goals - Company specific human capital - Organizational tenure Organizational Performance

Autocratic HR Model

Fig. 2.

- Skills fit to job - Compliance to rules and procedures - Compliance to directions - Job Involvement

Mechanistic HR Systems for Driving Performance under an Exploitation Strategy.

160


effectively eliciting the employee outcomes required for success given an exploitation strategy. Mechanistic Structure and the Bureaucratic Model of HR As mentioned, a bureaucratic HR model is one model which is likely to support the mechanistic structure and lead to workforce characteristics conducive to an exploitation strategy. The general management philosophy guiding the bureaucratic model is the notion of management by formal rules and standards (Baron et al., 1999; Burns & Stalker, 1994). As with the other models of HR systems, organizations following the bureaucratic HR model follow specific patterns in terms of how they select employees, control employee behaviors and performance, and create employee attachment to the organization. Specifically, organizations following this model base selection on specific skills, enabling them to easily fit employees into particular job roles (Baron, Hannan, & Burton, 2001). The bureaucratic model also specifies that employees be assigned specific tasks and follow designated rules in completing those tasks, further emphasizing employee expertise and development within a single job role (Baron & Hannan, 2002). Consistent with this effort, formal rules are likely to dictate training specifications for each job role in the bureaucratic model. With this narrow approach, organizations can ensure that employees in any given role are experts with regard to the requirements of their particular job and are therefore more likely able to efficiently and consistently carry out their standardized tasks independently. Organizations using a bureaucratic model control employee actions and behaviors through formal management systems, with rigorous project management techniques based on rules and documentation (Baron et al., 1999; Baron & Hannan, 2002). This model uses a standardized performance evaluation system, with which managers can regularly track employee performance, which can help to ensure that employees are completing tasks correctly, efficiently, and according to regulations. Promotions and pay raises are then likely to be tied to employee performance over time. In addition, the bureaucratic model emphasizes vertical communication, with formal policies and procedures communicated from the top of the organization down (Baron et al., 1999). This practice is intended to streamline information dissemination, increasing the consistency and efficiency with which information is communicated throughout the firm. These supervision and control mechanisms employed by top management further support the standardization and institutionalism needed to meet the quality and efficiency goals of the exploitation strategy.


161

To increase retention, companies following the bureaucratic model create employee attachment through challenging work and the opportunity for development (Baron & Kreps, 1999). Additionally, bureaucratic organizations often attract experienced employees by paying higher salaries than competitors, and as stated, promotions provide incentive and rewards for employee performance and development in a particular task domain. For these reasons, highly involved employees who are committed to their organization’s goals are likely to remain with bureaucratic firms, which we would expect to make overall job involvement and organizational commitment high and turnover intentions low in organizations operating under this model (Baron & Kreps, 1999). These aspects of the model further support exploitation strategy needs, as highly involved employees who are committed to the goals of their organization are likely to perform standardized processes more efficiently and consistently, and employees who plan to remain with an organization for a long time are more likely to have accepted the firm’s institutionalized norms and routines. Proposition 2. A bureaucratic model of HR will be positively related to firm performance for companies pursuing an exploitation strategy by increasing the level of employees’ skills fit to the job, commitment to organizational goals, and organizational tenure. Mechanistic Structure and the Autocratic Model of HR The autocratic model is a second model of HR which is likely to support a mechanistic structure and drive employee outcomes required for success through an exploitation strategy. The autocratic model is based on a management philosophy which places great emphasis on management by direct command (Baron & Kreps, 1999). Whereas the bureaucratic model emphasizes the importance of rules and specifies that authority rests in roles rather than in people (Baron et al., 1999), the autocratic model grants managers greater authority to intercede with power to solve problems and to override the established procedures of the organization (Edwards, 1979). The autocratic model specifies selection based on specific skill requirements, and managers in autocratic organizations exert control over employee actions and performance through close, immediate supervision (Baron et al., 2001). Finally, companies following the autocratic model create employment attachment through strictly monetary means (Baron & Hannan, 2002). Overall, most decisions in the autocratic model require direct authorization from senior management, promoting standardized information, and rule dissemination throughout the organization (Edwards, 1979).

162


Organizations following the autocratic model hire employees for specific tasks and base selection decisions on applicants’ skill qualifications for the particular tasks which they will be required to perform (Baron et al., 2001). Once hired, employees in autocratic organizations are given detailed instructions regarding exactly what tasks they must complete as well how they must complete them (Edwards, 1979). Employees are expected to perform only tasks described in their job roles, and managers closely observe employees’ performance to ensure that employees complete tasks precisely according to designated standards and managerial instruction (Baron & Kreps, 1999). This close managerial monitoring and high formalization are in place to achieve consistency and efficiency in production. Overall, the autocratic model dictates that experts perform tasks only in their areas of expertise and that close managerial supervision and involvement in work processes ensures quality, consistency and adherence to standardized work routines (Edwards, 1979). Based on observations of employees’ performance, top management conducts performance evaluations and makes all decisions concerning pay raises (Edwards, 1979). Based on this close supervision and its direct consequences and due to the fact that employees are expected to complete their tasks independently and without aid or collaboration from others, we would expect high levels of job involvement in employees working in autocratic firms, which is likely to aid in adherence to standardized work routines. Employment attachment in the autocratic model is based on financial incentives (Baron et al., 2001). Development and promotional opportunities for non-managerial employees are uncommon in this model; performance is instead rewarded in the form of money, further reinforcing the monetary basis of attachment and high level of involvement in an employee’s current job. Proposition 3. An autocratic model of HR will be positively related to firm performance for organizations pursuing an exploitation strategy by increasing the level of employees’ skills fit to the job, job involvement, and compliance with rules, procedures, and supervisor directives.

Exploration and Organic Structure In contrast to the exploitation strategy, organizations following an exploration strategy compete through innovation and creation of new technologies and products for new and existing consumer markets. Because of rapid


163

technological advancements and changing consumer preferences, the competitive environment for explorative firms is characterized by instability and a lack of predictability (Burns & Stalker, 1994; Hage, 1980; March, 1991). Explorative organizations need to be highly flexible in order to adapt to the changing demands of their environments, such that they can meet the unstable and emerging needs of consumers as well as strategically react to the innovations of competitors (Hage, 1965, 1999; Zammuto & O’Connor, 1992). Organizations following an exploration strategy can achieve survival and success through the exchange and combination of knowledge (Collins & Smith, 2006), goals requiring both mechanisms for handling uncertainty and high levels of flexibility. Specifically, the direct benefits of knowledge exchange and creation efforts tend to be uncertain and sometimes longrange in nature (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1997). In contrast to the more consistent input-process-output production model characteristic in the exploitative firm, the explorative organization’s knowledge creation model involves more open-ended research and exploration, investment in experimentation, and a focus on outcomes that are often larger in scope but less predictable than the steady outputs in the exploitative firm (March, 1991; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1997). Thus, the explorative organization must be tolerant of uncertain outcomes and the regular possibility of project failure, as well as possess the ability to evaluate employee and team performance in the absence of immediate production feedback. The workforce characteristics desirable in an explorative firm also differ from those needed in the exploitative organization. Specifically, ideal employees in an organization following an exploration strategy are flexible, willing to collaborate, diverse, and risk-taking (Burns & Stalker, 1994; Hage, 1965). Flexible employees are likely to be better able to switch directions, trade roles, or desert obsolete projects in response to environmental changes, which is particularly important in explorative firms since task stability tends to be low as consumers change preferences and competitors switch directions (Burns & Stalker, 1994). Knowledge exchange and creation also require collaboration among employee experts within a firm (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995). Employees’ relational networks can make employees aware of where key information exists within the firm and can facilitate necessary knowledge mobilization by providing employees both the motivation and opportunity to exchange ideas and information (Hansen, 2002; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Hence, employees’ willingness and ability to collaborate and create ties with others are important attributes in an organization pursuing an exploration strategy. To further increase rewards from collaboration, explorative organizations can also encourage

164


employees to take active roles in projects in multiple departments (Rousseau, 1988). This boundary-spanning is likely to be most productive when employees across the organization possess diverse areas of expertise, thus maximizing the gains from skill and knowledge exchange (Damanpour, 1991; Hage, 1999). In addition to striving for free and open collaboration across departments, it is beneficial for the workforce of an explorative firm to embrace risk-taking attitudes (Damanpour, 1991; March, 1991). Employees who feel comfortable taking risks are more likely to propose and exchange unusual ideas and experiment with new knowledge (Smith et al., 2005). Not surprisingly then, risk-taking climates which promote experimentation and tolerate failure in organizations have been linked to increased knowledge creation capability (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Smith et al., 2005). In sum, the workforce characteristics most advantageous to a firm pursuing an exploration strategy are flexibility, open and active crossdepartmental communication networks, the possession of unique and diverse skill sets by many employees, and a risk-taking culture that facilitates creative experimentation (Damanpour, 1991; Hage, 1999). Thus, to maximize knowledge exchange and creation, it is important for firms following an exploration strategy to create a structure that best supports these employee outcomes. An organic organizational structure, characterized by low centralization, low formalization, high specialization, and the regular use of horizontal communication throughout the firm, and firms that can create this structure have been shown to be most effective in eliciting the workforce characteristics ideal for the exploration strategy (Burns & Stalker, 1994; Hage, 1999). A decentralized system is characterized by the empowerment of employees at multiple levels of an organization’s hierarchy. Employees in departments throughout the decentralized firm frequently make key decisions independently and without the direct supervision of top managers (Hage, 1965, 1980). Research has demonstrated a positive relationship between decentralization and innovation, specifically through increasing employees’ awareness of, commitment to, and involvement with important organizational issues (Damanpour, 1991; Hage, 1980; Zammuto & O’Connor, 1992). The low formalization in the organic structure is reflected in the constant adjustment and redefinition of individuals’ task assignments (Damanpour, 1991; Hage, 1965, 1980), which promote the flexibility required by the uncertain environment characteristic of the exploration strategy. The loose definition of work roles also allows and encourages employees to constantly cross job and departmental boundaries in their everyday tasks, promoting


165

openness, creativity and collaboration with employees from other functional specialties (Hage, 1999). Additionally, theoretical and empirical research has demonstrated a negative relationship between formalization and exploration outcomes, suggesting that low formalization is associated with greater innovation (Burns & Stalker, 1994; Damanpour, 1991). High specialization indicates that an organization employs specialists from several functional backgrounds, providing for a broader knowledge base among employees, leading to greater potential returns from collaboration (Damanpour, 1991; Hage, 1980). Additionally, high specialization in organizations is likely to lead to greater adaptability in turbulent environments as an increased number of specialties among employees provides a greater likelihood that an organizational member will possess knowledge relevant to a novel problem. Indeed, theoretical and empirical research has demonstrated a positive relationship between specialization and exploration outcomes (Damanpour, 1991). Horizontal communication is communication between employees across the same level of an organization and tends to focus on the sharing of information and advice (Hage, 1999; Zammuto & O’Connor, 1992). An emphasis on horizontal communication has been empirically linked to innovation, arguably through the facilitation of the dispersion, crossfertilization, and survival of new ideas (Damanpour, 1991). Additionally, a focus on horizontal communication is likely to be conducive to social control of employees, with information and advice communicated between peers regularly. According to Tushman and O’Reilly (1997), social control of this nature is especially important in contexts where employee outcomes are difficult to directly observe, such as in an explorative organization. The characteristics of the organic structure complement each other and their implementation support the requirements of the exploration strategy. Specifically, the decentralization of power allows for more department-level decision making, enabling employees at non-managerial levels to contribute more directly to decisions regarding the products and processes on which they have the most expertise and in meeting the changing demands of the respective competitive environments (Damanpour, 1991; Hage, 1999). An emphasis on horizontal communication combined with high levels of employee specialization fosters a creative, collaborative environment where employees with diverse skill sets can combine and create knowledge freely (Hage, 1999; Zammuto & O’Connor, 1992). The low level of formalization also contributes to the flexible movement of employees and employee knowledge across departmental boundaries and promotes an organizationwide environment of collaboration. In sum, implementation of the organic

166


Engineering HR Model

- Specialized knowledge - Collaboration - Trust - Productive task conflict - Cross-functional networks Organizational Performance

Commitment HR Model

Fig. 3.

- Collaboration - Trust - Organizational tenure - Large, dense social networks

Organic HR Systems for Driving Performance under an Exploration Strategy.

structure facilitates the flexibility, skill mobilization, and tolerance for uncertainty required to drive knowledge exchange and creation in an exploration strategy. Having established that organizations that are able to create an organic organizational structure are more likely to succeed in the context of an exploration strategy, we move on to identify the HR models which are likely to support this structure and elicit the workforce characteristics conducive to the exploration strategy. In doing so we return to the notion of equifinality, emphasizing that multiple HR models may be effective in achieving the same strategic goals. Specifically, as shown in Fig. 3, we argue that two HR models, the engineering model and the commitment model, are likely to be supportive of an organic structure and therefore effective in eliciting outcomes required for success under a strategy of exploration. Organic Structure and the Engineering Model of HR The engineering model of HR has been described as the ‘‘default culture’’ in the high tech industry (Baron et al., 2001), and this model is characterized by selection for specific task abilities, peer-based coordination and control, and employment attachment based on challenging work. Specifically, companies following the engineering model of HR select employees, based on their specific skills and abilities, to promote the high levels of specialization that are characteristic of the organic structure and of the


167

engineering model in particular (Baron et al., 2001). These advanced and specialized employee skill sets allow for the loose definition of job roles characteristic of the engineering model and reflective of the low formalization that promotes boundary-spanning in this context (Baron & Kreps, 1999). Further, employees under the engineering model receive instruction in the form of general guidelines and end goals but are left to make immediate decisions and solve the more specific challenges of their work without direct guidance or supervision (Baron et al., 2001). These low levels of formalization and centralization reflect a form of flexibility, which was cited earlier as a prerequisite for meaningful knowledge exchange and creation necessary for exploration. These aspects of the engineering model also support the frequent utilization of cross-functional employee teams (Baron & Kreps, 1999). Employees from highly specialized and varied functional backgrounds can benefit substantially from collaborating to tackle the multifaceted problems inherent in an exploration strategy (Damanpour, 1991; Hage, 1999). This regular boundary-spanning, involving the active participation of employees in projects across departments and functional domains, promotes the creation and maintenance of diverse cross-functional networks among employees across the organization. The resulting cross-fertilization of ideas provides the foundation for creativity (Rousseau, 1988), a second precursor to knowledge exchange and creation mentioned earlier. The engineering model relies primarily on professional control, with coordination of tasks and evaluation of performance left largely to the self and peer group (Baron & Kreps, 1999). This approach further promotes the loose guidelines and the high level of collaboration emphasized in the engineering model and advances the expectation that employees will adhere to professional standards and monitor their own as well as their peers’ performance (Baron et al., 2001). For example, organizations following an engineering model often use 360-degree performance evaluation tools and also encourage employees to provide peers with informal feedback in an effort to improve performance (Baron & Kreps, 1999). These performance management mechanisms also act to promote the horizontal communication and decentralization of power implicit in an organic structure. Horizontal communication is likely to create additional opportunities for collaboration, and involvement in peer control systems is likely to instill greater interest among employees in other employees’ work. Additionally, because managers are not constantly supervising employees’ work and employees are empowered to make decisions concerning their jobs, employees are more likely to feel comfortable experimenting with

168


new ideas, further promoting creativity under the engineering model (Baron et al., 2001). The combination of high levels of skill specialization, promotion of cooperation across employee groups, and the use of peer control mechanisms is likely to have additional effects on problem-solving efforts under the engineering model. Employees working from different educational and functional backgrounds will likely possess a variety of strengths and are likely to offer diverse perspectives and approaches in tackling problems (Hage, 1999). With peer communication and feedback already a voiced priority in the engineering model, these differences are likely to lead to productive task conflict in the innovative problem-solving context, leading to more creative solutions and greater knowledge exchange as well as more flexibility in problem-solving approaches. Additionally, the emphasis on supportive peer control mechanisms and high level of collaboration is likely to elicit significant levels of trust in this context. Specifically, employees who are made to feel safe in expressing unique ideas, building on the ideas of their peers, and taking chances on behalf of the organization are likely to feel comfortable in their working environment and to trust the actors and the organization surrounding them, further supporting an environment conducive to knowledge exchange and creation (Collins & Smith, 2006). The basis for attachment in the engineering model is challenging work, which is complementary to the multitude of novel tasks present in the exploration strategy and which reflects the strong task focus prevalent in the engineering model culture (Baron et al., 2001). This focus of attachment is likely to be accompanied by a deep sense of job involvement among employees. Specifically, while organizations operating under the engineering model often provide general internal training programs, consistent with the ‘‘pave your own way’’ culture in these firms, employees in these firms are responsible for keeping their own job-specific knowledge up-to-date — and are rewarded for doing so in the form of skill-based pay (Baron & Kreps, 1999). It is likely that employees who take responsibility for and are rewarded based on development within their roles will feel and express higher levels of involvement in their jobs. This is likely to lead employees to exert greater effort in their work-related tasks, including working harder to find solutions to the complex problems faced by the organizations following an exploration strategy. Overall, organizations following an engineering model are likely to attract and retain experienced and involved employees who thrive on collaboration with peers on challenging work under a loose structure. As a result, these


169

organizations are likely to experience benefits in the form of success in exploration. Proposition 4. An engineering model of HR will be positively related to firm performance for organizations pursuing an exploration strategy by increasing the level of employees’ specialized knowledge, collaboration, trust, productive task conflict, and cross-functional networks. Organic Structure and the Commitment Model of HR The commitment model specifies selection based on cultural fit, peer- and cultural coordination and control, and attachment based on love of the organization (Baron et al., 1999). In contrast to the engineering model, the commitment model promotes a family-like organizational environment, beginning with employee selection based on an applicants’ fit with the organizational culture. Once hired, employees are invited to firm-sponsored socialization and orientation events, followed by regularly held social activities throughout employees’ tenure with the organization (Baron, Burton, & Hannan, 1996). Additionally, organizations following the commitment model often publish regular company newsletters to establish a connection among all employees. These efforts combine to promote strong, trust-filled, family-like relationships within large, dense social networks throughout the organization (Baron & Hannan, 2002). High levels of trust make employees more willing and likely to share knowledge and ideas with peers across the firm. In addition to its unique selection criteria, the commitment model concentrates hiring efforts on entry-level openings. As part of the family-like culture that this model promotes, organizations following the commitment model strive to hire employees at early points in their career and keep them through retirement (Baron et al., 1999). To support this cause, organizations following the commitment model offer employment security in exchange for employees’ loyalty to the organization (Baron et al., 1999). Consequently, these organizations typically fill higher level positions from their internal labor markets and employees at these organizations report low turnover intentions (Baron & Kreps, 1999). Additionally, for this reason, in contrast to the organization following the engineering model, the commitment model organization takes responsibility for and invests substantial time and effort in developing employees’ skills and knowledge (Baron et al, 1999). This emphasis on long-term employee development and tenure is likely to further contribute to the size and density of social networks in the commitment model as well as to lead to an increase in the knowledge of who knows what

170


throughout the firm, which is likely to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of cross-functional collaboration, further improving knowledge exchange and creation efforts. Finally, the organization’s commitment to employees’ long-term development is also likely to increase employees’ trust in the firm, making employees more willing to take risks with new ideas in an effort to achieve organizational goals without worrying about potential career-ending consequences of failure. The commitment model utilizes peer and cultural control (Baron et al., 2001). As in the engineering model, organizations following the commitment model use both 360-degree evaluation and peer feedback systems (Baron et al., 1999). Again, these mechanisms promote the horizontal communication and decentralization of power inherent in the organic structure. However, whereas the engineering model depends on professional standards to guide employee conduct, the commitment model relies on trust, loyalty, and cultural norms to provide the guidelines for acceptable behavior, further promoting the family-like environment on which the commitment model’s outcomes depend (Baron et al., 1999). Similar to members of a real family, employees working under the commitment model are attached to their organization through love. While employees have clearly defined job roles, their primary concern is more likely the well-being of the organization (Baron et al., 1999). For this reason, employees are likely to exceed their job requirements, cross formal boundaries, and take risks to meet the organization’s goals. As previously mentioned, goal achievement under an exploration strategy and in an organic structure often requires collaboration across employee groups. The high levels of trust established through the commitment model’s selection and socialization initiatives and resulting large, dense social networks are likely to support wide-scale collaboration efforts across the organization. Contributing further to a family-like environment, organizations operating under a commitment model often have profit-sharing plans for employees (Baron et al., 1996). In this sense, everyone is rewarded for the organization’s performance, which provides additional incentives for cooperation across employees. Due to the family-like ties, the emphasis on career growth and reciprocal trust, and the sharing of rewards, employees working under the commitment model are likely to demonstrate high levels of commitment to their organization. Proposition 5. A commitment model of HR will be positively related to firm performance for organizations pursuing an exploration strategy by


171

increasing the level of employees’ collaboration, risk-taking, trust, organizational tenure, and social networks.

CONCLUSION At the outset of the chapter, we noted that there has been a great deal of theoretical and empirical work in the area of strategic human resource management over the past 15 years. In particular, there has been a preponderance of empirical work that has examined and demonstrated a relationship between high-commitment (also called high performance) HR practices and firm performance. While finding this relationship across a number of industries and national contexts is interesting and important, these findings seemingly conflict with much of the theoretical work in the field which suggests a more complex relationship between HR systems and performance. Indeed, the theoretical work often suggests more of a contingency or equifinality perspective rather than the best practice perspective examined in much of the empirical work. We therefore were interested in developing a model of SHRM that better accounted for the potential for positive relationships between multiple models of HR systems and firm performance based on the arguments of contingency theory and equifinality. Based on a revised view of contingency theory that incorporates the principles of equifinality, we argued that the best practice model of strategic HR may be missing the more complex relationships between HR systems and firm performance. Indeed, recent empirical and theoretical work in the field (e.g., Collins & Smith, 2006; Wright et al., 2001) has suggested that scholars in this area of research should begin by identifying the specific competencies required for success under different strategic contexts in order to best determine the types of HR systems that are most likely to elicit the types of employee outcomes required to successfully execute a strategic plan. Under these recommendations, we went on to identify two alternative business strategies that are followed by high technology companies and determined the workforce characteristics required for each. In particular, we argued that firms following an exploitation strategy maintain competitive advantage by maintaining high levels of efficiency and reliability in the production and delivery of existing products or services; whereas, companies following an exploration strategy maintain a competitive advantage through continuous innovation and knowledge exchange and combination. Finally, we argued that organizations are more likely to successfully execute either

172


an exploitation or exploration strategy by implementing an HR system that would likely create the organizational structural characteristics that would support the workforce requirements required by the chosen strategy. Based on the notions of contingency put forth by Grasov and Drazin (1997) and the research on alternative HR systems in high technology conducted by Baron and colleagues (Baron et al., 1999), we identified two alternative models of HR systems that are likely to create a mechanistic structure and two that are likely to create an organic structure. In particular, we argued that both bureaucratic and autocratic systems of HR practices create the mechanistic structure that is the best fit for high technology companies pursuing a strategy of exploitation, but that these alternative HR system models may lead to higher performance through different employee outcomes. We argued that the bureaucratic HR model is likely to lead to higher performance for firms pursuing the exploitation strategy by creating higher fit to the job, employee commitment to company goals, firm-specific human capital, and retention; whereas, the autocratic HR model can equally lead to firm performance by creating higher levels of fit to the job, job involvement, willingness to follow explicit rules, procedures, and directions from supervisors. Similarly, we argued that while both engineering and commitment models of HR systems can lead to higher performance in firms pursuing an exploration strategy, they are likely to do so through different employee outcomes. Specifically, we argued that the engineering model of HR leads to higher performance in exploitative firms by creating higher levels of specialized knowledge, collaboration, trust, productive task conflict, and cross-functional networks; and the commitment model leads to higher performance by creating higher levels of collaboration, trust, organizational commitment and tenure, and larger, more dense social networks. While the arguments that we made in this chapter were based on strategies, HR systems, and characteristics of the high technology industry, it is likely that the relationships that we identified may apply to other settings. In particular, we believe that the propositions that we put forth are likely to apply equally well to other industries with similar competitive characteristics, labor pools, strategies, etc. Interestingly, the concepts and propositions may also apply within organizations that are simultaneously pursuing exploitation and exploration strategies in separate business units. For example, Thompson (1967) noted that organizations face differing types of pressures across the different elements of the external environment with which they interact. To best achieve success, organizations should match strategies to the uncertainty and opportunities in different markets and organizations can be optimally structured by separating those subunits of


173

the organization that face less change and uncertainty in the external environmental pressures from those subunits that face higher degrees of external environmental turbulence and uncertainty (Thompson, 1967). Following these arguments and those that we laid out above, it is likely that a single high tech organization should optimally match HR systems to the strategy being followed by each particular business unit. Thus, some units within a larger organization should implement either an autocratic or bureaucratic HR system to optimally execute an exploitation strategy, while other units within the organization should implement either an engineering or commitment HR system to optimally execute an exploration strategy. Overall, we feel that our chapter adds to the literature on SHRM by helping to clarify a more complex relationship between alternative HR systems and firm performance. Additionally, we believe that our chapter points out a number of important areas for future research in this area. First, while there has been a great deal of research examining the effects of high-commitment HR systems, there has been little empirical work that has examined the potential effectiveness of other HR systems. In fact, the bulk of the work in this area has simply examined the effectiveness of the highcommitment system or strategic equivalent (e.g., high performance HR system) or has looked at the relative merit of the high-commitment system versus the non-strategic traditional alternative. To better understand the complexity of the relationship between HR systems and firm performance and to help the field provide better advice to practitioners regarding the variety of choices regarding how to manage employees, we as a field need to conduct more research that examines a much wider array of HR systems. Second, through the development of the theoretical logic of this chapter, we argue that it is crucial to identify the strategic choices that are specific to a particular industry in order to better understand the workforce requirements inherent to the strategies in that industry. It seems likely that much of the past failure to find support for the contingency or fit argument in the strategic HR literature is due to the fact that previous work has examined the interaction of HR systems with generic strategies. Further, the past work in this area has not done a good job of clearly articulating the differences in workforce requirements across different strategic alternatives in an industry and matching the particular HR systems to those workforce requirements. It seems to us that the theoretical links between HR systems and firm performance under different strategic alternatives is best explicated by determining the workforce requirements and organizational structures that are required to best execute the strategies. Further, given the case for equifinality, future research should address the possibility that there are

174


more than two HR systems which can effectively support the structures we have examined. Finally, there is a great need for continuing theoretical development of our understanding of how alternative models of HR lead to performance for industries other than high technology. We chose high technology as a point of focus because of the established work that has identified clear alternative strategies and models for HR systems. It is likely that similar results would be obtained in industries facing similarly volatile competitive environments (e.g., electronics, pharmaceuticals, medical supplies). However, to continue advancing this work into other industries, both quantitative and qualitative work is needed in order to identify alternative business strategies, HR systems, and best matches between the two. We believe that we have presented an interesting set of propositions to encourage readers to think about and theorize the effects of HR systems on performance from a perspective that better incorporates the ideas of both contingency theory and equifinality. However, we strongly encourage readers to view our chapter as a start in moving the field of strategic human resource management forward and to take this as a challenge to continue pushing forward our knowledge of how different systems of HR practices affect firm performance through the workforce requirements and resultant required organizational structures they support.

REFERENCES Arthur, J. B. (1992). The link between business strategy and industrial relations systems in American steel minimills. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45, 488–506. Baron, J. N., Burton, M. D., & Hannan, M. T. (1996). The road taken: Origins and evolution of employment systems in emerging companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5, 239–275. Baron, J. N., Burton, M. D., & Hannan, M. T. (1999). Engineering bureaucracy: The genesis of formal policies, positions, and structures in high-technology firms. Journal of Law, Eonomics, and Organization, 15, 1–41. Baron, J. N., & Hannan, M. T. (2002). Organizational blueprints for success in high-tech startups: Lessons from the Stanford Project on Emerging Companies. California Management Review, 44, 8–36. Baron, J. N., Hannan, M. T., & Burton, M. D. (2001). Labor pains: Change in organizational models and employee turnover in young, high-tech firms. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 960–1012. Baron, J. N., & Kreps, D. M. (1999). Strategic human Resources: Frameworks for General Managers. New York: John Wiley & Sons.


175

Batt, R. (2002). Managing customer services: Human resource practices, quit rates, and sales growth. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 587–610. Benner, M. T., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28, 238–256. Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal organizations: A comparative approach. San Francisco, CA: Chandler Publishing Company. Boland, R. J., Jr., & Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organization Science, 6, 350–372. Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of the ‘‘strength’’ of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29, 203–221. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1994). The management of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. (2003). Strategic human resource practices, top management team social networks, and firm performance: The role of human resource practices in creating organizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 740–751. Collins, C. J., & Smith, K. (2006). Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 544–560. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555–590. Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 802–835. Dyer, L. (1985). Strategic human resources management and planning. In: K. Rowland (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 3, pp. 1–30). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Edwards, R. C. (1979). Contested terrain: The transformation of the workplace in the twentieth century. New York: Basic Books. Galbraith, J., & Kazanjian, R. K. (1986). Strategy implementation: Structure, systems, and process. St. Paul: West Publishing Company. Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing complex organizations. London: Addison-Wesley. Gresov, C., & Drazin, R. (1997). Equifinality: Functional equivalence in organizational design. Academy of Management Review, 22, 403–426. Hage, J. (1965). An axiomatic theory of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10, 289–320. Hage, J. (1980). Theories of organizations: Form, process, and transformation. New York: Wiley. Hage, J. (1999). Organizational innovation and organizational change. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 597–622. Hannan, M. T., Burton, M. D., & Baron, J. N. (1996). Inertia and change in the early years: Employment relations in young, high technology firms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5, 503–536. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49, 149–164. Hansen, M. T. (2002). Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science, 13, 232–254. Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635–672.

176


Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1–47. Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112. MacDuffie, J. P. (1995). Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48, 197–221. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87. McMahan, G. C., Virick, M., & Wright, P. M. (1999). Alternative theoretical perspective for strategic human resource management revisited: Progress, problems, and prospects. In: G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Suppl. 4), 99–122. Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1984). Designing strategic human resources systems. Organizational Dynamics, Summer, 36–52. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the firm advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242–266. Power, D. J. (1988). Anticipating organization structures. In: J. Hage (Ed.), Futures of organizations (pp. 67–80). Lexington, MA: Lexington. Rousseau, D. M. (1988). Human resource planning for the future. In: J. Hage (Ed.), Futures of organizations (pp. 245–266). Lexington, MA: Lexington. Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Organizational strategy and organizational level determinants of human resource management practices. Human Resource Planning, 3, 125–141. Smith, K. G., Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. (2005). Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability and the rate of new product introduction in high technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 346–357. Snyder, L. A., Rupp, D. E., & Thornton, G. C., III. (2006). Personnel selection of information technology workers: The people, the jobs, and issues for human resource management. In: J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 25, pp. 305–376). Oxford: JAI. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill. Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative approaches to the employee–organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off ? Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1089–1121. Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1997). Winning through innovation: A practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Ulrich, D. (1997). Human resource champions. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Wright, P. M., Dunford, B. B., & Snell, S. A. (2001). Human resources and the resource based view of the firm. Journal of Management, 27, 701–721. Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., Moynihan, L. M., & Allen, M. R. (2005). The relationship between HR practices and firm performance: Examining causal order. Personnel Psychology, 58, 409–446. Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource management. Journal of Management, 18, 295–320. Zammuto, R. F., & O’Connor, E. J. (1992). Gaining advanced manufacturing technologies benefits: The role of organizational design and culture. Academy of Management Review, 17, 701–728.

MESO-LEVEL THEORY OF ACCOUNTABILITY IN ORGANIZATIONS Dwight D. Frink, Angela T. Hall, Alexa A. Perryman, Annette L. Ranft, Wayne A. Hochwarter, Gerald R. Ferris and M. Todd Royle ABSTRACT Accountability is ubiquitous in social systems, and its necessity is magnified in formal organizations, whose purpose has been argued to predict and control behavior. The very notion of organizing necessitates answering to others, and this feature implies an interface of work and social enterprises, the individuals comprising them, and subunits from dyads to divisions. Because the nature of workplace accountability is multi-level as well as interactive, single-level conceptualizations of the phenomenon are incomplete and inherently misleading. In response, this chapter sets forth a meso-level conceptualization of accountability, which develops a more comprehensive understanding of this pervasive and imperative phenomenon. The meso model presented integrates contemporary theory and research, and extends our perspectives beyond individual, group, unit, or organizational perspectives toward a unitary whole. Following this is a description of challenges and opportunities facing scholars conducting accountability research (e.g., data collection and analysis and non-traditional conceptualizations of workplace Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Volume 27, 177–245 Copyright r 2008 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0742-7301/doi:10.1016/S0742-7301(08)27005-2

177

178

DWIGHT D. FRINK ET AL.

phenomenon). Theoretical and practical implications are discussed, as are directions for future research.

INTRODUCTION Only when we do not have to be accountable to anyone can we find joy in the scientific endeavor –Albert Einstein Hold everyone accountable? Ridiculous –W. Edwards Deming Regardless of the particular objective which the individual has in mind and of his motivation for having this objective, it will be in his interest to control the conduct of others, especially their treatment of him –Goffman, (1971, p. 3)

In their comprehensive review of accountability, Frink and Klimoski (1998) advocated that researchers examine characterizations of the phenomenon from a multi-level organizational perspective. Despite this suggestion, the preponderance of research typically has investigated accountability within one level, rather than acknowledging its inherent influence across levels (e.g., Mero, Guidice, & Brownlee, 2007; Walker, 2002; for an exception, see Tetlock, 1999). Indeed, accountability is, of necessity, a meso-theoretical phenomenon. Although accountability within and between individuals is commonplace, a strictly micro-level analysis is not only inadequate, but also essentially unattainable. Without an overarching meso-level conceptualization, scholars are unable to fully embrace the complex nature of accountability and its embeddedness in organizations. This chapter provides a theoretical discourse outlining the importance of meso-level theory in accountability, and provides a model aimed at guiding subsequent research in this area. This chapter is organized as follows. It begins with a selective review of accountability literature in organizational settings at both the micro and macro level with discussions related to foundational and contemporary treatments of the construct. The discussions of micro- and macro-level accountability research are purposefully brief. Because of the enormity of accountability research across disciplines, a fully comprehensive review is not realistic. Accountability research in each unique discipline is voluminous enough to support comprehensive, yet focused, discussions of the construct (e.g., Espeland & Vannebo’s, 2007 discussion of Accountability and Law).

Meso-Level Theory of Accountability

179

Because of the scarcity of meso theorizing, the focused review of accountability literature serves as a segue to the meso model that follows. This conceptualization models relations among features and variables germane to accountability episodes in organizational settings, embracing the interplay of social, organizational, group, and individual influences and outcomes. The chapter concludes with a discussion of challenges and opportunities facing research conducting meso-level research, and future directions for science.

NATURE OF ACCOUNTABILITY Most scholars view accountability as a contemporary phenomenon. However, this is simply not the case in reality. Von Dornum (1997, p. 1483) described society in ancient Greece as ‘‘obsessed with keeping their officials legally accountable for their actions in office.’’ What is accurate is that the vast majority of academic accountability research has been conducted in the last 25 years. This research rests upon the assumption that accountability is the basic principle upon which societies rest, as well as the organizations within them. Indeed, Monks and Minow (1991) noted that ‘‘The genius of the corporation, the factor that accounts for its almost universal use in the modern industrialized world as the preferred form for large commercial enterprises, is its internal dynamics of accountability’’ (p. 7). Definitionally, researchers have described accountability as ‘‘the adhesive that binds social systems together’’ (Frink & Klimoski, 1998, p. 3). That is, if individuals are not answerable for their behaviors or decisions, there will be neither shared expectations nor a basis for social order (Frink & Klimoski, 1998; Tetlock, 1985). Regardless of their size, social systems are comprised of sets of shared expectations for behavior. Sometimes these behavioral norms are explicit (e.g., rules of conduct spelled out in an employee handbook or formalized organizational objectives), but more often, these norms for behavior are socially understood (e.g., knowing ‘‘the way things are done around here,’’ or the level of centralization in corporate decision making). It is this notion of shared expectations within social systems that evokes the necessity of meso perspectives. Any social system can be defined, at least in part, in terms of a few fundamental features, including a population, a structure, and mechanisms for maintaining the system and structure. Accountability falls under this last category by providing a means for maintenance. Only by employing

180


fundamental accountability characteristics, such as agency and answerability, can any maintenance efforts function. These fundamental accountability characteristics are unified by key threads of continuity. One thread involves the context embedding the phenomenon, which includes the actors, the activities, and the structures involved in a given situation. The second thread involves the nature of the roles these various elements play in the accountability episode, including embeddedness, responsibility, salience, and implications for failure. Another thread involves the potential for an evaluation with answerability and feedback activities in some form (Frink & Klimoski, 1998). Within the context, there are actors, which can be individuals, groups, or organizations, as the entities of interest, and these actors fall into two distinct roles that are linked together in some form(s) of structured social relationships. One role is sometimes referred to as the ‘‘agent’’ (e.g., Adelberg & Batson, 1978; Cummings & Anton, 1990), the ‘‘focal person/ entity,’’ or some other label, and it is this entity whose decisions, activities, or other behaviors are subject to evaluation by others. The second role entails some person or persons with opportunity and reason to observe and evaluate the focal entity. This role is sometimes referred to as the ‘‘principle’’ (e.g., Adelberg & Batson, 1978; Cummings & Anton, 1990) or the ‘‘audience’’ (e.g., Tetlock, 1992). It may be noted that the agent and principle labels echo of agency theory. This is further elaborated later in a discussion of agency as a specific case of accountability. Structural, social, and inter-entity contingencies are factors which embed the actors. The structural contingencies include those elements of the system that have been set in place to support accountability. These might include performance evaluation and feedback systems, reward systems, management by objectives, justice protocols, and formal policies and practices. Not only are the structural contingencies themselves important, but the means by which they are implemented may be even more relevant. For example, the timing of communicating structural elements (Tetlock & Kim, 1987), stringency of enforcement, and the rigidity of rule following can affect how actors respond. Social contingencies include the general social climate, regulatory mandates, organizational culture, social norms, informal networks and relationships, and organizational politics (Ferris, Russ, & Fandt, 1989). Inter-entity contingencies, at the interpersonal level, include the nature of specific supervisor–subordinate relationships, personal characteristics and dispositions of the actors (Schwarz, 1998). Corollaries at other levels of analysis include relative bargaining power, organizational interdependencies,


181

work flow among groups, and physical proximity among groups or organizations. Closely related to the first thread are variables concerning the relationship of the actors with the context, including salience to a particular actor, relative importance of the events at hand, and implications for failures or successes will intrinsically affect responses. The third thread through accountability discussions concerns the specific means of enacting accountability. Enacting accountability involves evaluation at some level, but a critical feature revolves around answerability. Whereas phenomena such as the mere presence effect in social facilitation studies and evaluation apprehension are related to justification effects (De Dreu & Van Knippenberg, 2005), an element of answerability is a distinguishing factor for accountability. Thus, although performance evaluation systems can be included in accountability discussions, there is an inherent assumption of the potential for answering for decisions, behaviors, or outcomes embedded therein. Furthermore, it is not necessary to create certainty or a formal requirement of answering in order to induce accountability; rather, it is the perception that it may occur that invokes effects (Frink & Ferris, 1998). To this point, research has focused on manifest accountability, either formal or informal. However, subjectivity plays an essential role. Because individuals act according to their perceptions of reality rather than reality per se (Lewin, 1936), creating a perception of potential evaluation and answerability is embedded in virtually all theories of accountability (Frink & Klimoski, 1998). Symbolic interactionists have argued that individuals imagine themselves in roles, anticipate reactions from others, and then choose responses intended to result in a more favorable impression (e.g., Blumer, 1969; Mead, 1934). With respect to accountability, the implication is that individuals anticipate answering for themselves, and position their activities, decisions, or behaviors such that they can provide adequate justifications (Tetlock, 1992). Consequently, accountability can be thought of as an objective feature of the context (i.e., a state of affairs), or as a subjective representation of the context (i.e., a state of mind). Whereas the former typically is the object of discussion, the latter is the mechanism driving accountability effects. For the purposes of this chapter, we consider accountability as a state of mind, and refer to the overt features of the context in terms of accountability mechanisms. As the conditions embedding the accountability episode themselves may be subjectively experienced, the outcomes also may be subjective. Notions of accomplishment, success, approval, acceptance, and closure can be powerful rewards. Similarly, notions of failure, disapproval,

182


and rejection, can be influential punishments. Indeed, intangible rewards can at times be more motivating than those tangible. With regard to accountability episodes, there is little evidence to suggest that the effects of subjective rewards or punishments are any less effective than those more objective. In summary, the notions of accountability that have been presented generally involve an assessment of the potential for a pending evaluation and liability to answer for decisions, behaviors, actions, or outcomes by some focal entity to another entity or entities having some interest, reason, and capacity for reward or sanction (Lerner & Tetlock, 2003; Scholten, van Knippenberg, Nijstad, & De Dreu, 2007). Furthermore, the conditions may be objectively or subjectively assessed, as can be the rewards or sanctions, and may include multiple audiences at varying levels (Pennington & Schlenker, 1999).

Micro-Level Views of Accountability This section focuses on the pertinent micro-level accountability research. It begins with works that have served as the theoretical foundations from which much contemporary accountability research has been built. Specifically, it presents the contributions to the accountability research base of Schlenker (e.g., Schlenker, Britt, Pennington, Murphy, & Doherty, 1994; Schlenker & Weigold, 1989), Tetlock (1985, 1992), and Frink and Klimoski (1998). Following this is coverage of contemporary accountability research focusing exclusively on studies deemed impactful and published within the past five few years. Foundation Studies Schlenker and colleagues’ pyramid model argues that ‘‘responsibility is a necessary component of the process of holding people accountable for their conduct’’ (Schlenker et al., 1994, p. 634). Under conditions of accountability, individuals can be made to justify or explain their actions. For this reason, individuals develop rules and standards for conduct, evaluate performance relative to those standards, and distribute rewards and punishments based on this assessment. Thus, at the heart of accountability is an evaluative reckoning based on responsibility (Schlenker & Weigold, 1989; Stryker, 1981). The triangle model of responsibility links together (1) the event (i.e., a specific circumstance), (2) prescriptions for that event (i.e., standards that


183

should direct conduct), and (3) the identity of an actor in that event (i.e., including the actor’s roles, values, etc.). In brief, it is assumed that individuals are held responsible to the extent there are explicit prescriptions relating to the event, the individual is bound to the prescription because of the need for identity and a connection to the particular event. The triangle model of responsibility becomes the pyramid model of accountability when an evaluating audience is added (Schlenker et al., 1994). A key concept that is related to this model is the notion of defensive bolstering, also known as retrospective rationality (Schlenker, Weigold, & Doherty, 1991). Schlenker et al. theorized that certain psychological pathologies were associated with accountability. For example, they contended that because of the close connection between individuals’ identities and their responses to accountability, they will be inclined to engage in generating post-hoc rationales for their behavior as a way to protect self-image (Wohl, Pritchard, & Kelly, 2002). Tetlock’s (1985) model of social judgment and choice (originally called the ‘‘social contingency model’’) has stimulated considerable research across content domains (see Lerner & Keltner, 2001; Simonson, Carmon, Dhar, Drolet, & Nowlis, 2001). The development of this model was motivated by Tetlock’s (1992) recognition that earlier conceptualizations disregarded to contextual effects; hence, they were of little use. Tetlock’s (1985) model is further premised on the ‘‘intuitive politician’’ metaphor, which implies that individuals are motivated primarily to maintain and protect their social image and identity in the eyes of key constituencies (Wood & Quinn, 2003). A key assumption of the social judgment and choice model is that individuals subjectively interpret external accountability conditions. Under this view, it is to be expected that two individuals could face comparable accountability conditions (i.e., high job demands, layoff aftereffects), but report widely divergent levels of post-event answerability. These subjective experiences lead some individuals to thrive when accountability conditions increase, and others to suffer detrimental consequences (Tetlock, 2000). Research subsequent to the presentation of this model has supported a typology of five focal entity response choices (Tetlock, 1999). Factors that underlie accountability response patterns center on: (1) the strength of one’s approval motive, (2) relative power of the audience(s), both to the focal person and to one another (if multiple audiences), (3) the degree of commitment and tolerance the audience(s) may have about the subject of the accounting, (4) the focal person’s knowledge of the audience, and (5) the social and psychological costs of misalignment of the accounting with audience preferences. Research documents the utility of this typology when

184


predicting agent response to fluctuating accountability demands (Brown, 1999; Weldon & Gargano, 1985). Frink and Klimoski’s (1998, 2004) role theory interpretation of accountability has spawned considerable research, virtually all of which has concentrated on organizational behavior (Cropanzano, ChrobotMason, Rupp, & Prehar, 2004; Hochwarter, Perrewe´, Hall, & Ferris, 2005). Their discussion acknowledges the considerable conceptual overlap between the accountability and roles constructs. For example, both inherently emphasize interpersonal relationships (Katz & Kahn, 1978), possess behavioral expectations, underscore the consequences of compliance, and connect individuals to particular tasks for evaluation (Cummings & Anton, 1990). Frink and Klimoski (2004) noted several advantages of viewing accountability through a role theory lens. For example, doing so allows researchers to view accountability via a different unit of analysis, expand considerations of temporal stimuli, and evaluate the importance of mutual influences and individual differences. Frink and Klimoski (2004) contended that role theory’s most significant contribution is its simultaneous emphasis on intrapersonal, interpersonal, and person-organization dynamics. In terms of its effects on scholarship, the theory is ‘‘ydefinitive enough to support prediction, yet flexible enough to permit a broad range of applications’’ (Frink & Klimoski, 2004, p. 12). Contemporary Micro-Level Accountability Research Studies building on these foundational studies have gone in multiple directions across a myriad disciplines in both lab and field settings. Pinter et al.’s lab research (2007), building on accountability choice and guilt studies (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1994; Tetlock, 1992), found that unaccountable leaders were less competitive than those answerable when guilt proneness was high. De Drue and van Knippenburg (2005) determined that process accountability reduced both self-enhancement (Sedikides, Herbst, Hardin, Deletha, & Dardis, 2002) and ownership of arguments. Consistent with Tetlock’s (1992) social contingency model, Mero et al. (2007) documented the importance of individual difference factors when assessing the influence of perceived accountability on work outcomes (i.e., justification and anxiety). Specifically, they determined that those high in conscientiousness and public self-consciousness were more sensitive to manipulations of accountability. Finally, Scholten et al.’s (2007) research builds on an extensive body of research exploring the relationship between process and outcome types of accountability (Lerner & Tetlock,


185

1999). In addition to confirming uniqueness, results indicate that groups under process accountability demonstrated a greater need for information, repeated unshared information more frequently, and selected the correct decision alternative more frequently when compared to outcome accountability conditions. In field studies, Hochwarter et al. (2007) found that political skill moderated the felt accountability–job performance ratings and felt accountability–job tension relationships. Mero and colleagues’ (2007) study, in a performance appraisal context, found that raters accountable to higher status or mixed-status individuals offered more accurate ratings. Conversely, those accountable to a lower status audience were more prone to justify exaggerated ratings. Hall and colleagues (2006) examined the anxiety neutralizing role of autonomy on accountability-strain relationships (e.g., anxiety, job satisfaction, and exhaustion). Results supported the stress countering effects of increased justification demands. Using Tetlock’s (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999; Tetlock, 1999) model of justification and impression management as a conceptual base, Wood and Winston (2007) validated a measure of leader accountability that included responsibility, openness, and answerability as sub-dimensions. Finally, Hochwarter et al. (2005) hypothesized, and demonstrated support, for a non-linear relationship (i.e., U-shaped form with accountability most taxing at low and high levels) between accountability and job tension for those low in negative affect. This finding called into question the view that accountability–outcome relationships are exclusively linear in nature.

Macro-Level Views of Accountability This section of the chapter unfolds much like the micro-level discussion of accountability provided above. It begins with foundational studies in the area housed largely in organizational theory and strategic management research domains. Following this is a discussion of pertinent macro-level accountability research. Again, our treatment of this research stream is not intended to be exhaustive, and we would refer readers to Tetlock (1999), Frink and Klimoski (2004), Orbuch (1997), and Boven (1998) for more in-depth discussions of macro-level accountability research. Foundation Studies Accountability from macro perspectives is primarily concerned with governance and organizational citizenship, serving as a constraining or

186


control mechanism (Ouchi, 1977, 1980; Ouchi & Maguire, 1975). In terms of governance, organizations are held accountable, most notably to their environmental stakeholders (Newell, 2002, 2006; Swift, 2001). This view of accountability, at the organization level, can be classified into three separate but complementary streams. First, accountability systems can be viewed as organizational policies and practices. Second, organizational accountability can be viewed as the patterns of how organizations conduct, implement, and monitor the aforementioned policies and practices in relation to the demands of various stakeholder groups (e.g., suppliers, customers, and debt and equity holders) (Brown & Moore, 2001). Third, accountability can be viewed as the organization’s role in its social and natural environment (Griffin & Mahon, 1997). With respect to the first stream, accountability commingles with agency theory (Swift, 2001), which asserts that there is dependency upon a third party (agent) to carry out the objectives of an owner (principal). These situations produce potential for agents to pursue objectives or behave in a manner inconsistent with the preferences of the principal. Mechanisms and systems are built to monitor agents and ensure they are pursuing goals and objectives in a manner consistent with the principal (Jensen & Meckling, 1976). Further, agency theory has been applied to situations in which managers (agents) are held accountable to shareholders (principals) (Schulze, Lubatkin, Dino, & Buchholtz, 2001). As such, an agency view focuses on mechanisms to monitor management’s actions toward, and success with, ensuring shareholder wealth maximization. Thus, agency theory describes a special case of accountability in which there is an effort on the part of the principals to hold agents accountable (i.e., answerable for their decisions and actions), typically using bonding and monitoring systems to ensure coordination and control (i.e., rewards and sanctions used to secure goals and objectives) (Roberts, McNulty, & Stiles, 2005). Recently, Hambrick, Finklestein, and Mooney (2005) illustrated the ‘‘more is better’’ approaches to agency theory. However, undue stress and the need to show one’s worth may in fact lead to dysfunctional actions and behaviors from continued increases in accountability. Major strategic decisions, such as a securing a major acquisition or a corporate restructuring, are events with significant long-term implications. Often, CEOs feel the need to justify their high-profile position, and consequently may pursue high-risk, strategic decisions despite the success of a status quo strategy (Hambrick, Finkelstein, & Mooney, 2005). Holding one accountable by increasing monitoring and tying reward structures to answerability may, in fact, initiate behavior despite the perceived risk


187

involved. Flaws in this more-is-better approach are discussed further in the modeling section. The second macro-level accountability approach investigates the relationship between organizations and various stakeholder groups (Jahansoozi, 2006). Freeman (1999, p. 235) noted the importance of ‘‘paying attention to key stakeholder relationships’’ while Clarkson (1995, p. 107) described primary stakeholders as entities ‘‘ywithout whose continuing participation, the corporation cannot survive as a going concern.’’ D’Aveni (1994) corroborated the relationship between stakeholder satisfaction and organizational success, whereas other research documents the importance of maintaining favorable relationships for the stakeholder and the organization simultaneously (Dwyer, Schurr, & Oh, 1987). Critical to the maintenance of the organizational–stakeholder relationship is accountability. Crane and Livesey (2003) argued that organizations should be accountable to all of their stakeholders, and as such, attend specifically to their needs for decision-relevant information. In support, Unerman and Bennett (2004) emphasized the importance of stakeholder dialogue as a means to uphold accountability commitments. Lastly, as attention increases to various social and environmental issues (e.g., global warming, environmental stewardship, workplace diversity, etc.), organizations are being held to more pervasive and intensive social and environmental standards. This body of thought can be classified under the heading of corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, & Ganapathi, 2007). CSR refers to issues beyond solely economic ones, and broadens the stakeholder groups to that of community and society, focusing on social and environmental responsibilities (Davis, 1973). Thus, various special interest groups (e.g., environmental activists, social service advocates, religious conservatives, etc.) can be viewed as stakeholders that exert substantial pressure on organizations via public forums of accountability. Much of the focus on CSR details cases of social irresponsibility and public reactions rather than the benefits of CSR (Frooman, 1999). However, CSR has been suggested to positively affect financial performance and maximize the market value of the firm (Mackey, Mackey, & Barney, 2007; Orlitzky, Schmidt, & Rynes, 2003), especially when coupled with appropriate accountability conduct (Pruzan, 1998). Contemporary Macro-Level Accountability Research Recent macro-level accountability research has emphasized corporate governance and malfeasance issues (Aguilera, 2005; Aguilera, Filatotchev, Gospel, & Jackson, in press). For example, Aguilera, Williams, Conley, and

188


Rupp (2006) noted that the distinction between the corporate governance arrangements in the US and the UK, as it relates specifically to CSR, can be attributed to the attitudes and behaviors of the institutional investment community. Other research has viewed CSR from an open systems perspective, suggesting that governance is achieved when the organization effectively attends to the needs of all of its key constituents (Aguilera & Jackson, 2003). According to Aguilera et al. (in press, p. 4.): ‘‘In the context of corporate governance, effectiveness in the broadest sense involves the accountability of corporate decision-makers and the legitimacy of decisions with regard to their different economic and non-economic goals and values.’’ Dubnick (2005) applied a social mechanism approach to explicate the factors that affect the accountability–performance relationship, which is assumed to be direct and linear (i.e., accountability - performance). Dubnick (2005) questions this relationship in settings where administrative reform is undertaken, suggesting that accountability, as a precursor to necessary change, is incapable of demonstrating such an effect. He contended that the concept has become increasingly ambiguous in this regard, which is a sentiment echoed by others who describe accountability as ‘‘chameleon-like’’ (Sinclair, 1995) and ‘‘notoriously imprecise’’ (Mulgan, 2000). Dubnick (2005) concluded by stating ‘‘we cannot – and should not – continue to rely on the assumed relationship between accountability and performance that underlies much of the NPM (new public management) reform agenda’’ (p. 402). Researchers may struggle with accountability specificity and role issues as they relate directly to organizational reform efforts. Perhaps, as Dubnick and Justice (2006) noted, it may be useful to first determine whether accountability can be ‘‘saved’’ as a predictor of performance reform or abandoned. The incidence of corporate corruption has generated a considerable body of research undertaken to identify its causes, mechanisms, and consequences. For example, Aguilera and Vadera’s (2008) Weberian-model suggests that misconduct is contingent upon legitimate authority, motives and justifications. Specifically, it is posited that the ideal-types of authority (i.e., legal-rational, charismatic, and traditional) interact concurrently with motivation types (i.e., individualistic, relational, and collectivistic) and justifications (i.e., rationalization, socialization, and ritualism) to result in three discrete types of corruption (i.e., procedural, schematic, and categorical). Jensen (2006) hypothesized that accountability initiates status apprehension when firms are directly answerable to their constituents, when competitors have disassociated themselves from common partners, and when a commitment to partner quality exists. This qualitative study, which


189

documented the collapse of Arthur Andersen in 2002, supported the accountability perspective on status anxiety. In sum, the research clearly denotes the importance of accountability at both micro and macro levels. Despite the fact that the vast majority of work has treated accountability either as an individual or an organization phenomenon, exceptions exist and more accurately reflect workplace realities as well as the needs of scholarship. Rupp, Ganapathi, Aguilera, and Williams’ (2006) taxonomy, bridging CSR and organizational justice perceptions, represents the type of research needed to make meaningful contributions in this regard. We elaborate on the need for a more inclusive treatment of the accountability construct below. We begin with a general overview of meso-level research (see Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 2004; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000, for a more in-depth discussion), followed by a discussion of the advantages of viewing accountability as a multi-level construct.

Nature of Meso Theory in Organizations Studies have described the importance of considering contextual factors when attempting to explain organizational experiences (Hackman, 2003; Johns, 2001, 2006). Mowday and Sutton (1993, p. 198) described context as ‘‘stimuli and phenomena that surround and thus exist in the environment external to the individual, most often at a different level of analysis.’’ According to Capelli and Scherer (1991, p. 56), context represents ‘‘the surroundings associated with phenomena which help to illuminate that [sic] phenomena, typically factors associated with units of analysis above those expressly under investigation.’’ Similarly, Rousseau and Fried (2001, p. 1) noted that ‘‘contextualization entails linking observations to a set of relevant facts, events, or points, of view that make possible research and theory that form the part of the larger whole.’’ Finally, Blalock (1984, p. 354) ) noted that the ‘‘essential feature of all contextual-effects models is an allowance for macro processes that are presumed to have an impact on the individual actor above the effects of any individual-level variables that may be operating.’’ Meso-level research, which links micro and macro concepts across levels of analysis (Rousseau, 1985), represents a form of contextualization that has been an important component of scholarly research with varying degrees of appreciation (Klein et al., 2004). In terms of groundwork, much of the foundational research can be traced back to general systems theory (e.g., Boulding, 1956), which embraces the oft-used adage that ‘‘the whole is

190


greater than the sum of its parts’’ (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). For example, the Hawthorne Studies (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939), social organization theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978), and Lewin’s (1951) field theory each possess strong systems underpinnings. By definition, meso-level research emphasizes the coincident examination of at least two levels of analysis (Rousseau & House, 1994). House, Rousseau, and Thomas-Hunt (1995) further suggested that three conditions need to be met before meso-level status is achieved: (a) at least one individualor group-level construct or process is included, (b) at least one organizationlevel construct or outcome is integrated, and (c) the analyses are ‘‘linked’’ across the aforementioned individual/group and organization level. These conditions serve to segregate meso-level theories of behavior from those uniquely micro (e.g., individual attitudes) or macro (e.g., technology). House et al. (1995), in an attempt to organize meso theory and research, identified eight classifications, or levels, of employee behavior in organizations. These classifications include the individual, dyad, group, formal work unit, unit-context, organization, network, and multilevel. Dansereau, Yammarino, and Kohles (1999) offered a generally comparable conceptualization (i.e., persons, dyads, groups, strategic business units, firms, dyadic strategic alliances, group strategic alliances, and industries) as did Ployhart (2004); (i.e., task, individual, dyad, group/team, department, organization, industry, nation, and culture). Finally, Kozlowski and Klein (1999) distinguished three basic forms of unit-level constructs (i.e., global unit properties, shared unit properties, and configural unit properties). In this conceptualization, unit-level constructs represent entities including two or more individuals.

Need for Meso Theory in Accountability In an earlier volume of this series, House et al. (1995) called for meso theory development in the organizational sciences, and we concur that doing so would make a uniquely impactful contribution. The nature of organizing embraces the various lenses of sociologists, psychologists, economists, anthropologists (and virtually all other scholarly disciplines). However, from a generalized perspective, organization scholars in the aggregate tend not to be very good sociologists, not very good psychologists, not very good economists, and not very good anthropologists. What management scholars should be very good at is integrating sociology, psychology, economics, anthropology, and other disciplines in


191

an organization-oriented framework. In this vein, Tetlock (1999) noted that a ‘‘good meso theory should be a nuisance’’ because it should challenge the narrower perspectives of various disciplines it seeks to integrate. In order to capitalize on the unique position of organization scholars in their specialized domain, it follows that the opportunities afforded by our unique place in the social sciences are well exploited. Hence, this chapter concurs with House et al. (1995) in inviting continued advancement of meso theory as the grounding of organization theory versus other disciplines, and with Tetlock in proposing accountability to be fundamentally meso in nature. Indeed, in the parlance of meso theory, accountability is an isomorphic phenomenon. Further, accountability seems uniquely positioned as a phenomenon for advancing meso theory in the organizational sciences. In fact, it is social contingencies, from those within dyads to those within cultures, which define the nuances of any accountability episode. As an example, role theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978), perhaps the best example of meso theory in organizations, describes how individual-level understandings and workplace behaviors derive from interpretations of social features. That is to say, cultural characteristics affect organizational structures and systems, which in turn affect subunit and group actions, which affect interpersonal relationships, which affect individual cognitions and behaviors in a manner best characterized as chaotic (Adams & McNicholas, 2007). Interestingly, accountability theoreticians have explicitly recognized this, and formulated conceptualizations that are meso-theoretical in nature, although empirical research is generally limited to single-level analyses. For example, Frink and Klimoski (1998) proposed accountability as a multilevel phenomenon, employing a role theoretic framework, although they stopped short of explicating meso relations and effects across levels. Further, Tetlock (2000) argued that individuals evaluate cues that affect decision-making processes at micro, meso, and macro levels, and that these cues affect interpersonal accountability dynamics and coping. Further, Tetlock’s (1999) meso-theory maintains that the central theme of choice and judgment (e.g., micro-level) is to maintain an acceptable level of social identity in the eyes of key constituents (e.g., macro-level). In terms of employee behavior at work, individuals may be accountable to subordinates, peers, supervisors, customers, shareholders, society, and the legal environment, and such sources may impel simultaneously. Because of its multi-constituency nature, a perspective that examines interactions across functional levels is warranted to fully understand accountability dynamics in organizations (Tetlock, 2000). However, although some fields (e.g., political science and sociology) contain substantial theoretical work, empirical

192


accountability research in organizational literatures to date has often been concerned with focus at the expense of depth (Hall et al., 2003). Specifically, empirical research in the behavioral sciences has (by definition), as expected, emphasized individual-level accountability responses (e.g., Hochwarter et al., 2007), with lesser regard for other levels (i.e., dyad, group, organization, social) which likely exercise meaningful influence on employee attitudes and behaviors. Meso-level conceptualizations are needed to address the shortcomings that exist in the existing scholarly literature, as it is evident to even the most distal observer that understanding the context of accountability is critical to glean insight into the phenomenon (Johns, 2001, 2006). Practical benefits will likely emerge as well. For example, understanding accountability dynamics between a supervisor and a subordinate is only of modest utility without explaining the external pressures that affect the nature of the dyadic relationship. It may be that the supervisor is content to manage the employee with a ‘‘hands-off’’ approach. However, pressures exerted from higher organizational levels to maximize outcomes (e.g., sales, profits, patents) more expeditiously may necessitate a more omnipresent management style.

MESO-MODEL OF ACCOUNTABILITY IN ORGANIZATIONS Readers were earlier presented with the notion that accountability is by nature a meso-theoretical phenomenon. Indeed, the core thesis of this chapter is that we cannot understand it within a single level of analysis, and meso-level modeling is imperative. Of course, advancing our knowledge about accountability also requires within-level articulation of relations, mechanisms, and the like, such as can be found in the growing bodies of psychological (e.g., Sedikides et al., 2002) and sociological (e.g., Romzek, 1998) theory and research. However, we would also argue that these efforts should be informed by broader modeling and theory. Having set forth a brief overview of accountability dynamics from a meso-level perspective, this section models the construct in a fashion that serves to organize conceptualizations of the phenomenon and support subsequent research. Fig. 1 provides a succinct illustration of accountability, and it is used as a guide through the following discussion. Note that modeling in this fashion provides a distinct benefit. Although the primary goal is to produce

193


Resources and Capabilities (5)

Environmental Factors (1)

Accountability Systems (2)

Features of the Accountability Environment (3)

The Experience of Accountability (4)

Reputation (6) Performance (7)

Well-Being (8)

Fig. 1.

Meso-Level Conceptualization of Accountability.

a meso-level conceptualization, in so doing, the model is also multi-level. That is, it can be applied as either a macro, micro, or meso model (or some variation within). At the same time, it is distinctly meso-level by means of bridging concepts and constructs. The following discussion takes the form of addressing each component of the illustration in terms of micro elements, macro elements, and bridging mechanisms. Note that the figure was developed to be parsimonious, in order to cast the net broadly enough to embrace concepts, constructs, antecedents, and the like – even those that extend beyond the scope of our discussion. As a caveat, we focus on individual and organization levels when presenting and discussing the model. As noted in prior research, accountability is a ‘‘natural bridging construct’’ (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999, p. 256) between individuals and the organizations to which they belong. Our decision to emphasize these levels exclusively was made for the sake of parsimony as well as clarity. As noted above, multi-level studies may possibly include eight levels, or units (House et al., 1995). With respect to parsimony, discussing each possible two unit combinations (e.g., individual and dyad, individual and group, etc.) would be cumbersome beyond any utility. Clarity will manifest as a consequence of this parsimony, as a discussion beyond these levels likely would convolute (and likely dilute) our treatment of the construct. Environmental Factors Environmental factors (see Box 1) include the category of variables that embed those entities being held accountable (Frink & Klimoski, 2004). These would include features of the general and task environments for organizations, and both intra- and inter-organizational environmental

194


features for entities within an organization (Painter-Morland, 2006). Because all entities operate within contexts of various environments, multiple elements or other entities within these settings may have status to hold another accountable. Beyond the status or capacity to directly hold one accountable, environments also may provide information about the nature of the accountabilities (Dutton & Ottensmeyer, 1987). Features of the general environment often are considered to include the legal, economic, sociocultural, technological, international, and demographic environments (Osborn, 1976). Task environment features typically include such things as the labor markets, suppliers, industry, and competitors. Internal environments could include corporate culture and climate, formalization, centralization, structure, task characteristics, and network relationships (Kennedy & Lawton, 1993). Regarding organizations themselves, Frink and Klimoski (1998) suggested that environmental factors (e.g., industry factors and standards, professional and certifying organizations, and legal systems) significantly influence accountability dynamics. Environmental factors embedding organizations may affect accountabilities via two paths. First, environmental factors may affect accountabilities directly through relationships with other entities which may require financial statements, regulatory requirements, stakeholder requirements, or requests for information (Gelfand, Raver, & Lim, 2004). Also, they may affect accountabilities indirectly through their influence on the organization’s formal accountability systems (Ferris, Dulebohn, Frink, George-Falvy, Mitchell, & Mathews, 1997). That is, organizations take cues from their environment, such as requirements for legal compliance or for strategic choice, which ultimately affect their formal accountability systems. In such cases, formal systems, such as human resources record keeping, are fashioned to proactively position organizations for external demands for accounts. Similarly, individuals are embedded in organizational environments, and these also may influence accountabilities via two paths (i.e., formal and informal accountabilities; West, 2004). First, environmental requirements have a direct effect on formal accountability systems, such as internal controls and performance evaluations, which embrace answerability of the focal person (Dose & Klimoski, 1995). Regarding informal accountability, role theory describes a means by which individuals understand the mutual expectations that develop among organizational actors (Frink & Klimoski, 2004). Either by means of role taking or role making, individuals and organizations interact with their environments to produce expectations, and


195

the means by which they may be communicated (Beu & Buckley, 2001). Accountabilities develop in this manner as well (Frink & Klimoski, 1998). Although the value added by human actors in organizations cannot be denied (Combs, Liu, Hall, & Ketchen, 2006), the reality is that a major function of human resources management, and more broadly accountability systems in general, is to minimize risk and legal liability (Bagley & Savage, 2005). Organizations face regulation from federal, state, and local agencies, in addition to the threat of litigation from internal claimants (e.g., employees) and from potential external constituents (e.g., injured customers, non-government organizations bringing suit regarding environmental issues) (Hochwarter et al., 2005). In turn, these considerations impact the type of monitoring, accounting, human resources management systems, and other accountability practices organizations initiate and to which they adhere. Individual actors directly, or indirectly through accountability practices created in the workplace, are affected by the external legal environment. For example, sexual harassment training has become routine in organizations in response to increased litigation in this area (O’Leary-Kelly, Tiedt, & BowesSperry, 2004). Also, employees, such as physicians, teachers, attorneys, and nurses face regulations and ethical canons from their respective licensure bodies. In terms of constructing a meso model at this stage, the focus is on the relations between levels of environmental factors. As an example, macrolevel environments clearly have the potential to influence lower-level environments through changes in the nature of specific features in the macro environment. Problems in demonstrating this are found in the beginnings of the active recycling movement in the United States. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, there was an increasing interest in stewardship of the environment in the public, thus there was a shift in the sociopolitical environment (Lounsbury, Ventresca, & Hirsch, 2003). During this time, a company contracted to ship garbage from New York City to a landfill in Louisiana to ease the pressure on the New York harbor dumpsite. Hearing of this, the parish in Louisiana passed an ordinance prohibiting the practice. The garbage contractor then found an alternative site in Alabama, where a similar ordinance was passed. National news outlets began broadcasting the story with the suggestion of a landfill crisis in the United States. Because the sociopolitical environment was now more sensitive to stewardship issues, many local and most state governments began passing recycling requirements for governmental agencies. Thus, sociopolitical favor for stewardship was eventually accompanied with local support for stewardship-oriented behaviors.

196


Interestingly, the economic environment failed to support across-theboard recycling because the public at large still favored lower cost over the high moral road of recycling. That is, the price paid for recycled materials was less than the cost of processing those materials, and goods made from recycled materials cost more than new goods in many cases (e.g., glass, plastics, and paper), creating losses for those agencies. Municipalities and states began rescinding their statutes, leaving their agencies in a quandary as they attempted to understand conflicting demands for accountability for both stewardship via recycling and for managing the public trust via fiscal responsibility with state and local funds (Ball, Broadbent, & Jarvis, 2006). In the worst cases, they had to respond to conflicting accountability systems, at times leading to court settlements. Because accountability, by definition, occurs in some social context, it follows that understanding the phenomenon includes understanding environmental influences. Typically, environmental influences flow downward, from general environments through task and internal environments to micro level relations. One also might envision situations in which the influence might flow upward as well, such as the impact of the civil rights movement on organizations, for example. In most cases, accountability episodes include multiple audiences, and these often with conflicting interests. Role overload and role stress serve as examples of constructs one might include when using a meso-level approach to articulating hypotheses. In addition, we propose that environmental influences are the major contributor to the development of accountability systems in social contexts.

Accountability Systems The ever-present pressure to predict and control conduct impels systems to have mechanisms to support expected behaviors. Given the complexities in which systems are embedded, these mechanisms develop into webs of accountabilities (Frink & Klimoski, 1998, p. 2006), or phrased differently, accountability systems. The culture, mission, markets, competitive forces, social forces, relationships, regulations, and a host of other environmental factors will interact with one another, and with the members of organizations, to produce such systems (Jos & Tompkins, 2004; Romzek, 1998; Romzek & Dubnick, 1998). These may be formal systems, such as monitoring devices and feedback mechanisms, or they may be informal systems, such as socially enforced norms (Romzek & Ingraham, 2000).


197

The relevance of the context was noted above, and the influence exerted by environmental factors sets the platform for the particular features of the accountability systems. Additionally, upon this platform, more specific standards may be articulated, as well as means by which comparisons between standards and behaviors can be made (Schlenker et al., 1994). Indeed, Schlenker and colleagues’ definition of accountability specifies linkages between events, actors, and prescriptions for behaviors relevant to that setting as the elements of responsibility, which, in turn, forms the basis of accountability. These expectations, standards, and means (or mechanisms) are of specific interest here, as they comprise the heart of accountability systems. Three factors emerge for consideration. The first is the structure of the system, which addresses the audiences, means, and methods found in a particular episode. The second factor incorporates the specific nature of the roles of the various parties, including notions of responsibility and culpability. The third, accountability focus, addresses the ‘‘to whom and for what’’ questions. These elements are discussed further below.

Accountability Structure Elements under this factor are relatively straightforward, and can be divided in terms of the level of formality versus informality. From a macro perspective, accountability is a social mechanism (Dubnick, 2003), and as such, demands translate into desired functions and forms which facilitate the development of processes and mechanisms. Formal accountability structures emerge as recognized means of feedback and control via governance structures (Dubnick, 2003). Thus, formal accountability mechanisms may dominate over informal accountabilities at the macro level (Hall, Blass, Ferris, & Massengale, 2004), although this is subject to empirical scrutiny. At lower levels, informal relationships and agreements are more subjective and emergent than at higher levels. Because firms are seen as juristic persons and social entities in their own right, accountability mechanisms at the organization level develop from stakeholder demands characterized by a need to satisfy broader constituencies (Morrison & Salipante, 2007). Thus, in order to provide a means of accountability to which entities can subscribe, it is necessary to adopt procedures that are easily communicated, understood, and measured (Reberioux, 2007). This, of course, would call for formal mechanisms. Alternatively, much of how organizations communicate is symbolic, and it also may be that a variety of stakeholders, such as partners, customers, and

198


suppliers, are well-satisfied with informal and symbolic answerability for most of their expectations (Adams & McNicholas, 2007). At the individual level, there are a variety of formal accountability mechanisms (e.g., performance evaluation and feedback systems and disciplinary procedures), beginning with the applications of organizational policies and practices, in place. In addition, work assignments often are structured as goal achievement exercises, with concomitant answerability for achieving or failing to achieve goals (Hall et al., 2006). A critical issue at this point, and throughout the discussions of accountability systems and features, is that of alignment (Frink & Klimoski, 1998). From a hierarchical perspective, the organization’s mission drives organizational strategies, which should drive policies and practices, which should drive work structures and measurement systems (Gupta, 1987). Such alignment is critical, and a key element in alignment concerns the consistency among formal accountability mechanisms (Stupak & Stupak, 2006). Accountability Roles Roles in accountability episodes can be categorized in a number of different ways, two of which we discuss below. First, there are two key roles in accountability episodes: the focal entity (or agent) and the audience (or principle) (Thoms, Dose, & Scott, 2002). That is, there is the entity that anticipates giving accounts to some audience(s). Frink and Klimoski (1998) posited that these are emergent in nature, whether the system is formal or informal. Even for situations in which there are clearly specified policies and procedures, the actual accounting event is subject to a variety of inter- and intra-personal influences (Hall et al., 2003). As noted earlier, personalities, politics, preferences, and goals, may affect how these roles are established and enacted. Other notions about roles have been developed as well (Seeley & Gardner, 2006). Dubnick (2003) further proposed two dimensions of account-giving mechanisms that pertain to how various actors’ roles are defined. These dimensions refer to features of the account-giving mechanisms that, in turn, influence how the roles are enacted. The first concerns the focus on either actors or on situations, and the second concerns whether the setting is highly structured or emergent. This first dimension is especially useful for meso theory on accountability. Previous accountability theory and research in organizational contexts focused on an individual agent and expectations regarding his or her behavior. From organization-level lenses, however, this is inadequate. Many organizational expectations, such as objectives or responses to


199

environmental influences, focus on situations instead (Strawson, 1962). For example, heads of federal agencies often are called to account to congressional leaders regarding their agencies’ activities. Thus, it allows broadening of our understanding of the context from simply prescriptions for individuals in context to prescriptions for contexts as well (Schlenker et al., 1994). Dubnick’s (2003) second dimension, a structured versus emergent situation, is analogous to the formal versus informal accountabilities previously discussed, yet carries somewhat different notions and implications. For example, even informal accountabilities can become institutionalized or habituated, such that they take on the status of formal accountabilities without the overt statements of policy or procedures. Structured situations are those with high levels of regularity or routine, and expectations are well understood via formalization or consistency (Dubnick & Justice, 2006). Emergent situations are those in which there are no clear sets of expectations or rules, or those in which the setting is subject to fluctuation. These two dimensions produce a two-by-two typology of accountability mechanisms. The first combination is where accountability is related to persons in structured contexts. This is referred to as accountability-as-answerability by Dubnick (2003). In this condition, there are role-specific expectations that accompany specific positions. Individuals in these positions are subject to answer on demand to various stakeholders. Traditional organizational notions such as chain of command embrace this type. The second combination is where accountability is related to persons in emergent contexts, referred to as accountability-as-blameworthiness by Dubnick (2003). In this condition, one may be held accountable regardless of direct culpability or responsibility because the dynamic nature of the setting may prohibit anticipation of all contingencies (Dubnick & Justice, 2006). This condition is one in which one is held accountable, not because of a specific role or function, but because of more generally defined social status or identification with a group having some level of status (Dubnick, 2003). The most extreme form according to Dubnick is scapegoating, in which the feeling is that ‘‘someone’s head must roll,’’ that is, someone must be the target of blame to alleviate negative implications for others. Sociologists have long considered account-giving as a means of addressing some wrong, hopefully, with the aggrieved party being satisfied by the account (Orbuch, 1997). The third combination is referred to as accountability-as-liability by Dubnick (2003), and concerns accountability focused on situations or events

200


in structured settings. This condition is focused on a legalistic view in which accountability carries sanctions for noncompliance to the letter of the law or terms of contracts in institutional contexts. Unique to this condition is the ‘‘many hands’’ problem in which more than one person may be culpable for the organization or groups’ breach of rules or regulations. Often, there are multiple individuals who have differing levels of responsibility for organization wrongdoing, and the problem becomes sorting out who is responsible for what. This differs from the blameworthiness condition in which a person is accountable due to status, and instead seeks to isolate those specifically responsible. The fourth combination, accountability-as-attributability (Dubnick, 2003), addresses situations in which the lines are blurred between one’s position and function in an organization and the non-work side of life (Dubnick & Justice, 2006). A person’s behaviors may be such that, while irrelevant to any particular organizational concerns at any particular time, attributions may be made that generalize to the workplace. For example, one may emerge from a condemned house in an area known for drug use, and an observer may consider that person to be a drug user, when, in fact, the individual volunteers as a Meals-on-Wheels driver carrying food to elderly shut-ins. The audience here may be anyone believing he or she holds status, or desires to hold status, sufficient to call for an accounting. It is this type of accountability that results in organizations creating policies about employee’s non-work activities. Local bank presidents often are expected to be active in civic affairs and maintain wholesome lifestyles, and many organizations have non-fraternization policies, for example. Accountability Focus Generally speaking, accountability can be either for processes or outcomes, a distinction we refer to as accountability focus. Briefly, process accountability refers to individuals being held accountable for the procedures or processes they follow when making decisions or taking actions (Hall, Perryman, Zinko, & Ferris, 2007; Lerner & Tetlock, 1999), and this also can involve the actual behaviors in which one engages in order to achieve particular outcomes. On the other hand, outcome accountability refers to individuals being held accountable for the results without regard for processes and procedures (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999; Siegel-Jacobs & Yates, 1996). Empirical research has explored process and outcome accountability as objective conditions, although it is conceivable that accountability focus may be explored as a


201

subjectively interpreted phenomenon (Tetlock, 1985, 1992). The distinction between being evaluated on processes versus outcomes has been recognized by scholars for some time (Simonson & Staw, 1992). For example, in his discussion on management as symbolic action, Pfeffer (1981) discussed how individuals often are evaluated on the basis of their perceived effort (i.e., similar to process accountability), as opposed to being evaluated on actual outcomes. Prior research has suggested that process accountability generally leads to positive results, and that there are often negative consequences associated with outcome accountability (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999; Siegel-Jacobs & Yates, 1996), such as increased escalation of commitment (Simonson & Staw, 1992) and being less truthful (Adelberg & Batson, 1978). The implication of these findings is that, under conditions of outcome accountability, individuals might be induced to engage in unethical or reckless behavior under the belief that the ends justify the means. Although this line of inquiry is confined to micro-level effects, it may be useful to explore accountability focus at the macro level. One might expect that, given the difficulty of monitoring organization processes from the outside, outcome accountability may be more common at that level. Implications for failure might compel a process focus, such as in federal monitoring of nuclear power plant operations. Thus, in addition to being held accountable for particular personal outcomes, or for demonstrating specific behaviors at work, entities are held accountable for the behaviors and/or outcomes of others in the workplace (Begley, 1994; Menon & Akhilesh, 1994). Consequently, accountability focus includes the process, outcomes, and accountability for others (Royle, Hall, & Hochwarter, 2008).

Features of the Accountability Environment Accountability systems may be enacted in a variety of fashions. Additionally, there may be key features that influence the nature of the responses to these systems. This set of variables are referred to here as features (see Box 3) in that they may differentiate how accountability systems are manifest in one situation versus another (Dubnick, 2003). Again, these features apply to formal and informal accountability systems alike, as well as macro- and micro-level systems. Hall, Bowen, Ferris, Royle, and Fitzgibbons (2007) described the accountability environment as those features that directly affect accountability enactment. Descriptions of four

202


key elements of the accountability environment (i.e., purpose, source, salience, and intensity) follow. Accountability Purpose The sociology literature treats accountability from a dramaturgical lens, attempting to interpret the motives and behaviors of the actors involved. In addition, there is a decided emphasis on understanding account-giving processes, analyzing the focal entities. Accounts from this perspective are bundles of attributions, including causality, responsibility, blame, and trait ascriptions for others and self (Orbuch, 1997). Therefore, accountability is a social mechanism, rather than a uniquely institutional mechanism (Dubnick, 2003). The institutional-only view would see accountability as a formalized means of feedback and control via governance structures, a reasonable starting point and typical of organizational perspectives. However, the social mechanism view expands the notion considerably, allowing a broader analysis of purpose. In the sociology literature, accountability is seen as a type of social act within a larger class of processes engaged to repair or overcome damaged relationships resulting from untoward behavior (Dubnick, 2003). These notions next lead to other motives for the focal entity. Accounts can be used for exploring causal structures, that is, to clarify responsibility, blameworthiness, and culpability according to attribution theory. Accounts also can be a vehicle for sensemaking about environments, including proactive image building and impression management (Frink & Ferris, 1998). Given people’s interest in audience approval, accounts are typically tailored for specific audiences in order to achieve desired responses from the various evaluators, as proposed by symbolic interactionism. Other uses for accountability settings include feedback, proactive management of affairs, goal-setting (Quinn & Schlenker, 2002), and communications about the self and context to audiences (Frink & Klimoski, 1998). These purposes come about by means of cognitions about attributions and social sensemaking activities. Analyses of these goals blend the cognitions of attribution making and the social analyses of sensemaking, which together constitute meso theorizing (Orbuch, 1997). Related to the above uses of accountability might be an application of Katz and Kahn’s (1978) discussion of role theory. They posited that individuals seek information about the roles they are expected to fill in organizational settings. This is an iterative process of social exchanges and reinforcements of behaviors. Actors may proactively work to define their


203

roles, termed ‘‘role making,’’ or they may be reactive, accepting the roles as reinforced in that setting, a mode termed ‘‘role taking.’’ It seems likely that role takers may use the features of the accountability environment to develop and communicate the roles they wish to fill. Frink and Klimoski’s (1998) dynamic framework embraced the interactive nature of how accountability and the surrounding expectations emerge in their role theoretic approach. Audiences also have multiple purposes that can be realized via accountings. As noted above, perhaps the primary purpose is oversight and control. Ouchi (1977, 1980), Ouchi and Maguire, (1975) proposed a typology of control mechanisms that implies different accountability mechanisms for differing organization contexts. Indeed, this typology stands out among early suggestions of differentiating process and output controls, labeling them bureaucratic (behavioral) and market (output) controls. Ouchi also articulated subjective, relation-based accountabilities, referring to them as clan controls, in a fashion very similar to current discussions of informal accountability. A valuable contribution to this discussion is viewing clan controls as a midpoint between organizationally sanctioned and formalized accountability mechanisms on the one hand, and informal accountabilities outside the purview of the organization on the other. In addition to controls, accountability can be useful as a means to create meanings. Regardless of the formality of the accountability mechanisms, the means of enactment may vary, communicating values, preferences, and goals to various constituencies and stakeholders, not just the accountable entities. Both formal and informal accountabilities can be a vehicle for helping establish goals, norms, roles, conformity, expectations, culture, climate, relationships, situational awareness, and a host of other desiderata. Additionally, accountability mechanisms can be used to create alignment among organizational goals, initiatives, and policies. These audience purposes, and by extension organizational purposes, can serve as meso links between macro and micro views. Accountability Source Entities, be they individuals, groups or organizations, are accountable to multiple sources (Carnevale, 1985; Tetlock, 1999). This phenomenon, in which entities have multiple accountabilities to multiple sources, has been referred to as the web of accountabilities (Frink & Klimoski, 1998, 2004). Employees are accountable to multiple entities, such as supervisors, co-workers, team members, clients, and other stakeholders, and even to

204


themselves (Schlenker & Weigold, 1989). Organizations are accountable to multiple stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and the community. Although individuals, groups, or organizations always will have multiple audiences to whom they are accountable, these accountabilities rarely, if ever, will be equivalent. Thus, accountability may vary according to the accountability source (Frink & Klimoski, 1998; Tetlock, 1999). For example, an employee might want to provide excellent customer service. However, that same employee might feel more accountable to a supervisor, because that supervisor has more immediate control over organizational rewards and punishments. As mentioned above, an individual also can feel accountable to oneself (Schlenker & Weigold, 1989). The experience of feeling accountable to self might have much to do with demonstrating behavior that measures up to some internally embraced moral or ethical code, and/or to particularly strongly held beliefs. This applies equally to groups and organizations that strive to live up to internally embraced values. Therefore, we view much socially responsible corporate behavior as reflecting accountability to self, and strongly held internal beliefs and values. Beyond the structural view of accountability source is a more subjective view that suggests important factors concerning accountability source may lie with the implications any particular source may have for other purposes of accountings. More specifically, if an accounting is seen by the focal entity as a mechanism for control or reconciliation of breached rules, a source related to organizational sanctioning may hold more influence. If the accounting is seen as an event related to one’s personal identity or for social sensemaking, audiences holding status to create or reinforce identity, or holding status to provide valued feedback, may have more influence. Accountability Salience Accountability salience as used here refers to the degree to which accountability is for important, or significant, outcomes (Hall et al., 2007). Further, accountability is intensified when actions are related to the overall group or organization effectiveness (Smith, Terry, & Hogg, 2007). Researchers (du Toit, 2003; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978; Taylor & Fiske, 1978) have confirmed that both individuals and organizations are constantly bombarded with stimuli from their environment. However, only those stimuli that are the most salient to individuals and organizations will attract attention, shape attitudes, and guide behavior. Staw and Boettger’s (1990) research, examining task revision dynamics, documents the importance of considering salience in the realm of


205

accountability. In this study, task revision was operationalized as action taken to correct a faulty behavior, procedure, or interaction. Findings demonstrated that task revision was facilitated when alternatives were salient and the individual in a supervisory role experienced accountability pressures. Further, Kramer, Pommerenke, and Newton’s (1993) lab research concluded that perceived fairness, satisfaction, and cooperativeness were highest when salience for social identity and interpersonal accountability were high. Finally, Roberts, Stout, and Halpern (1994) examined the effects of catastrophic event on decision making. Their model outlined the importance of cognitive factors, including salience and accountability. Accountability Intensity In this chapter, accountability intensity is used to refer to the extent to which an individual is held accountable to multiple persons, multiple outcomes, or the magnitude of accountability is extreme (Hall et al., 2007). Rather than the focal-point notion, intensity refers to a cumulative effect of (multiple) accountability demands. Kahn and Byosiere (1992) indicated that role overload was initially treated as a variant of role conflict, which has been described as ‘‘the simultaneous occurrence of two or more role expectations such that compliance with one would make compliance with the other more difficult’’ (Katz & Kahn, 1978, p. 204). However, they further noted that role overload has become a separate subject of research in its own right. Moreover, role conflict has been found to contribute to role overload (Bacharach, Bamberger, & Conley, 1991), which essentially refers to the feeling of having ‘‘too much to do in too little time.’’ Intensity also relates to the importance or magnitude attached to the accountability condition. For example, an individual may have multiple accountabilities, but the overall level of answerability is no better than modest. On the other hand, an individual may be accountable to only one source, but the net level of answerability is overwhelming in terms of demands and impact. For example, a research scientist given the duty of developing a cancer drug that beats the competition to FDA approval is posited to have a high level of accountability intensity relative to those who have multiple accountabilities that are able to be disregarded. Another stream of research has suggested that the attitudes of individuals can be affected by the attitudes, behaviors, and communications of others through a social information processing framework (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). The concept of social contagion suggests that thoughts and feelings about an issue ‘‘can be communicated from one individual to another and ultimately spread and be maintained across entire networks or groups’’

206


(Degoey, 2000, p. 54). Once these attitudes have been dispersed, they can demonstrate important effects on individual attitudes, and ultimately individual behavior. Thus, another, even more subjective, consideration regarding features of the accountability systems concerns the nature of the climate, prevailing moods, and norms at dyad, group, unit, organizational, industry, political, and social levels. One mechanism by which macro influences may influence individual reactions to accountability is reflected in Weigold and Schlenker’s (1991) study of conformity effects in accountability. Scholars (Klimoski & Inks, 1990; Lerner & Tetlock, 1999; Tetlock, 1999) appropriately asserted that accountability affects not only what we think, but also and more importantly, it affects how we think. The model developed by Tetlock has indicated that individuals make assessments of the features of their environments, and proactively formulate coping strategies when possible. In concert with predictions from identity theory, Weigold and Schlenker demonstrated such effects in their experiment, finding that individuals would align their choices with their understandings about the preferences of those to whom they were ostensibly accountable. These notions have been qualified in some research, however, finding that certain audience characteristics, such as audience status, may not influence people’s coping strategies as might be expected. Sedikides and his colleagues (2002) found that audience status did not increase self enhancement for accountable participants. Frink and Ferris (1998) found no significant change in accountability by adding peer audiences to supervisors in pilot studies. More research is needed to clarify audience effects related to status, intensity, and so forth.

The Experience of Accountability Accountability refers to a focal entity’s phenomenological perceptions of external demands (Hochwarter et al., 2007), or more simply put, the experience of being held answerable (see Box 4). The view taken here is that forms and functions lead to processes and mechanisms of accountability. Furthermore, in concert with these situated pressures, the focal entities’ peculiarities operate to produce particular understandings of accountabilities. This section, then, deals with focal entity perceptions of and responses to accountabilities. Conceptual bases rest heavily on such notions as resource dependency, the resource-based view of the firm, and institutionalism at organization levels, and on attribution theory, symbolic interactionism,


207

self-image, impression management, and motivation theories at the individual level (Dubnick, 2005; Ebrahim, 2005; Frink & Ferris, 1998). In arriving at this point in the model, an almost staggering number of influences have converged to form a setting for enacting the accountability phenomenon. As noted earlier, this phenomenon is enacted in an interface of these external (to the focal entity) and internal influences. More specifically, unique characteristics of individuals or organizations, roles, goals, history, sensitivity to environmental variables, and vulnerability to influences converge to develop an overarching experience of accountability. Clearly, then, accountability is not simply a function of conditions and pressures, but of the relationship of those factors with factors specific to the focal entity (Frink & Ferris, 1998; Schlenker et al., 1994). Thus, features of the external environment, accountability systems, accountability environment, and relevant actors create the state of mind referred to as experienced accountability. From an organization level, pressures for institutional legitimacy, valued resources needed, and resources held can affect accountability interpretations. Also, stakeholder interests, status, and demands, including any recent accountability episodes (due to recency effects) can affect interpretations and understandings, and the influences may come from or result in both formal and informal accountabilities (Cooper & Owen, 2007). A simplistic view of accountability might be ‘‘what can I provide in terms of what is required, and, can I influence those requirements?’’ Analysis of this question needs to consider the effects of all such variables. From an individual level, being regarded positively, and by extension avoiding negative impressions, are the commonly viewed forces affecting interpretations of accountabilities (Abrams, Rutland, Cameron, & Ferrell, 2007). Other influences may include personality characteristics (as well as other individual differences), social astuteness, relative status with others, and recent accountability episodes are also thought to influence interpretations of accountability (Frink & Ferris, 1998). Indeed, theory suggests that individual-level corollaries for organization-level variables are related to accountabilities. The ASA framework (Schneider, 1987; Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995) may imply that, because the organization reflects its members, a linkage exists between individual and organizational characteristics and dynamics. In essence, a similar ‘‘what can I provide in terms of what needs I see, and, can I influence those requirements?’’ exists for micro levels as it does for macro levels. It is worth underscoring the importance of the informal and subjective influences on how accountabilities are perceived. To date, the body of

208


accountability research in organizational literatures essentially has ignored notions of informal accountability (Frink & Klimoski, 1998; Hall et al., 2004), although sociology has embraced them to a greater extent (Orbuch, 1997). This gap in the organizational literature is underscored by the fact that the majority of accountability studies have been laboratory experiments, in which the participants do not have a shared history with the participants or relevant actors (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999). Nevertheless, Frink and Klimoski (1998) suggested that these informal influences indeed do effect accountability. Specifically, they contended that these mechanisms could include organizational culture, values, and norms (Lerner & Tetlock, 2003). The literature supports that these mechanisms affect employee attitudes and behaviors, especially when the organizational culture is a strong one in which its core values are intensely held, and widely shared by its employees (Gordon & DiTomaso, 1992). Norms have been defined as ‘‘standards shared by group members (Steers, 1981), which when crystallized, that is, highly agreed upon by group members, permit the group to regulate member behavior’’ (Cohen & Bailey, 1997, p. 257). Research has suggested that group norms have a significant impact on employee attitudes and behaviors (Degoey, 2000). For example, group norms regarding performance can influence attitudes regarding what is an acceptable level of work (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). Moreover, failure to comply with norms can subject an individual to censure. Informal norms and expectations have important implications for accountability. In the conceptualization proposed in Fig. 1, it is argued that accountability is formed, in part, when individuals perceive, interpret, and internalize information from their environments. A relevant component of this information is the informal norms and expectations communicated to individuals regarding accountability standards. As such, it is argued that when individuals perceive norms in their environment regarding the presence, level, and, nature of accountability, they will use this information when forming their own perceptions of accountability (Sandfort, 1999). At this point, another perspective of accountability emerges that has not been articulated in organizational literatures. In general, accountability is seen as imposed, that is, a pressure exerted from the outside. Even in situations of self-accountability, standards and expectations are imposed by one aspect of the self against the decisions and behaviors produced, and this imposition is, at least to some degree, involuntary. Another possibility is that accountability is sought out, and entities will intentionally subject themselves to external scrutiny and evaluation (see King, 2004, for a discussion of control seeking behavior, which is an assumed corollary of sought


209

accountability). Whereas apprehensions about evaluation, motives for conserving resources, and wishes for self preservation typically impel people away from accountability, an alternative notion is that accountability can be an asset or resource (Ferris et al., 2006, 2007; Hall et al., 2004). In this regard, accountability may represent a potential safety net, a means to diffuse blame, or as a developmental tool (e.g., as in a mentoring relationship). As accountability salience and intensity increase, as the stakes for successes or failures get higher, as motivations for higher levels of responsibility or success develop, or as people desire a safety net for decisions or actions, they may pursue accountabilities to support them in making appropriate choices or in personal development. In support, Schlenker and Weigold (1989) contended that proactive accountability behaviors have been a neglected area of research. Instead, studies have focused almost exclusively on reactions to failed accountability such as threats and protective behaviors (Schlenker, 1986). Schlenker and Weigold (1989) operationalized accountability as an acquisitive style that allows the individual to take advantage of opportunities, seek out more challenging situations, and assume responsibility when favorable outcomes result. A consequence of this approach is more confident self-presentation and higher efficacy perceptions. Although Schlenker’s discussion related specifically to individuals, a case can be made that organizations can and should proactively seek accountability. Counseling psychology long has recognized the benefits of accountability for those desiring personal change. However, organization scientists have generally overlooked this possibility. Both individuals, and larger entities, seek out trusted advisors for personal growth, development, and security. Perhaps the closest organizational literatures has come to this topic is in exploring mentoring relationships. Given the nature of accountabilities as seen by the focal entities, theory predicts the next step is to develop response strategies. The strategies available to entities are vast. Theory and research from a variety of disciplines have proposed several options that typically are based on correcting or mollifying (from sociology and macro organization theory), coping with pressures and enhancing image perceptions (psychology) (Green, Visser, & Tetlock, 2000), legal compliance and market responses (organization theory/law) (Volz & Vahe, 2006), and behavioral control (organizational behavior) (Hall et al., 2006), as examples. Reducing the variety of responses to a basic typology suggests three dimensions. It is important to note that these dimensions are not exclusive; there may be elements of any combinations evident in any accountability episode.

210


The first dimension deals with the target issue as embraced by the focal entity, which may be image related or process related. That is, is the concern related to building and maintaining a self or public image (Markham & Tetlock, 2000), or is the concern about the viability of how process or systems are enacted? Image related behaviors often take the form of justifications, excuses, deflection, or mollifying (Dunn & Cody, 2000). Process-related concerns would take the form of efforts toward improving outcomes (which may have image implications as well), reinforcing causal relations, setting policy precedents, and recalibrating one’s position to manage future events. The second dimension deals with the target purpose in responding. The purpose may be either to build or to repair, and by nature embraces a temporal element for considerations about accountability responses (O’Donovan, 2002). If the purpose is to build, efforts may be designed to reinforce policy, to enhance self image, to set the stage for future opportunities, or establish precedents for anticipated accountabilities to come (De Drue & van Knippenburg, 2005). If the purpose is repair-oriented, efforts may be designed to correct past wrongs, to explain, to justify, or to repair relationships (Benoit, 1997). The third dimension deals with the target, which specifies whether the focal entity desires the accounting to achieve outcomes for itself, or for the larger environment. Building on Morrison and Phelps’s (1999) discussion of responsibility, Royle et al. (2008) examined the influence of accountability for others. Results indicated that informal accountability for others was associated with citizenship behavior and organizational embeddedness. In this context, the larger environment would include any environmental elements outside the accountable entity. Self-oriented responses seek to gain rewards, to avoid punishments, to make sense of the environment, to deflect pressures, to procrastinate, or to individuate the self from others (Jos & Thompkins, 2004). Environment-oriented responses might be to support alignment of organizational objectives, to clarify processes and expectations about them, to establish legal precedent, to pay for wrongs committed, or to improve organizational systems or outcomes (Painter-Morland, 2006; Reberioux, 2007). This typology is indeed parsimonious, and by itself would have difficulty predicting responses to accountability. However, it does offer a means of categorizing responses that can then embrace the host of antecedents that have been discussed, thus giving some assistance in forming predictions across levels. This leads us to considerations of the various characteristics that focal entities may bring to bear, or the resources and capabilities,


211

including characteristics unique to that entity, that influence how accountability is enacted, and how successful the strategies may be.

Resources and Capabilities As documented in previous research (Hall et al., 2003; Hochwarter et al., 2007), accountability promotes favorable outcomes in some settings and unfavorable ones in others. Heightened accountability expectations require individuals to demonstrate worth, credibility, and trust (De Cremer, Snyder, & DeWitte, 2001; Fairholm, 2004), or suffer undesirable consequences such as a lowering of status, demotion, or termination. However, for accountability to adequately satisfy individual and organizational objectives, the entity (i.e., employee, group, system) must be both competent and possess the resources needed to be successful (Royle, Hall, Hochwarter, Perrewe, & Ferris, 2005) (see Box 5). Metaphorically speaking, increasing accountability expectations without ensuring that the entity possesses the requisite ‘‘tools’’ is synonymous with sending a soldier into battle without weapons. In support, Royle, Hall, Hochwarter, Perrewe´, and Ferris (2005) found that those held accountable with low levels of perceived competence (e.g., self-efficacy) participated in more political behavior and fewer performance-relevant tasks. Moreover, Hall et al. (2006) found that autonomy, which represents a job content resource (de Jonge & Dormann, 2003), neutralized the anxiety-provoking properties of accountability on job and life satisfaction. As the meso-level conceptualization of accountability progresses in its development, it becomes increasingly cumbersome due to the vast number of constructs, theories, and variables that may come into play. In considering the variety of resources and capabilities which may exert influence in accountability episodes, the list might include such things as capitalization and control over valued resources at the organizational level, and political skill, experience, and cognitive ability at the individual level. Rather than having a broad net cast across relevant notions in this section, a selective assessment of what seems a particularly important construct may be more useful for information, illustration, and analysis. Thus, in this section of the chapter, we focus on one operationalization of competency theoretically conceptualized to influence accountability outcomes (Jensen, 2006; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Namely, we contend that increased answerability, without the requisite levels of social capital, will be associated with undesirable outcomes. Conversely, when an entity is held to

212


a higher standard and simultaneously possesses the social wherewithal to limited ambiguity and influence others (Pfeffer, 1992), positive outcomes are expected. Our discussion focuses on social capital benefits at the individual, group, and organization levels of analysis. Social Capital Theory Social capital is an important construct across a number of disciplines, including economics, political science, sociology, public health, education, strategic management, and organizational behavior (see Lin, 2001a, for a review). Definitions of the construct across fields vary, but are largely consistent. For example, social capital has been described as ‘‘yfriends colleagues, and more general contacts through whom you receive opportunities to receive your financial and human capital’’ (Burt, 1992, p. 9). Lin (2001a) characterized social capital as the ‘‘yresources embedded in social networks accessed and used by actors for actions.’’ Others have conceptualized social capital as a vehicle for securing outcomes not attainable in absentia (Coleman, 1988, 1990; Lin, 2001b). Sociologists maintain that the construct represents ‘‘y social relationships which will provide, if necessary, useful ‘supports’ ‘‘(Bourdieu, 1977, p. 503), and simply as a sum of resources (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Bouty (2000) operationalized social capital as network affiliation and resource acquisition. Lastly, social capital has been described as a set of informal values and norms shared by group members that facilitate cooperation (Fukuyama, 2001). Individual-Level Social Capital. Simply put, social capital is capital gained through interpersonal relations (Lin, 2001a). Entities accumulate and exploit social capital to secure an advantage, or in the economic realm, profit (Coleman, 1988). At the individual level, this is done principally by developing a network of others who serve as either direct resources (i.e., support; Wellman & Frank, 2001) or conduits to other sources of assistance (Lin, 2001b). Accountability at the individual level may take on many forms. For example, an employee may be answerable to peers, co-workers, management, executives, clients, or suppliers. Embedment in a social network is instrumental for a number of reasons, all of which directly affect accountability demands. First, dense social capital networks facilitate the flow of information. Sufficient positioning in the social network allows the accrual of helpful information regarding opportunities and coping resources not typically available to those less established. Second social ties exert


213

considerable influence on agents who play a critical role in decision making (e.g., promotion, hiring, pay increases) and reward allocation (Lin, 2001b). The proximity of those within the social network, as a function of strategic location (e.g., structural holes, Burt, 1992) and positions (e.g., authority, Burt, 2000) allows access to agents in resource allocation roles. In a practical sense, simply having an influential member of one’s social network speak on behalf of the agent (i.e., put in a good word) likely assists in the accumulation of desirable outcomes (Lin, 2001b). Third, embeddedness verifies an individual’s credibility within the social structure. Lin (2001b, p. 7) noted that ‘‘‘Standing behind’ the individual by these ties reassures the organization (and its agents) that the individual can provide ‘added’ resources beyond his/her personal capital, some of which may be useful to the organization.’’ Finally, enhanced social relationships provide recognition and reinforce identity (Lin, 2001b). Having one’s standing in the network acknowledged and established among peers in the social environment promotes the accessibility to needed resources, including physical and emotional support. These four elements, namely, information, influence, credentials, and reinforcement (Lin, 2001a, 2001b), largely explain why social capital promotes both expressive and instrumental actions. The importance of social capital, as a mechanism for understanding accountability dynamics, cannot be over-emphasized. Simply put, social capital equates to resource acquisition, and without access to tools, assets, support, and other sources of aid, accountability’s benefits will go unrealized. In terms of accrued resources, Hurlbert, Beggs, and Haines (2001) argued that social capital affects the receipt of both formal and informal support. Consistent with Lin (2001a), support promotes informational advantages to those within the network (Podolny & Baron, 1997). Finally, Popielarz (1999) maintained that standing in one’s social network affects quality, quantity, novelty, and availability of resources. Scholarly and practical discussions of the accountability construct confirm the role of uncertainty as demands intensify (Hall et al., 2006; Hochwarter et al., 2007; Lerner & Tetlock 1999). As accountability demands become more onerous, the ability to satisfy the needs of any particular evaluative audience is greatly diminished (Page, 2006). Moreover, if increasingly more time is spent explaining decisions and behaviors, fulfillment of primary job tasks may be jeopardized (Behn, 2001; Callahan, 2006). Finally, uncertainty occurs when accountability expectations are at odds (Romzek & Dubnick, 1987). As an example, a hospital administrator may be responsible for cutting the budget and providing the best healthcare possible, even if it means

214


offering indigent care. Accountability cross-pressures, when at extreme levels, promote protest, avoidance, buck-passing, and withdrawal rather than efforts exerted to solve meaningful organizational problems (Tetlock, 1999). Finally, increases in demands tax finite cognitive capacities (Erdogan, Sparrowe, Liden, & Dunegan, 2004; Tetlock, 1985), a consequence of which documented in past research is a reduction in performance (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992). Inclusion in the social network can neutralize the stress provoking properties of accountability, and, in fact, advance desirable effects. First, adequate resources have been shown to buffer the effects of demands on a number of outcomes including burnout (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001), absence behavior and frequency (Bakker, Demerouti, De Boer, & Schaufeli, 2003), and job and life satisfaction (Hochwarter, Perrewe´, Meurs, & Kacmar, 2007). Other research recognizes that heightened demands can lead to favorable increases in desired outcomes. For example, Dwyer and Ganster (1991) reported that workload increases (e.g., demand) were associated with higher levels of work satisfaction for those with control (e.g., control). Similarly, Hochwarter, Laird, and Brouer (2008) reported that hurricane-induced work stress predicted higher levels of job satisfaction when coupled with coping resources. Moreover, those with higher levels of social capital are more likely to both dispense of and receive job-relevant information (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Burt, 1997; Kramer, 1999). Coleman (1988) noted that information gathered in the social milieu provides a basis for action. Increased information sharing behavior, as a corollary of social capital, represents a significant neutralizer of heightened demands (Kawachi & Berkman, 2001; Lin, 2001a). Organization-Level Social Capital. Finally, organizations, as well as larger entities (Fukuyama, 2001; Walker, Kogut, & Shan, 1997), accrue and wield social capital (Burt, 2005). Leana and Van Buren (1999, p. 540) defined organizational social capital as ‘‘a resource reflecting the character of social relations within the organization, realized through members’ levels of collective goal orientation and shared trust.’’ Others (e.g., Lazega, Mounier, Jourda, & Stofer, 2006) simply describe social capital as the resources firms make accessible to individuals as a result of participation in interorganizational relationships. In a broader sense, organization social capital represents the summative form and nature of relationships among those in the firm (Coleman, 1990), in addition to its linkages with its partners, competitors, stakeholders, and community (Uzzi, 1997).


215

Organization-level forms of accountability include answering to shareholders, society, government agencies, as well as to the internal workforce. Organizations accrue a myriad of benefits from favorable social ties (both internal and external; Leana & Pil, 2006). For example, enhanced information flow supplements the ability to gather and assimilate knowledge from external sources (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998) for distribution to internal agents. According to Sparrowe, Liden, Wayne, and Kramer (2001), information sharing encourages cooperation and mutual accountability. Leana and Pil (2006) noted that social networks allow organizations to gather information from suppliers and alliances, whereas Heller and Firestone (1995) reported that favorable external ties lead to increased funding and less complicated personnel acquisition. Finally, Useem, Christman, Gold, and Simon (1997) recognized that managing external social relationships buffered organizations from environmental threats and other harmful influences. Trust represents an additional benefit of organization social capital (Leana & Pil, 2006). Research suggests that organization trust is a resource because it makes possible collaborative behaviors and cooperative action in the absence of explicit guidelines to promote and fortify those behaviors (Onyx & Bullen, 2000). Because increased accountability expectations at the organizational level often require entities to ‘‘tread on uncharted waters,’’ trust represents a resource by establishing norms that facilitate cooperation and coordination (Putnam, 1995). In sum, we assert that organizations that actively manage both internal and external social networks will be better equipped to cope with the vagaries associated with heightened accountability requirements (Leana & Barry, 2000; Nee & Ingram, 1998). Studies suggest that the greatest utility of social network participation is the increased likelihood that uncertainty will be overcome and organizations will gain control over their environment(s) (Burt, 1983; Galaskiewicz, Bielefeld, & Dowell, 2006). Finally, Burt (1997) acknowledged that network participation is most beneficial to organizations when role requirements are unclear and there is substantial ambiguity surrounding acceptable task completion. Because uncertainty represents a well-documened condition of heightened answerability, network embeddedness at all organizational levels is expected to exert considerable influence on accountability outcomes (Hochwarter et al., 2007; Tetlock, 1985). Readers may consider a host of other constructs related to resources and capabilities that may be relevant for coping with accountability in addition to the example offered here. At the individual level, such constructs as cognitive ability, self efficacy, experience, aligned personalities, and so forth can affect

216


accountability episodes. Some of these are specifically relevant to organization level variables, including a match between personality characteristics and job characteristics (Frink & Terpstra, 1998), task self efficacy, industry specific experience, among others. Organization level constructs similarly might include capitalization, internal and external resources, social climate (as reported earlier in the garbage barge incident), and others as affecting accountability episodes. This section thus is intended to invite the creative application of constructs across levels that can inform our understanding. Accountability has been modeled to this point as an emergent phenomenon. As such, the specific strategies, decisions, or other behaviors enacted to cope with it also are likely emergent. While it seems logical to include a stage in the model to specifically address the response or reaction in particular, we have avoided that option, primarily because of its emergent and dynamic nature. A second reason for choosing to omit a specific element in the model is that the various types of responses have been proposed already, and enacting that response is a fairly straightforward step. It is, indeed, a critical one, however, because without it there would be no outcomes. Thus, in moving to the next box in Fig. 1, we assume that some response has been made, and outcomes thence follow.

Accountability Outcomes In this section of the model, we discuss the multi-level manifestations of reputation, performance, and well-being as important accountability outcomes. Before our discussion of outcomes, a few caveats are in order. First, it is not our intention to suggest that the three outcomes are completely unique unto each other. Rather, we contend that considerable overlap exists both theoretically and empirically. For example, it is virtually impossible to disentangle the often convoluted relationship between reputation and performance at the organizational level. This issue becomes more perplexing when social performance (CSR) is a chosen outcome (de Quevedo-Puente, de la Fuenta-Sabate, & Delgado-Garcia, 2007). Moreover, links between corporate social responsibility, corporate reputation, and corporate performance also have been suggested (Brammer & Pavelin, 2006; Hall, 1992). Further, these outcomes do not represent the universe of important accountability consequences. These outcomes were included in the model because of their theoretical relevance and inclusion in pertinent prior research, acknowledging that a myriad of other theoretically relevant outcomes could have been included.


217

Reputation In natural societies, reputation (see Box 6) is an omnipresent, often spontaneous, and exceedingly effective mechanism of collective control (Yang, & Grunig, 2005; Zabala et al., 2005). Its effect can be seen across all organizational levels, from national to intra-individual levels (Kroger, 2000). Reputation management, undertaken to influence stakeholder’s perceptions of worth, is a focal concern across these levels (Carter, 2006). Individual. Personal or individual reputation has been defined recently as: ‘‘a perceptual identity formed from the collective perceptions of others, which is reflective of the complex combination of salient personal characteristics and accomplishments, demonstrated behavior, and intended images presented over some period of time as observed directly and/or reported from secondary sources, which reduces ambiguity about expected future behavior’’ (Zinko, Ferris, Blass, & Laird, 2007, p. 165). Sociologists define reputation as the sum of opinions about an entity (e.g., person, group, organization), while Emler (1990) described the construct as a community’s collective judgments of an individual’s personal qualities or character. Positive or favorable reputations position individuals to be seen as more competent, legitimate, and trustworthy, which contributes to their being granted elevated status, and greater perceived effectiveness (e.g., Bromley, 1993; Tsui, 1984). Further, reputation possesses an important signaling function (Spence, 1974), conceptualized as an asset (Burt, 2005), because it promotes behavioral predictability. This predictability allows for the accumulation of idiosyncratic credits (Hollander & Julian, 1969; Tsui, 1990) to be exercised when less than complete information exists (Thompson, 1967). In this regard, those embedded in the social network are more likely to receive the benefit of the doubt, even when it may appear lapses in expectations have occurred (Hochwarter, Ferris, Zinko, Arnell, & James, 2007). Being viewed as reputable, while simultaneously experiencing accountability demands, is favorable (i.e., relative to being held in lower status) because status promotes the accrual of decision latitude, autonomy (Ferris, Blass, Douglas, Kolodinsky, & Treadway, 2003), power (Pfeffer, 1992), trust (Burt, 2005), and increases the effectiveness of influence behavior (Hochwarter et al., 2007). Because of the accumulation of these resources, demands associated with heightened accountability expectations are expected to not only be more palatable, but foster largely positive outcomes.

218


Organization. Corporate reputations can be viewed as perceptual representations of both past actions and future prospects that suggest the organization’s level of overall appeal to stakeholders when compared to rival firms (Fombrun, 1996). This suggests that, like individuals, organizational reputations are formed from the basis of both past and current exchanges among various social actions. This suggests that corporate reputations are highly perceptual (Inglis, Morley, & Sammut, 2006; Gotsi & Wilson, 2001; Wartick, 2002). However, reputation, at this level of analysis, emphasizes the aggregate nature of perceptions from multiple stakeholder groups. This aggregation hints at the complex nature of reputation. Corporate reputation is tied to organizational creation and evolution, and, in turn, is highly firm specific (Martı´ n de Castro, Navas Lo´pez, & Lo´pez Saéz, 2006). As such, historical effects and current conditions are both relevant, which reinforces the dynamic quality of this asset. At the organization level, reputation is suggested to be affected by two main components: perceived quality (i.e., the degree to which positive evaluations are given on specific attributes, such as product quality) and prominence (i.e., the degree to which large-scale recognition is given to the organization in its field) (Rindova, Williamson, Petkova, & Sever, 2005). Taken together, these components suggest that organizations should strive to be both good at what they do (e.g., have a defined core competency), as well as be well-known. However, although it is arguable that all organizations able to stay in business will develop some form of reputational capital, not all organizations will be as successful in developing this asset. Corporate reputations are viewed as relatively stable, long-term, and collective judgments made by third parties, which hinge on successfully meeting the expectations of those evaluators (Gioia, Schultz, & Corley, 2000; Ou, 2007; Ou, Abratt & Dion, 2006). However, reputations are not unchanging. An organization’s current reputation is related to public opinion and subsequent signals of positive or negative sentiments (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990). Reputational compromises have occurred recently due to lapses in accountability. Many reputations that were viewed as ‘‘goldplated’’ have collapsed because of ethical drifts from responsibilities ranging from those to employees and customers to environmental and legal concerns (Firestein, 2006). Accountability is suggested to have a positive effect on corporate reputation. These effects stem from satisfying the demands of external parties (Brammer & Pavelin, 2006), in particular, the demand for increased


219

transparency and answerability. Furthermore, increased accountability can be viewed as increasing legitimacy, which, in turn, can increase access to resources necessary for continued survival and success. Additionally, the element of trust must be considered (Swift, 2001), because of the consider overlap between the constructs (Glucker & Armbruster, 2003). Accountability can engender trust in organizations from various stakeholder groups, which, in turn, is expressed via a positive reputation. Although organizations may not be thought to behave in universally ethical ways regardless of the context, a reputation associated with accountability actions should lead stakeholders to believe that the organization will behave in a manner consistent with its reputation (Swift, 2001). Performance At the heart of accountability is the notion that it is enacted to enable various constituencies to influence others, that is, to assist in predicting and controlling behavior. We could even suggest that people would have no interest in accountability were it not associated with performance outcomes. Whether the entities of interest are individuals, groups, organizations, or governments, audiences have a keen interest in outcomes that center on performance related criteria. Individual. Scholars have examined only a limited number of accountability outcomes. The accountability outcome that has garnered the most recent attention is performance (Frink & Klimoski, 1998), which often is examined as a function of the quality of some decision or action (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999). However, few studies have examined task performance (Hochwarter et al., 2007; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994) as an outcome of accountability for actual employees within organizational contexts (Frink & Klimoski, 1998). Still fewer studies have examined contextual performance, or citizenship (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993), as an accountability outcome (Frink & Klimoski, 1998). Both theory and empirical research have suggested that accountability can have positive effects on performance (e.g., Schlenker et al., 1994; Yarnold, Mueser, & Lyons, 1988). Specifically, if at least some level of accountability was not present, employees would not be answerable, and the organization would not run optimally. However, research also suggests that, with respect to accountability, there can be ‘‘too much of a good thing.’’ Increased accountability, especially believed to be unnecessary or from an illegitimate source, can result in reactance (Brehm, 1966). That is, individuals might act in a negative or contrary manner if they believe that

220


they are being excessively controlled. This phenomenon is related also to the notion of boomerang effects (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999), which refers to the decreased intrinsic motivation to perform a task when individuals believe that they are being excessively monitored, and hence, not trusted (Enzele & Anderson, 1993). Considerable research, which we discuss later in this chapter (i.e., Orbuch, 1997; Scott & Lyman, 1968), concentrates on deviant reactions to accountability. Scholars have underscored the fact that some level of employee accountability is necessary (Hochwarter et al., 2005; Lerner & Tetlock, 1999). However, too much accountability might result in decreased motivation and performance of job duties (i.e., performance). So, as argued by Ammeter, Douglas, Ferris, and Goka (2004), we propose the existence of a curvilinear relationship between accountability and performance, such that increased accountability has positive effects on employee performance as it increases from low to moderate levels. However, at some point, there might be diminishing returns from further increases in accountability. Certainly, it would be productive to identify the point of inflection in the curve (i.e., or the point beyond which further accountability increases lead to decreases in performance) where an optimal level of accountability exists. Organization. Organizations face multiple pressures to be accountable and operate in a responsible manner, with these pressures coming from both internal (e.g., management) and external (e.g., legal and environmental) forces (see Box 7) (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Greening & Gray, 1994; Miles, 1987; Weaver, Trevinõ, & Cochran, 1999; Wood, 1991). Reflecting both internal and external drivers, the relationship between accountability and corporate performance primarily has been examined from two areas: corporate governance and corporate social responsibility. Corporate governance is broadly defined as the determination the board uses to deploy organizational resources and resolve conflicts among a myriad number of organizational participants (Daily, Dalton, & Cannella, 2003). A more traditional (and narrower) definition focuses on the control of executive self interest and the protection of shareholder interests in settings where organizational control and ownership are separated. Overall, corporate governance is one of few places where research has a direct relationship with practice (Shleifer & Vishny, 1997). Accountability in this area predominately focuses on the role of the board of directors (BOD) and CEO compensation in influencing firm performance (Dalton, Daily, Johnson, & Ellstrand, 1999).


221

BODs are charged with ensuring that CEOs carry out their duties in a way that serves the best interest of shareholders. As such, boards often are viewed as monitoring devices that help align CEO and stakeholder interests. The general conclusion of agency theory logic is that more independent oversight of management is better than less (Fama & Jensen, 1983). Boards composed largely of inside directors are considered less likely than those with many outside directors to override management decisions that threaten shareholders’ interests, because such directors are subordinate to, and therefore dependent on, the CEO, and thus less likely to challenge him/her and hold to strict accountability standards. Put simplistically, external directors are viewed as more likely to hold organizations to higher levels of accountability. This dominant perspective on CEO–BOD relationships essentially suggests that structural board independence increases the board’s overall power in its relationship with the CEO, which in turn should positively affect firm performance. However, empirical results have not definitely supported this conclusion (e.g., Dalton, Daily, Ellstrand, & Johnson, 1998; Rhoades, Rechner, & Sundaramurthy, 2000; Wagner, Stimpert, & Fubara, 1998). Agency theory also suggests the need for increased reliance on equitybased forms of compensation for CEOs (e.g., stock options) in order to better align executives and shareholders. Equity-based compensation measures are viewed as means of increasing accountability to the organization by giving managers a sense of ownership. Although, here again, evidence has not fully supported these assertions in regard to ‘‘paying for performance’’ (e.g., Tosi, Werner, Katz, & Gomez-Mejia, 2000). In sum, via an agency perspective, the relationship between accountability and firm performance has equivocal results. It might be the case that the implicit agency theory assumptions of ‘more is better’ (i.e., assuming a necessarily linear relationship between monitoring and outcomes) need to be reconsidered, and perhaps allow for a nonlinear alternative, whereby control is functional to a point, but then has diminishing returns. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) involves any discretionary activities engaged in by an organization, with the intention of improving social welfare (Barnett, 2007). CSR (e.g., philanthropy and pro-environmental activities) can be viewed as increasing stakeholders trust and confidence in firms. These bonds should strengthen organizational relationships with stakeholders and, in turn, decreases costs (e.g., transaction, agency, and operating costs) and increase financial performance via processes such as differentiation and serving as a buffer from disruptive effects (Fombrun, Gardberg, & Barnett, 2000; Jones, 1995; King & Lenox, 2000; Porter, 1991).

222


However, the relationship between CSR and performance can be viewed as paradoxical. The benefits of CSR are meant to accrue to society in general, rather than purely shareholders. Moreover, investing in CSR activities may lower the present value of firms’ cash flow, but maximize the firm market value (Mackey et al., 2007). Additionally, more may be expected from firms that ‘‘do well’’ while ‘‘doing good.’’ Regardless of elevated expectations of future actions, CSR is viewed as positively benefiting firm performance (Orlitzky et al., 2003; Waddock & Graves, 1997). Well-Being Despite the need for accountability in organizations, research has established that accountability has a ‘‘dark side’’ in that this phenomenon has been associated with negative individual outcomes (see Box 8) (e.g., Klimoski & Inks, 1990). Researchers have examined certain negative outcomes of accountability, such as reduced cognitive complexity (Tetlock, Skitka, & Boettger, 1989), yet have ignored others. For example, few researchers have characterized accountability as a potential work environment stressor, with attendant strain responses, although the link between these constructs is salient (Hall et al., 2006; Hochwarter et al., 2005, 2007 Siegel-Jacobs & Yates, 1996). We conceptualize several main categories of accountability outcomes, which are discussed below, at different levels of analysis. Individual. Job satisfaction is an important construct, and it is one of the most well researched individual outcomes in organizational research (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985). Job satisfaction has been described as ‘‘the pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of one’s job values’’ (Locke, 1968). Job satisfaction also has important implications in a discussion of accountability in organizations. Accountability has the potential to cast a disparaging shadow over one’s job for a host of reasons. First, accountability implies increased scrutiny and evaluation, which typically are associated with negative perceptions of the work environment. Second, accountability requires attention to the needs of external sources, such as supervisors, customers, and top-management. A consequence is that the individual (e.g., a car salesperson) is unable to fulfill task requirements found on the job description (e.g., selling cars). Finally, because employees are often accountable to multiple constituents, and the behaviors required to satisfy each likely come into conflict,


223

individuals may become frustrated with their jobs. Alternatively, other research has demonstrated that there is a positive relationship between accountability and job satisfaction. Specifically, Thoms et al. (2002) highlighted performance, precision, and focus as several beneficial results of accountability. Stress has been defined as ‘‘an external force operating on a system, be it an organization or a person’’ (Schuler, 1980, p. 187), and it has received a considerable amount of attention from both psychologists and organizational researchers (Kahn & Byosiere, 1992). Typically, stress is viewed as a negative phenomenon that often is associated with undesired organizational outcomes such as increased absenteeism and reduced productivity (Xie & Schaubroeck, 2001). A stressor is a stimulus that arouses strain in individuals (Kahn & Byosiere, 1992). Strains can be classified as physical (e.g., headaches), psychological (e.g., depression or anxiety), or behavioral (e.g., unethical behavior) (Danna & Griffin, 1999). Stressors, however, do not always result in negative individual outcomes (Selye, 1982). For example, some degree of stress or urgency can have positive effects on motivation. That is, individuals might not feel motivated to perform a task (or perform it well) if some degree of stress was not present. However, most of the research on organizational stress has indicated that stressors commonly are antecedents to a myriad of deleterious individual responses, including harmful effects on individuals’ mental and physical health (e.g., Spector, Chen, & O’Connell, 2000). As suggested above, accountability involves an expectation that people will be evaluated by relevant others, and this expected evaluation includes a defense of their actions or decisions (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999). Furthermore, accountability intensity can produce such high levels of accountability that it takes on the role of workplace stressor, thus producing strain reactions. Viewing accountability in this manner, it is possible to envision how accountability could be a work environment stressor with potentially harmful strain reactions. Consistent with conflict theory (Janis & Mann, 1977), Siegel-Jacobs and Yates (1996) argued that accountability for outcomes could heighten decision anxiety. In sum, accountability has been associated with positive attitudinal outcomes, but also can produce negative outcomes as well, perhaps as a function of being perceived as a workplace stressor. This inconsistency suggests the potential for moderator variables to affect this relationship. In response, research has examined the role of negative affect (Hochwarter et al., 2005), autonomy (Hall et al., 2006), attitudinal organizational

224


commitment (Riketta & Landerer, 2002), and moral intensity (Beu & Buckley, 2001, 2004). Much additional work of this nature, which examines boundary conditions of accountability, is needed before the field will make meaningful progress. Organization. Organization performance is typically measured in terms of financial performance using accounting standards such return on assets, return on investments, or return on equity (Combs et al., 2006). For nonprofit and government entities other standards such as fundraising, reducing expenditures, or increasing services provided to a certain client base might be a more appropriate measure of performance. However, there are other outcomes that are not ordinarily examined in discussions of organizational performance measures. Legal performance does not typically come to mind in discussions of organizational performance. Yet, this type of performance is critical in any organization – profit, non-profit, or governmental. Litigation and the costs associated with avoiding litigation represent a major expense to all organizations (Jennings, 2006). Legal liability can arise not only from outside the organization (e.g., a customer who is injured by a product, or a customer who slips in the place of business), but they can arise internally (e.g., an employee bringing suit for wrongful termination, discrimination, or for injury due to a hazardous workplace). Organizations routinely have expenses related to attorney fees (e.g., inhouse counsel salary, outside counsel fees), attorney costs (e.g., court reporter fees for depositions, expert witness fees, document copying fees, court filing fees), and costs related to paying legal judgments (Jennings, 2006). Although most cases are settled without a hearing, trial, or other type of formal adjudication, steep costs and fees (in addition to any amount paid to a litigant) can be still accrued in a case that is never heard in court. Unemployment compensation, and in some cases workers’ compensation, are provided under an insurance system whereby the employer’s premium payment is raised if too many claims are paid by the insurance carrier (Bagley & Savage, 2005). Thus, even though under these systems employers do not pay dollar-for-dollar, there is a financial incentive for employers to take measures to limit the claims filed against them. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) provides financial incentives for employers to strive for legal compliance. Under SOX, organizations are subjected to lower fines for violating the act if they had previously implemented measures to increase corporate accountability (such as having an ethics hotline or an ethics ombudsman). Finally, having accountability


225

systems in place can have a more indirect in the ultimate financial performance of the company. Koys (1997) found that highly desirable job candidates are attracted to firms that have good reputations from, among other things, striving for higher compliance with federal anti-discrimination legislation.

DISCUSSION Since their early development, organizations have been concerned with coordination and control mechanisms in order to orchestrate unified efforts toward common goals. Control can take a number of different forms (e.g., Ouchi, 1980, 1977; Ouchi & Maguire, 1975), one of which is accountability (Orbuch, 1997). Accountability has been a foundational control mechanism that channels and shapes employee behavior in pre-determined organizationally prescribed directions. In this chapter, we proposed a meso-level theory of accountability in organizations. We conceptualized accountability as a perceptual phenomenon. Further, the perception of accountability is influenced by characteristics of organization-level formal accountability systems, which in turn, are shaped by organizational, environmental and job factors. Consequently, as noted by Lerner and Tetlock (1999), accountability is inherently a multi-level construct, and has been modeled as such in this chapter. This section of the chapter proceeds as follows. First, we discuss challenges and limitations which have served to constrain the development of meso-level research. Following this, we discuss directions for research that extend beyond those noted in the discussion of the theoretical model. We conclude that the ‘‘nuisance’’ of meso-level theory and research on accountability is interesting, useful, and even necessary for advancing our understanding.

Past Challenges and Future Opportunities A number of factors have served to constrain the development of multi-level research in the organizational sciences. First, doctoral preparation typically does not offer the student an appreciation of multilevel issues nor methodological training aimed at determining the influence of behaviors at greater than one unit of analysis (Klein, Tosi, & Cannella, 1999). With the limited time afforded PhD students to fulfill degree requirements, advisors often advocate micro-trained students distancing themselves from macro-

226


level research, instead emphasizing what will be evaluated during comprehensive exams and studied while completing the dissertation (and vice versa). Unfortunately, this philosophy, and lack of training, accompanies the newly minted professor into academic life after completion of the degree to be passed on to subsequent generations of students. Second, conducting multilevel research is, in a word, difficult. What levels are to be assessed – individual versus dyad, dyad versus group, individual versus organization, individual versus dyad versus organization? According to Klein et al. (1999, p. 244), ‘‘The appropriate middle ground – not too simple, yet not too complex – may be difficult to find.’’ Micro-level research typically takes place in one organization, whereas macro-level studies often collect one data point from each firm (Klein et al., 1999). Relatedly, what is the best way to balance this apparent need for depth with the concurrent need for coverage? Specifically, how does one go about gaining access to organizations that will allow for the simultaneous examination of multiple units of analysis? Securing data collection opportunities for micro- or macro-level research is difficult enough without having to concern oneself with control over the process (and adequacy of data) at sites that may be some distance away. According to Klein et al. (1999), multilevel data collection may be more intimidating a task than conducting subsequent analyses. They further posited that the field would be served by relaxing some of the research methods requirements that currently encapsulate the organizational sciences. Further, the dynamics of the profession have represented an obstruction to the advancement of multilevel research. The complex nature of cross-level investigations requires a level of patience typically afforded to few assistant professors. For many, a four-year cross-level study is not feasible (unless other, less time-dependent studies are occurring simultaneously). As a general rule, assistant professors are counseled against conducting multilevel research simply because doing so represents a ‘‘risky’’ career move, taking up too much precious time. A cursory scan of multilevel studies published over the past ten years corroborates a relationship between participation in multilevel research and advanced scholarly status. Finally, only a handful of assistant professors publish multilevel studies from their dissertation simply because few were advised to take on such a daunting task during their programs of study. Instead, it is often recommended to develop a study that is ‘‘do-able,’’ and within a reasonable amount of time. Finally, few in the field are willing or able to accept multilevel research as a legitimate body of scholarly work despite the generally agreed upon view that


227

doing so is important and lacking. Macro researchers reviewing multilevel research may be prone to question the influence of micro-level contributions, especially if the study calls into question basic tenets of established macro-level theories, and vice-versa. Moreover, statistical methods for best assessing cross-level effects continue to be developed (Chen, Mathieu, & Bliese, 2004; Chen, Bliese, & Mathieu, 2005; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000), many of which are viewed as ‘‘thorny.’’ Reviewers are more likely to reject a manuscript that they do not fully comprehend, than risk publishing haphazard work as a consequence of a lack of understanding. For multi-level research to prosper in the next several years, philosophical and practical changes need to take place. First, multi-levels should play a more prominent role in doctoral education. Even if a program does not have course committed solely to multi-level design and analysis, the issues should be covered in content courses (i.e., leadership, strategy implementation). Also, scholars should be more supportive of students participating in multilevel research dissertations. If it is the objective of the advisor to have the student’s work showcased in the most visible outlet, it stands to reason that a well-crafted multi-level investigation would be better received than a comparable single-level study. In reality, it is difficult to envision many multi-level studies amenable to a laboratory environment. Hence, forging stronger ties with industry will help secure the data needed to appropriately test hypotheses across levels. In this regard, the researcher may need to commit more energy to selling the organizational benefits of the proposed research. Presumably, practitioners will be as interested in understanding the system in which they work as scholars are interested in explaining the phenomena of interest.

Implications for Future Research Accountability research in the organizational sciences is in its infancy, and as such, there is considerable room for refinement and expansion. Some important avenues for research are outlined here. For example, potentially interesting relationship dynamics exist between accountability and different aspects and views on reputation. For example, Hall et al. (2007) proposed and tested a model of the intermediate linkages between accountability and job performance and satisfaction. They found that accountability affected the demonstration of citizenship behavior, which in turn, influenced job performance and satisfaction through reputation assessments. Furthermore,

228


a relatively new construct has been gaining some momentum in the field, with considerable potential for shedding light on phenomena in the organizational sciences. ‘‘Celebrity’’ has been discussed recently with regard to both CEOs (e.g., Wade, Porac, Pollack, & Graffin, 2006), and organizations (e.g., Rindova, Pollack, & Hayward, 2006). As a media-generated reputational construct of sorts, celebrity seems to have interesting and important implications for CEO behavior and performance, as well as for the perceptions and reactions to organizations. Accountability plays a particularly interesting and important role as CEO celebrity develops, and there might be important challenges in implementing accountability mechanisms to control or shape CEO behavior in appropriate directions (Ranft, Ferris, & Perryman, 2007). Further, research should expand the view of accountability to include investigations that examine accountability seeking behavior. As noted above, accountability has typically been viewed as an aspect of organizational life that is assumed, or bestowed by those with the power to do so. We contend that there is much more to accountability, including significant links with self-determination (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and self-regulation (Abrams & Brown, 1989), both of which have volition as its theoretical rudiments. Volition equates to control (Kuhls, 1996), and it has been long assumed that personal discretion can help differentiate favorable consequences of accountability from those less desirable (Osnowitz, 2006; Roberts, 2001). Seeley and Gardner (2006), who described the relationships among goal disclosure, self-regulation, and accountability, provide the type of discussion warranted to move the field forward. In the sociology literature, account- rendering is viewed as a vehicle to accrue or maintain control (Scott & Lyman, 1968). For example, Orbuch’s (1997) review emphasizes that accounts are not solely social constructions, they also give individuals a greater understanding of their environment, promote effective coping behavior, afford closure, and provide a sense of hope. From this discussion, it may appear that accountability possesses a direct relationship with stress reduction, as evidenced by Scott and Lyman (1968, p. 46) who noted that ‘‘The honoring of an account represents the restoration of equilibrium.’’ We agree with this statement; however, only to the extent that one’s level of answerability is self-determined and accounts are given volitionally. At the micro-level, the relationship between accountability and individual difference factors merits discussion. Frink and Klimoski (1998) lamented the dearth of research examining the relationship between individual differences


229

and accountability, Frink and Ferris (1999) addressed this admonition by assessing the relationship between accountability and conscientiousness. Study results indicated that conscientious individuals outperformed those with lower levels of conscientiousness under conditions of accountability. In the no-accountability condition, however, performance was invariant across consciousness levels. The effect of political skill on accountability–outcomes relationships has received recent research attention (Ahearn, Ferris, Hochwarter, Douglas, & Ammeter, 2004; Perrewe´, Zellars, Ferris, Rossi, & Ralston, 2004). Although not traditionally considered a personality characteristic, political skill has important implications for accountability. Specifically, politically skilled individuals could be better able to manage impressions (Hall et al., 2006), especially impressions of their performance. Hochwarter et al. (2007) examined the interaction of employee accountability x political skill on job performance ratings made by supervisors. The results of this study found that political skill moderated the accountability-job performance ratings such that employees who were highly politically skilled received higher ratings when accountability was high. Research needs to assess the effects of political skill on accountability when individuals are required to justify inauspicious behavior, as well as when benign or flattering behavior requires substantiation. Historically, sociology research has tended to focus on justifying potentially problematic behaviors. Scott and Lyman’s (1968) seminal work describes account-submitting as verbal narratives that explain unanticipated or deviant behavior from on individual to another. Does political skill minimize the number of deviant behaviors amassed to explain to others? Does political skill ‘‘soften the blow’’ when offering justifications, hastening interpersonal repair and status reclamation? These are just a few of the questions in need of consideration in this area.

Conclusion Recent events clearly have demonstrated that accountability is critical to the success of organizations and the ability to establish its antecedents and outcomes should be of utmost importance to both academicians and practitioners. Because accountability will continue to bond individuals with social systems (Goffman, 1959; Orbuch, 1997), multilevel research in this area should be looked upon to address both academic and societal concerns and objectives in ways that are creative, thought-provoking, and, as described by Tetlock (1999) a ‘‘nuisance’’ to those daring enough to do so.

230


REFERENCES Abrams, D., & Brown, R. (1989). Self-consciousness and social identity: Self-regulation as a group member. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 311–318. Abrams, D., Rutland, A., Cameron, L., & Ferrell, J. (2007). Older but wilier: In-group accountability and the development of subjective group dynamics. Developmental Psychology, 43, 134–148. Adams, C., & McNicholas, P. (2007). Making a difference: Sustainability reporting, accountability, and organizational change. Accounting, Auditing, & Accountability Journal, 20, 382–402. Adelberg, S., & Batson, C. D. (1978). Accountability and helping: When needs exceed resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 343–350. Adler, P., & Kwon, S. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27, 17–40. Aguilera, R. (2005). Corporate governance and director accountability: An institutional comparative perspective. British Journal of Management, 16, 1–15. Aguilera, R., Filatotchev, I., Gospel, H., & Jackson, G. (in press). Contingencies, complementarities, and costs in corporate governance models. Organization Science. Aguilera, R., & Jackson, G. (2003). The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: Dimensions and determinants. Academy of Management Review, 28, 447–465. Aguilera, R., Rupp, D., Williams, C., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in CSR: A multi-level theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 836–863. Aguilera, R., & Vadera, A. (2008). The dark side of authority: Antecedents, mechanisms, and outcomes of corporate corruption. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(4), 431–449. Aguilera, R., Williams, C., Conley, J., & Rupp, D. (2006). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility: A comparative analysis of the U.K. and the U.S. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 14, 147–157. Ahearn, K. K., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W., Douglas, C., & Ammeter, A. P. (2004). Leader political skill and team performance. Journal of Management, 30, 309–327. Ammeter, A. P., Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., & Goka, H. (2004). A social relationship conceptualization of trust and accountability in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 47–65. Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Conley, S. (1991). Work-home conflict among nurses and engineers: Mediating the impact of role stress on burnout and satisfaction at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 39–53. Bagley, C., & Savage, D. (2005). Managers and the legal environment: Strategies for the 21st century. Mason, OH: Thomson-West. Bakker, A., Demerouti, E., De Boer, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Job demands and job resources as predictors of absence duration and frequency. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 341–356. Ball, A., Broadbent, J., & Jarvis, T. (2006). Waste management, the challenges of the PFI and ‘‘sustainability reporting.’’. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15, 258–274. Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 794–816. Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: An interpersonal approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 243–267.


231

Begley, T. (1994). Expressed and suppressed anger as predictors of health complaints. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 503–516. Behn, R. (2001). Rethinking democratic accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Benoit, W. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 23, 177–186. Beu, D. S., & Buckley, M. R. (2001). The hypothesized relationship between accountability and ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 34, 57–74. Beu, D. S., & Buckley, M. R. (2004). Using accountability to create a more ethical climate. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 67–83. Blalock, H. M. (1984). Contextual effects models: Theoretical and methodological issues. Annual Review of Sociology, 10, 353–372. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In: N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Boulding, K. E. (1956). General systems theory: The skeleton of a science. Management Science, 2, 197–207. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Bouty, I. (2000). Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges between R&D researchers across organizational boundaries. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 50–66. Boven, M. (1998). The quest for responsibility: Accountability and citizenship in complex Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brammer, S. J., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Corporate reputation and social performance: The importance of fit. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 435–455. Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press. Bromley, D. B. (1993). Reputation, image and impression management. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Brown, C. (1999). Do the right thing: Diverging effects of accountability in a managerial context. Marketing Science, 18, 230–246. Brown, D., & Moore, M. (2001). Accountability, strategy, and international nongovernmental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30, 569–587. Burt, R. (1983). Cohesion versus structural equivalence as a basis for network subgroups. In: R. Burt & M. Minor (Eds), Applied network analysis (pp. 262–282). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Burt, R. (1992). Structural holes, the social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burt, R. (1997). A note on social capital and network content. Social Networks, 19, 355–373. Burt, R. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345–423. Burt, R. (2005). Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford: University Press. Callahan, K. (2006). Elements of effective governance: Measurement, accountability, and participation. New York: CRC Press.

232


Capelli, P., & Scherer, P. (1991). The missing role of context in OB: The need for a meso-level approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 13, 55–110. Carnevale, P. (1985). Accountability of group representatives and intergroup relations. In: E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 2, pp. 227–248). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Carter, S. (2006). The interaction of top management group, stakeholder, and situational factors on certain corporate reputation management activities. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1145–1176. Chen, G., Bliese, P. D., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). Conceptual framework and statistical procedures for delineating and testing multilevel theories of homology. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 375–409. Chen, G., Mathieu, J. E., & Bliese, P. D. (2004). A framework for conducting multi-level construct validation. In: F. J. Dansereau & F. Yammarino (Eds), Research in multilevel issues: The many faces of multilevel issues (pp. 272–303). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Clarkson, M. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92–117. Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239–290. Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120. Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A. T., & Ketchen, D. J. (2006). How much do high-performance work practices matter: A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59, 501–528. Cooper, S., & Owen, D. (2007). Corporate social reporting and stakeholder accountability: The missing link. Accounting, Organization, and Society, 32, 649–667. Crane, A., & Livesey, S. (2003). Are you talking to me? Stakeholder communication and the risks and rewards of dialogue. In: J. Andriof, S. Waddock, B. Husted & S. S. Rahman (Eds), Unfolding stakeholder thinking 2: Relationships, communication, reporting and performance (pp. 39–52). Sheffield: Greenleaf. Cropanzano, R., Chrobot-Mason, D., Rupp, D., & Prehar, C. (2004). Accountability for corporate injustice. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 107–133. Cummings, L. L., & Anton, R. J. (1990). The logical and appreciative dimensions of accountability. In: S. Srivastva & D. Cooperrider (Eds), Associates (Eds), Appreciative management and leadership (pp. 257–286). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Daily, C. M., Dalton, D. R., & Cannella, A. A. (2003). Corporate governance: Decades of dialogue and data. Academy of Management Review, 28, 371–382. Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Ellstrand, A. E., & Johnson, J. L. (1998). Meta-analytic reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 269–290. Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Johnson, J. L., & Ellstrand, A. E. (1999). Number of directors and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 674–686. Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well being in the workplace: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Management, 25, 357–384.


233

Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F., & Kohles, J. (1999). Multiple levels of analysis from a longitudinal perspective: Some implications for theory building. Academy of Management Review, 24, 346–357. D’Aveni, R. (1994). Hypercompetition: Managing the dynamics of strategic maneuvering. New York: Free Press. Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 312–322. De Cremer, D., Snyder, M., & DeWitte, S. (2001). The less I trust, the less I contribute (or not)? The effects of trust, accountability and self-monitoring in social dilemmas. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 93–107. De Dreu, C., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2005). The possessive self as a barrier to constructive conflict management: Effects of mere ownership, process accountability, and selfconcept clarity on competitive cognitions and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 345–357. Degoey, P. (2000). Contagious justice: Exploring the social construction of justice in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 22, 51–102. de Jonge, J., & Dormann, C. (2003). The DISC model: Demand-induced strain compensation mechanisms in job stress. In: M. Dollard & H. Winefield (Eds), Occupational stress in the service professions (pp. 43–74). London: Taylor & Francis. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. (2001). The job demands – resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512. de Quevedo-Puente, E., de la Fuente-Sabate, J., & Delgado-Garcia, J. (2007). Corporate social performance and corporate reputation: Two interwoven perspectives. Corporate Reputation Review, 10, 60–73. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160. Dose, J., & Klimoski, R. (1995). Doing the right thing in the workplace: Responsibility in the face of accountability. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 8, 35–56. Dubnick, M. (2003). Accountability and ethics: Reconsidering the relationships. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 6, 405–441. Dubnick, M. (2005). Accountability and the promise of performance: In search of mechanisms. Public Performance and Management Review, 28, 376–417. Dubnick, M., & Justice, J. (2006). Accountability and the evils of administrative ethics. Administration and Society, 38, 236–267. Dunn, D., & Cody, M. (2000). Account credibility and public image: Excuses, justifications, denials, and sexual harassment. Communication Monographs, 67, 372–391. Du Toit, A. (2003). Knowledge: A sense making process shared through narrative. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7, 27–37. Dutton, J., & Ottensmeyer, E. (1987). Strategic issue management systems: Forms, functions, and context. Academy of Management Review, 12, 355–365. Dwyer, D., & Ganster, D. (1991). The effects of job demands and control on employee attendance and satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 595–608. Dwyer, R., Schurr, P., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51, 11–27. Ebrahim, A. (2005). Accountability myopia: Losing sight of organizational learning. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34, 56–87.

234


Emler, N. (1990). A social psychology of reputation. In: W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds), European review of social psychology (pp. 171–193). Chichester: Wiley. Enzele, M. E., & Anderson, S. C. (1993). Surveillant intentions and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 64, 257–266. Erdogan, B., Sparrowe, R., Liden, R., & Dunegan, K. (2004). Implications of organizational exchanges for accountability theory. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 19–45. Espeland, W., & Vannebo, B. (2007). Accountability, quantification, and law. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 4.1–4.23. Eysenck, M., & Calvo, M. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency theory. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 406–434. Fairholm, M. (2004). A new sciences outline for leadership development. The Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 25, 363–383. Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). The separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 301–325. Ferris, G., Treadway, D., Perrewe´, P., Brouer, R., Douglas, C., & Lux, S. (2007). Political skill in organizations. Journal of Management, 33, 290–320. Ferris, G. R., Blass, F. R., Douglas, C., Kolodinsky, R. W., & Treadway, D. C. (2003). Personal reputation in organizations. In: J. Greenburg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of science (pp. 211–246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ferris, G. R., Bowen, M. G., Treadway, D. C., Hochwarter, W., Hall, A. T., & Perrewe´, P. L. (2006). The assumed linearity of organizational phenomena: Implications for occupational stress and well-being. In: P. L. Perrewe´ & D. C. Ganster (Eds), Research in occupational stress and well-being (Vol. 5, pp. 205–232). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd. Ferris, G. R., Dulebohn, J. H., Frink, D. D., George-Falvy, J., Mitchell, T. R., & Matthews, L. M. (1997). Job and organizational characteristics, accountability, and employee influence. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9, 162–175. Ferris, G. R., Russ, G. S., & Fandt, P. M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In: R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds), Impression management in the organization (pp. 143–170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Firestein, P. J. (2006). Building and protecting corporate reputation. Strategy and Leadership, 34, 25–31. Fombrun, C., Gardberg, N., & Barnett, M. (2000). Opportunity platforms and safety nets: Corporate citizenship and reputational risk. Business and Society Review, 105, 85–106. Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 233–258. Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Freeman, R. (1999). Response divergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24, 233–236. Frink, D. D., & Ferris, G. R. (1998). Accountability, impression-management, and goal setting in the performance evaluation process. Human Relations, 51, 1259–1283. Frink, D. D., & Ferris, G. R. (1999). The moderating effects of accountability on the conscientiousness–performance relationship. Journal of Business and Psychology, 13, 515–524.


235

Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resource management. In: G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 16, pp. 1–51). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Advancing accountability theory and practice: Introduction to the special edition. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 1–17. Frink, D. D., & Terpstra, D. E. (1998). Advancement of a job- and personal-characteristics placement model. University of Mississippi. Defense Technical Information Center #ADA391000. Available at http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA391000 Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24, 191–205. Fukuyama, F. (2001). Social capital. In: L. Harrison & S. Huntington (Eds), Culture matters: How values shape human progress (pp. 98–111). New York: Basic Books. Galaskiewicz, J., Bielefeld, W., & Dowell, M. (2006). Networks and organizational growth: A study of community based nonprofits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 337–380. Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J., & Lim, B. C. (2004). Culture and accountability: Variations in forms of social control across cultures. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 135–160. Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. (2000). Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review, 2, 63–81. Glucker, J., & Armbruster, T. (2003). Bridging uncertainty in management consulting: The mechanisms of trust and networked reputation. Organization Studies, 24, 269–297. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: DoubledayAnchor. Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public. New York: Basic Books. Gordon, G. G., & DiTomaso, N. (1992). Predicting corporate performance from organizational culture. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 783–798. Gotsi, M., & Wilson, A. M. (2001). Corporate reputation: Seeking a definition. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6, 24–30. Green, M., Visser, P., & Tetlock, P. (2000). Coping with accountability cross-pressures: Low effort evasive tactics and high effort quests for complex compromises. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1380–1391. Greening, D. W., & Gray, B. (1994). Testing a model of organizational response to social and political issues. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 467–498. Griffin, J., & Mahon, J. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business & Society, 36, 5–31. Gupta, A. (1987). SBU strategies, corporate-SBU relations, and SBU effectiveness in strategy implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 477–501. Hackman, J. (2003). Learning more by crossing levels: Evidence from airplanes, hospitals, and orchestras. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 905–922. Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 135–144. Hall, A. T., Blass, F. R., Ferris, G. R., & Massengale, R. (2004). Leader reputation and accountability: Implications for dysfunctional leader behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 515–536. Hall, A. T., Bowen, M. G., Ferris, G. R., Royle, M. T., & Fitzgibbons, D. E. (2007). The accountability lens: A new way to view management issues. Business Horizons, 50, 405–413.

236


Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W., Kacmar, C. J., & Bowen, M. G. (2003). Accountability in human resources management. In: C. A. Schriesheim & L. Neider (Eds), New directions in human resource management (pp. 29–63). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Hall, A. T. Perryman, A. A., Zinko, R., & Ferris, G. R. (2007). Organizational citizenship behavior and reputation and mediators of the relationships between accountability and job performance and satisfaction. Manuscript under review. Hall, A. T., Royle, M. T., Brymer, R. A., Perrewe´, P. L., Ferris, G. R., & Hochwarter, W. (2006). Relationship between felt accountability as a stressor and strain reactions: The neutralizing role of autonomy across two studies. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 87–99. Hambrick, D. C., Finkelstein, S., & Mooney, A. C. (2005). Executive job demands: New insights for explaining strategic decisions and leader behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 30, 472–491. Heller, M. F., & Firestone, M. A. (1995). Who’s in charge here? Sources of leadership for change in eight schools. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 65–86. Hochwarter, W., Ferris, G., Gavin, M., Perrewe´, P., Hall, A., & Frink, D. (2007). Political skill as a moderator of the felt accountability–job performance relationship: Longitudinal convergence of mediated moderation results. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 226–239. Hochwarter, W., Ferris, G. R., Zinko, R., Arnell, B., & James, M. (2007). Reputation as a moderator of political behavior–work outcomes relationships: A two-study investigation with convergent results. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 567–576. Hochwarter, W., Laird, M., & Brouer, R. (2008). Board up the windows: The interactive effects of hurricane-induced job stress and perceived resources on work outcomes. Journal of Management, 34, 263–289. Hochwarter, W., Perrewe´, P., Hall, A. T., & Ferris, G. R. (2005). Negative affectivity as a moderator of the form and magnitude of the relationship between felt accountability and job tension. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 517–534. Hochwarter, W., Perrewe´, P. L., Meurs, J. A., & Kacmar, C. J. (2007). The interactive effects of work-induced guilt and ability to manage resources on job and life satisfaction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 125–135. Hollander, E., & Julian, J. (1969). Contemporary trends in the analysis of leadership processes. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 387–397. House, R., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 71–114. Hurlbert, J., Beggs, J., & Haines, V. (2001). Social networks and social capital in extreme environments. In: N. Lin, K. Cook & R. Burt (Eds), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 209–231). New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter, Inc. Iaffaldano, M. T., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 251–273. Inglis, R., Morley, C., & Sammut, P. (2006). Corporate reputation and organisational performance: An Australian study. Managerial Auditing Journal, 21, 934–947. Jahansoozi, J. (2006). Organization-stakeholders relationships: Exploring trust and transparency. Journal of Management Development, 25, 942–955.


237

Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press. Jennings, M. (2006). Business: Its legal, ethical, and global environment. Mason, OH: ThomsonWest. Jensen, M. (2006). Should we stay or should we go? Accountability, status anxiety, and client defections. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 97–128. Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360. Johns, G. (2001). In praise of context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 31–42. Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386–408. Jones, T. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 404–437. Jos, P. H., & Tompkins, M. E. (2004). The accountability paradox in an age of reinvention: The perennial problem of preserving character and judgment. Administration and Society, 36, 255–281. Kahn, R. L., & Byosiere, P. (1992). Stress in organizations. In: M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 571–650). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley. Kawachi, I., & Berkman, L. (2001). Social ties and mental health. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 78, 458–465. Kennedy, E., & Lawton, L. (1993). Ethics and services marketing. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 785–796. King, Z. (2004). Career self-management: Its nature, causes and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 112–133. King, A., & Lenox, M. (2000). Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry’s Responsible Care program. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 698–716. Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (2004). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 195–229. Klein, K. J., Tosi, H., & Cannella, A. A. (1999). Multilevel theory building: Benefits, barriers, and new developments. Academy of Management Review, 24, 243–248. Klimoski, R., & Inks, L. (1990). Accountability forces in performance appraisal. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 194–208. Koys, D. (1997). Human resource management and Fortune’s Corporate Reputation Survey. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 10, 93–101. Kozlowski, S. W., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In: K. J. Klein & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Boss. Kramer, R. (1999). Trust and distrust in organization: Emerging perspective, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598. Kramer, R., Pommerenke, P., & Newton, E. (1993). The social context of negotiations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37, 633–654. Kroger, J. (2000). Ego identity status research in the new millennium. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 145–148.

238


Kuhls, J. (1996). Who controls whom when ‘‘I control myself’’? Psychological Inquiry, 7, 61–68. Lazega, E., Mounier, L., Jourda, M., & Stofer, R. (2006). Organizational vs. personal social capital in scientists’ performance: A multi-level network study of elite French cancer researchers (1996–1998). Scientometrics, 67, 27–44. Leana, C., & Barry, B. (2000). Stability and change as simultaneous experiences in organization life. Academy of Management Review, 25, 753–759. Leana, C., & Pil, F. (2006). Social capital and organizational performance: Evidence from urban public schools. Organization Science, 17, 353–369. Leana, C., & Van Buren, H. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24, 538–555. Lerner, J., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 146–159. Lerner, J., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255–275. Lerner, J., & Tetlock, P. E. (2003). The impact of accountability on cognitive bias: Bridging individual, interpersonal, and institutional approaches to judgment and choice. In: S. Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds), Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision making (pp. 431–457). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row. Lin, N. (2001a). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lin, N. (2001b). Building a network theory of social capital. In: N. Lin, K. Cook & R. Burt (Eds), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 3–30). New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc. Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157–189. Lounsbury, M., Ventresca, M. J., & Hirsch, P. (2003). Social movements, field frames and industry emergence: A cultural-political perspective on US recycling. Socio-Economic Review, 1, 71–104. Mackey, A., Mackey, T. B., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: Investor preferences and corporate strategies. Academy of Management Review, 32, 817–835. Markham, K., & Tetlock, P. (2000). ‘‘I couldn’t have known’’: Accountability, forseeability and counterfactual denials of responsibility. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 313–325. Martı´ n de Castro, G., Navas Lo´pez, J. E., & Lo´pez Saéz, P. (2006). Business and social reputation: Exploring the concept and main dimensions of corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 361–370. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Menon, N., & Akhilesh, K. (1994). Functional dependent stress among managers: A new perspective. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 9, 13–23. Mero, N. M., Guidice, R. M., & Brownlee, A. L. (2007). Accountability in a performance appraisal context: The effect of audience and form of accounting on rater response and behavior. Journal of Management, 33, 223–252. Miles, R. H. (1987). Managing the corporate social environment: A grounded theory. Englewood Gliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.


239

Monks, R. A., & Minow, N. (1991). Power and accountability. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403–419. Morrison, J., & Salipante, P. (2007). Governance for broadened account blending deliberate and emergent strategizing. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 195–217. Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475–480. Mowday, R. T., & Sutton, R. I. (1993). Organizational behavior: Linking individuals and groups to organizational contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 195–229. Mulgan, R. (2000). ‘‘Accountability’’: An ever-expanding concept? Public Administration, 78, 555–573. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242–266. Newell, P. (2006). Taking accountability into account: The debate so far. In: P. Newell & J. Wheeler (Eds), Rights, resources and the politics of accountability. London: Zed Books. Nee, V., & Ingram, P. (1998). Embeddedness and beyond: Institutions, exchange, and social structure. In: M. Brinton & V. Nee (Eds), The new institutionalism in sociology (pp. 19–44). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Newell, P. (2002). From responsibility to citizenship: Corporate accountability for development. IDS Bulletin, 33, 91–100. O’Donovan, G. (2002). Environmental disclosures in the annual report: Extending the appplicability and predictive power of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15, 344–372. O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Tiedt, P., & Bowes-Sperry, L. (2004). Answering accountability questions in sexual harassment: Insights regarding harassers, targets, and observers. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 85–106. Onyx, J., & Bullen, P. (2000). Measuring social capital in five communities. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36, 23–42. Orbuch, T. L. (1997). People’s accounts count: The sociology of accounts. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 455–478. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24, 403–411. Osborn, R. (1976). The search for environmental complexity. Human Relations, 29, 179–191. Osnowitz, D. (2006). Occupational networking as normative control. Work and Occupation, 33, 12–41. Ou, W. M. (2007). Moderating effects of age, gender, income and education on consumer’s response to corporate reputation. Journal of American Academy of Business, 10, 190–194. Ou, W. M., Abratt, R., & Dion, P. (2006). The influence of retailer reputation on store patronage. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 13, 221–230. Ouchi, W. G. (1977). The relationship between organizational structure and organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 95–113. Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 129–141. Ouchi, W. G., & Maguire, M. A. (1975). Organizational control: Two functions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 559–569.

240


Page, S. (2006). The web of managerial accountability: The impact of reinventing government. Administration and Society, 38, 166–197. Painter-Morland, M. (2006). Redefining accountability as relational responsiveness. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 89–98. Pennington, J., & Schlenker, B. (1999). Accountability for consequential decisions: Justifying ethical judgments to audiences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1067–1081. Perrewe´, P. L., Zellars, K. L., Ferris, G. R., Rossi, A. M., & Ralston, D. A. (2004). Neutralizing job stressors: Political skill as an antidote to the dysfunctional consequences of role conflict stressors. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 141–152. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of organizational paradigms. In: L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 1–52). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Ployhart, R. E. (2004). Staffing in the 21st century: New challenges and strategic opportunities. Journal of Management, 10, 868–897. Podolny, J., & Baron, J. (1997). Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review, 62, 673–693. Popielarz, P. (1999). Organizational constraints on network formation. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 16, 263–282. Porter, M. (1991). Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 95–118. Pruzan, P. (1998). From control to values-based management and accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1379–1394. Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6, 65–78. Quinn, A., & Schlenker, B. R. (2002). Can accountability produce independence? Goals as determinants of the impact of accountability on conformity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 472–483. Ranft, A. L., Ferris, G. R., & Perryman, A. A. (2007). Dealing with celebrity and accountability in the top job. Human Resource Management, 46, 671–682. Reberioux, A. (2007). Does shareholder primacy lead to a decline in managerial accountability. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31, 507–525. Rhoades, D. L., Rechner, P. L., & Sundaramurthy, C. (2000). Board composition and financial performance: A meta-analysis of the influence of outside directors. Journal of Managerial Issues, 12, 76–92. Riketta, M., & Landerer, A. (2002). Organizational commitment, accountability, and work behavior: A correlational study. Social Behavior and Personality, 30, 653–660. Rindova, V. P., Pollack, T. G., & Hayward, M. L. A. (2006). Celebrity firms: The social construction of market popularity. Academy of Management Review, 31, 50–71. Rindova, V., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M. (2005). Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1033–1050.


241

Roberts, J. (2001). Trust and control in Anglo-American systems of corporate governance: The individualizing and socializing effects of processes of accountability. Human Relations, 54, 1547–1572. Roberts, J., McNulty, T., & Stiles, P. (2005). Beyond agency conceptions of the work of the non-executive director: Creating accountability in the boardroom. British Journal of Management, 16, S5–S26. Roberts, K., Stout, S., & Halpern, J. (1994). Decision dynamics in two high reliability military organizations. Management Science, 40, 614–624. Roethlisberger, F., & Dickson, W. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Romzek, B. (1998). Where the buck stops: Accountability in reformed organizations. In: P. Ingraham, J. R. Thompson & R. P. Sanders (Eds), Transforming government: Lessons from the reinvention laboratories (pp. 193–219). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Romzek, B., & Dubnick, M. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the Challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47, 227–238. Romzek, B., & Dubnick, M. (1998). Accountability. In: J. M. Shafritz (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of public policy and administration (Vol. 1, pp. 6–11). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Romzek, B., & Ingraham, P. W. (2000). Cross pressures of accountability: Initiative, command, and failure in the Ron Brown plane crash. Public Administration Review, 60, 240–253. Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multilevel and cross-level perspectives. In: L. L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 1–37. Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. (2001). Location, location, location: Contextualizing organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 1–13. Rousseau, D. M., & House, R. J. (1994). Meso organizational behavior: Avoiding three fundamental biases. In: C. Cooper & D. Rousseau (Eds), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 13–30). London: Wiley. Royle, T., Hochwarter, W. A., & Hall, A. T. (2008). The mediating effect of informal accountability for others. International Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 1, 1–22. Royle, M. T., Hall, A., Hochwarter, W., Perrewe´, P. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2005). The interactive effects of accountability and job self-efficacy on organizational citizenship and political behavior. Organizational Analysis, 13, 53–72. Rupp, D., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R., & Williams, C. (2006). Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: An organizational justice framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 537–543. Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253. Sandfort, J. (1999). The structural impediments to human service collaboration: Examining welfare reform at the front lines. Social Service Review, 73, 314–339. Schlenker, B. R. (1986). Self-identification: Toward an integration of the private and public self. In: R. Baumeister (Ed.), Public self and private self (pp. 21–62). New York: SpringerVerlag. Schlenker, B. R., & Weigold, M. F. (1989). Self-identification and accountability. In: R. A. Giacolone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds), Impression management in the organization (pp. 21–43). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

242


Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R., & Doherty, K. (1994). The triangle model of responsibility. Psychological Review, 101, 632–652. Schlenker, B. R., Weigold, M. F., & Doherty, K. (1991). Coping with accountability: Selfidentification and evaluative reckonings. In: C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds), Handbook of social and clinical psychology (pp. 96–115). New York: Free Press. Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453. Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48, 747–779. Scholten, L., van Knippenberg, D., Nijstad, B., & De Dreu, D. (2007). Motivated information processing and group decision-making: Effects of process accountability on information processing and decision quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 539–552. Schuler, R. S. (1980). Definition and conceptualization of stress in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 184–215. Schulze, W., Lubatkin, M., Dino, R., & Buchholtz, A. (2001). Agency relationships in family firms: Theory and evidence. Organization Science, 12, 99–117. Schwarz, H. (1998). Warmer and more social: Recent developments in cognitive social psychology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 239–265. Scott, M., & Lyman, M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46–62. Sedikides, C., Herbst, K., Hardin, C., Deletha, P., & Dardis, G. (2002). Accountability as a deterrent to self-enhancement: The search for mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 592–605. Seeley, E., & Gardner, W. (2006). Succeeding at self-control through a focus of others: The roles of social practice and accountability in self-regulation. In: K. Vohs & E. Finkel (Eds), Self and relationships: Connecting intrapersonal and interpersonal processes (pp. 407–425). New York: Guilford. Selye, H. (1982). History and present status of the stress concept. In: L. Goldberg & S. Brenitz (Eds), Handbook of stress (pp. 7–17). New York: Free Press. Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. The Journal of Finance, 52, 737–783. Siegel-Jacobs, K., & Yates, J. F. (1996). Effects of procedural and outcome accountability on judgment quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 1–17. Simonson, I., Carmon, Z., Dhar, R., Drolet, A., & Nowlis, S. M. (2001). Consumer research: In search of identity. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 249–275. Simonson, I., & Staw, B. M. (1992). De-escalation strategies: A comparison of techniques for reducing commitment to losing courses of action. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 419–426. Sinclair, A. (1995). The chameleon of accountability: Forms and discourses. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20, 219–237. Smith, J., Terry, D., & Hogg, M. (2007). Social identity and the attitude-behavior relationship: Effects of anonymity and accountability. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 239–257. Sparrowe, R., Liden, R., Wayne, S., & Kramer, M. (2001). Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 316–325. Spector, P. E., Chen, P. Y., & O’Connell, B. J. (2000). A longitudinal study of relations between job stressors and job strains while controlling for prior negative affectivity and strains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 211–218.


243

Spence, A. M. (1974). Market signaling: Information structure of job markets and related phenomena. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Staw, B., & Boettger, R. (1990). Task revision: A neglected form of work performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 534–559. Steers, R. M. (1981). Introduction to organizational behavior. Santa Monica, CA, Goodyear. Strawson, P. (1962). Freedom and resentment. Proceedings of the British Academy, 48, 187–211. Stupak, R., & Stupak, K. (2006). Finding organizational reality in paradise: A team of two. Public Administration Quarterly, 29, 483–494. Stryker, S. (1981). Symbolic interactionism: Themes and variations. In: M. Rosenberg & R. Turner (Eds), Social psychology (pp. 3–29). New York: Basic Books. Swift, T. (2001). Trust, reputation and corporate accountability to stakeholders. Business Ethics: A European Review, 10, 16–26. Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. In: L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 249–288). New York: Academic Press. Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 297–332. Tetlock, P. E. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice. Toward a social contingency model. In: M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 331–377). New York: Academic Press. Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accountability theory: Mixing properties of human agents with properties of social systems. In: L. L. Thompson, J. M. Levine & D. M. Messick (Eds), Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge (pp. 117–138). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tetlock, P. E. (2000). Cognitive biases and organizational correctives: Do both disease and cure depend on the ideological beholder? Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 293–326. Tetlock, P., & Kim, J. (1987). Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 700–709. Tetlock, P. E., Skitka, L., & Boettger, R. (1989). Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: Conformity, complexity, and bolstering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 632–640. Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill. Thoms, P., Dose, J. J., & Scott, K. S. (2002). Relationships between accountability, job satisfaction, and trust. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13, 307–323. Tosi, H. L., Werner, S., Katz, J. P., & Gomez-Mejia, L. (2000). How much does performance matter? A meta-analysis of CEO pay studies. Journal of Management, 26, 301–339. Tsui, A. (1984). A role set analysis of managerial reputation. Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 64–96. Tsui, A. (1990). A multiple-constituency model of effectiveness: An empirical examination at the human resource subunit level. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 458–483. Unerman, J., & Bennett, M. (2004). Increased stakeholder dialogue and the internet: Towards greater corporate accountability or reinforcing capitalist hegemony? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, 685–707. Useem, E., Christman, J., Gold, E., & Simon, E. (1997). Reforming alone: Barriers to organizational learning in urban school change initiatives. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 2, 55–78.

244


Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in inter-firm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 35–67. Volz, W., & Vahe, T. (2006). The role of attorneys under Sarbanes-Oxley: The qualified legal compliance committee as facilitator of corporate integrity. American Business Law Journal, 43, 439–466. Von Dornum, D. (1997). The straight and the crooked: Legal accountability in ancient Greece. Columbia Law Review, 97, 1483–1518. Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303–319. Wade, J. B., Porac, J. F., Pollack, T. G., & Graffin, S. D. (2006). The burden of celebrity: The impact of CEO certification contests on CEO pay and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 643–660. Wagner, J. A., Stimpert, J. L., & Fubara, E. I. (1998). Board composition and organizational performance: Two studies of insider/outsider effects. Journal of Management Studies, 35, 655–677. Walker, P. (2002). Understanding accountability: Theoretical models and their implications for social service organizations. Social Policy and Administration, 36, 62–75. Wartick, S. (2002). Measuring corporate reputation. Business and Society, 41, 371–392. Walker, G., Kogut, B., & Shan, W. (1997). Social capital, structural holes and the formation of an industry network. Organization Science, 8, 109–125. Weaver, G. R., Trevinõ, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 539–552. Weigold, M. F., & Schlenker, B. R. (1991). Accountability and risk taking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 25–29. Weldon, E., & Gargano, G. (1985). Cognitive effort in additive task groups: The effects of shared responsibility on the quality of multiattribute judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 348–361. Wellman, B., & Frank, K. (2001). Network capital in a multilevel world: Getting support from personal communities. In: N. Lin, K. Cook & R. Burt (Eds), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 233–273). New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc. West, W. (2004). Formal procedures, informal processes, accountability, and responsiveness in bureaucratic policy making: An institutional policy analysis. Public Administration Review, 64, 66–80. Wohl, M., Pritchard, E., & Kelly, B. (2002). How responsible are people for their employment situation? An application of the triangle model of responsibility. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 34, 201–209. Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691–718. Wood, J. A., & Winston, B. E. (2007). Development of three scales to measure leader accountability. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28, 167–185. Wood, W., & Quinn, J. (2003). Forewarned and forearmed? Two meta-analysis syntheses of forewarnings of influence appeals. Psychological Bulletin, 29, 119–138. Xie, J. L., & Schaubroeck, J. (2001). Bridging approaches and findings across diverse disciplines to improve job stress research. In: P. L. Perrewe´ & D. C. Ganster (Eds), Research in occupational stress and well being (Vol. 1, pp. 1–53),Oxford). UK: Elsevier Science.


245

Yang, S., & Grunig, J. (2005). Decomposing organisational reputation: The effects of organisation–public relationship outcomes on cognitive representations of organisations and evaluations of organisational performance. Journal of Communication Management, 9, 305–326. Yarnold, P. R., Mueser, K. T., & Lyons, J. S. (1988). Type A behavior, accountability, and work rate in small groups. Journal of Research in Personality, 22, 353–360. Zabala, I., Panadero, G., Gallardo, L., Amate, C., Sańchez-Galindo, M., Tena, I., & Villalba, I. (2005). Corporate reputation in professional services firms: Reputation management based on intellectual capital management. Corporate Reputation Review, 8, 59–71. Zinko, R., Ferris, G. R., Blass, F. R., & Laird, M. D. (2007). Toward a theory of reputation in organizations. In: J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 26, pp. 169–209). Oxford, UK: JAI Press/Elsevier Science Ltd.

INTENTIONAL NEGATIVE BEHAVIORS AT WORK Nikolaos Dimotakis, Remus Ilies and Michael K. Mount ABSTRACT Intentional negative behaviors, under their various conceptualizations, have developed into a major area of study in the literature. Previous research has provided many interesting and valuable examinations of this phenomenon, examining a variety of factors such as individual differences, exogenous influences and affective and cognitive reactions to experienced events. Most of these approaches, however, have been limited by relatively static conceptualizations of intentional negative behaviors and their antecedents. After reviewing the previous literature, we offer an alternative, dynamic view of discrete episodes of said behaviors, and outline the ways in which this approach could help advance the field and address some of the limitations of previous research.

INTRODUCTION Intentional negative work behavior, under its many labels and conceptualizations (e.g., deviant behavior, counterproductive work behavior, antisocial behavior), has become a major topic of research in the management and psychology literature. As we discuss below, such interest is understandable Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Volume 27, 247–277 Copyright r 2008 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0742-7301/doi:10.1016/S0742-7301(08)27006-4

247

248

NIKOLAOS DIMOTAKIS ET AL.

both for both practical and theoretical reasons. From a practical standpoint, negative work behaviors are both omnipresent and costly to individuals and organizations; from a theoretical perspective these behaviors play an important role in theories and models that seek to explain job performance. The major aims of this chapter are to contribute to the literature on intentional negative work behaviors (i.e., counterproductive behavior and workplace deviance) by providing a general overview of the research, by proposing some extensions to previous work – especially the need to examine negative employee behaviors using dynamic approaches – and by proposing future directions for research. We begin by discussing the importance of investigating intentional negative work behaviors; we then discuss the nature of the construct, including previous classifications and conceptualizations; we then formally state our definition of the construct. As mentioned above, intentional negative work behaviors have been conceptualized in a variety of ways in the literature, with sometimes confusing results. In this chapter, we will use the umbrella term of intentional negative behaviors to refer to acts or actions originally defined as deviance, deviant behavior, counterproductive work behaviors, maintaining the original label if possible when referring to previous research.

Why Study Intentional Negative Work Behaviors? Practically speaking, negative intentional work behaviors can have enormous consequences to organizations and individuals. In terms of organizational performance, deviant/counterproductive behaviors are a major source of losses. For example, Murphy (1993) estimated the financial costs of deviance as anywhere from $6 to $200 billion per year lost, while Case (2000) argued that almost all companies are targets of theft or fraud by their employees. In some cases, these behaviors can be so severe that they result in organizational death; Coffin (2003) estimated that these behaviors might account for as many as 20% of failed businesses. One source of such losses can be reductions of individual performance that can arise from discrete behaviors negative behaviors. For example Viswesvaran (2002) reported a correlation between absenteeism and productivity of –.17, and Sackett (2002) described various negative effects of other types of counterproductive behavior. Negative work behaviors can also be harmful to the individual engaging in deviant behavior; for example, Viswesvaran (2002) reported a negative relationship between deviant acts and supervisor ratings of effort and interpersonal behaviors. If such ratings

Intentional Negative Behaviors at Work

249

are used for promotion and compensation decisions, individuals that engage in such behaviors could be reducing their social capital thereby endangering their career and financial outcomes. Moreover, these behaviors can be detrimental to the well-being of employees, although empirical research in this particular area has been sorely lacking (Bennett & Robinson, 2003). In one study, Ilies, Hauserman, Schwochau, and Stibal (2003) found that 58% of women in the workforce reported experiencing sexually harassing behavior. Still and Pearson (1998) focused on the potential of victimization to lead to losses of both time and effort, providing a mostly functional perspective. Keashly and Jagatic (2003) argued that being the victim of intentional negative work behaviors (in their case, emotional abuse) can lead to a variety of adverse outcomes including personal, interpersonal, and organizational effects. Intentional negative behavior can also be contagious and needs not even be constrained to the same domain as the initial behavior; for example, Melzer (2002) reported that men in professions that were more physically violent and dangerous were more likely to use violence against female partners, controlling for other common predictors. If such an effect is initiated by greater exposure to negative events and behaviors, it can be argued that exposure to deviant/counterproductive behaviors at work could trigger similar behavioral spillover phenomena, ranging from minor manifestations to potentially disruptive ones. To summarize, intentional negative work behavior carries the potential for a variety of negative outcomes for all parties involved, both at the individual and the organizational level. The discussion above illustrates that the impact of these behaviors are far-reaching and serious. Such outcomes further emphasize the need for research that could help us understand, and ultimately influence, manifestations of such behaviors. Not surprisingly then, intentional negative behaviors or deviant behaviors have become a major subject of study, and are integrated into a variety of theoretical models, especially in the literature on job performance. For example, Rotundo and Sackett (2002) reported that deviance is frequently considered one of the three major dimensions of job performance, and is often given equal or even greater weight in performance evaluations than task performance or desirable voluntary behaviors. Similarly, deviant behaviors feature heavily in Hunt’s (1996) discussion of generic work behavior dimensions, with half the dimensions examined reflecting some manifestation of deviance. Moreover, such behaviors have begun to feature heavily in the conceptualization of contextual behavior (Motowidlo, 2003) making them a vitally important and integral part of a dominant paradigm

250


of organizational research. In such a context, studies of intentional negative behaviors have the potential to help enhance our understanding and ultimately provide ways in which to influence the occurrence of such behaviors in order to improve organizational and individual performance and reduce the potential for harm. An important aspect of these behaviors is the discretionary component that lies at their core. That is, intentionally engaging in any type of voluntary negative, counterproductive, or deviant behavior at work constitutes a conscious choice and as such, is more likely to be influenced by personal characteristics or subjective experience than by individual ability or attributes of the specific situation (e.g., Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006). In other words, deviant behaviors take place within a context of ‘‘weak’’ situations (i.e., unlike behaviors that are formally tracked by performance management systems, voluntary behaviors are not required as part of the job situation), allowing for influences from a variety of person-based factors. As such, the voluntary nature of deviant behaviors provides interesting perspectives for research on the influence of personal characteristics on behavior, as well as enhances the complexity of the research questions. Although a large proportion of research on voluntary behaviors at work has focused on desirable behaviors such as organizational citizenship or prosocial behaviors (Robinson & Bennett, 1995) and such desirable behaviors are clearly important, it is our position that research on undesirable voluntary behaviors is also important, especially considering the potential of negative events to produce stronger outcomes than positive ones Taylor (1991). Further examination of intentional negative behavior should result in a more balanced perspective on voluntary behaviors at work as well as create insights that could be of benefit to research in desirable behaviors; in other words, apart from enhancing our understanding of negative or undesirable behavior, such research could help shed light on the character of voluntary behavior in general, therefore potentially informing research on desirable voluntary behaviors.

DEFINING INTENTIONAL NEGATIVE BEHAVIORS Although conceptualizations of intentional negative work behaviors have been examined and defined on a case-by-case basis for decades, the first widely accepted conceptualization of such behavior as an aggregate construct was formally stated by Robinson and Bennett (1995), using the label of deviance. These authors, drawing from Kaplan’s (1975) work,


251

defined deviance as ‘‘voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and in doing so threatens the well-being of an organization, its members, or both’’ (p. 556). A similar definition has been advanced by Gruys and Sackett (2003), this time in the context of counterproductive work behaviors, which were considered ‘‘any intentional behavior on the part of an organizational member viewed by the organization as contrary to it legitimate interests.’’ A comparison of these two definitions reveals that important differences between the two constructs they define would only arise in cases where the violation of significant organizational norms is not against the organization’s legitimate interests. Such instances could be possible with organizational cultures that are greatly dysfunctional, or in specific cases of significant deviation of organizational norms from the dominant hypernorms (c. f., Warren, 2003). These instances are rare enough that the two definitions are compatible, and thus the labels of deviance and counterproductive work behaviors are similarly enough to be used interchangeably, which we will do in this chapter. From the main definitions mentioned above, four major and specific points emerge. First, in order for a behavior to be considered deviant, the individual engaging in such behavior must possess motivation to perform the behavior; the voluntary aspect of such behaviors thus becomes an important attribute. The motivation arising from volition or intent involves either (a) having the motivation to break organizational norms or to compromise an organization’s legitimate interests through action or (b) the lack of motivation to conform to norms or avoiding to compromise said legitimate interests through inaction (Kaplan, 1975). For example, Robinson and Bennett’s (1995) personal aggression category of deviance illustrates motivation to violate norms by, for example, stealing from or abusing coworkers. On the other hand, Kidwell and Bennett’s (1993) discussion of propensity to withdraw effort would be characteristic of lack of motivation to conform to organizational norms. Such a distinction is important because it allows the establishment of deviance as part of a variety of discretionary behaviors that affect organizational and individual performance (Motowidlo, 2003). The second point that emerges (implicitly or explicitly) is intent. For a behavior to be considered deviant or counterproductive, the behavior must be intended to cause harm. Following the previous point, such intent includes acts of omission (failing to prevent harm when required/expected to do so). The requirement of intent distinguishes deviant/counterproductive acts from mistakes due to lack of ability or skill (Sackett, 2002; Motowidlo, 2003), as well as harm committed due to uncertainty, miscommunications, etc. Alternatively, behaviors that result in negative consequences are not classified

252


as deviant if they were intended to help (Motowidlo, 2003). For example, legitimately punishing a subordinate for theft would not be considered deviant, while punishing a subordinate for personal reasons would be. Moreover, the requirement of intent allows behaviors to be classified as deviant or counterproductive regardless of the end outcomes (e.g., an attempt to undermine someone’s credibility that did not succeed, or the infliction of emotional abuse that did not affect the recipient). We make intent an explicit point in adopting the umbrella term of intentional negative work behaviors. The third point is that deviant or counterproductive behavior is not constrained in its intended targets. Although the distinction between individual-targeted and organization-targeted tends to be one of the most commonly used in the literature (Bennett & Robinson, 2003; Dalal, 2005; Mount et al., 2006), both types of behavior are considered reflections (or indicators) of the same construct. As such, the target of deviant or counterproductive behaviors can be both animate and inanimate and thus such behaviors can be both interpersonal and impersonal. Finally, although this is not an explicit point of these definitions, neither of them specifies that severity plays any role in characterizing a behavior as deviant/counterproductive or not. In fact, typologies of deviance have included behaviors that have ranged in severity from littering to drug use (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). While severity is an important part of some typologies, severity on its own does not matter in classifying a behavior as deviant or counterproductive. Of course, the severity of a behavior can make manifestations of such behaviors more or less problematic or costly to the organization or individuals in terms of outcomes, but will not impact the characterization of such behaviors as deviant. Considering the above, in this article we will define intentional negative work behavior as discretionary behavior that violates significant organizational norms, and intends to cause (or fail to prevent) harm of varying severity to specific individuals or the organization in general. This definition is in line with the majority of the literature on deviant and counterproductive work behavior; nevertheless, a formal statement provides a clearer conceptualization that can be of value in enhancing the cumulative nature of deviance research (Griffin & Lopez, 2005).

Conceptualizations of Intentional Negative Work Behavior Although the characteristics of intentional negative work behavior discussed above encompass the majority of research on such behaviors to date,


253

consensus on a single behavioral construct has not yet been achieved (Bennett & Robinson, 2003). Instead, a wide variety of terms have been previously used in the literature to examine voluntary work behavior that is detrimental (Spector & Fox, 2002), depending on the approach and the perspective that each researcher uses to approach the issue (Bennett & Robinson, 2003). As mentioned above, terms that have been used include antisocial and counterproductive behaviors, aggression, emotional abuse, and abusive supervision (Griffin & Lopez, 2005; Spector & Fox, 2002; Tepper, 2000). Moreover, intentional negative behavior at work has been examined as discrete acts (theft, violence, sabotage, unethical decision making, etc.), although research has been recently focusing more on aggregating such acts or behaviors into typologies (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Both approaches have resulted in important work and have provided meaningful contributions to the field; this variation in approaches, however, has also impacted the ability of scholars to generalize to as yet unexamined behaviors that might differ little from what has already been demonstrated in the field (Bennett & Robinson, 2003). The fact that some approaches have greater and more consistent theoretical clarity than others (Griffin & Lopez, 2005) can only further compound the generalization problem. Below, we will review the various approaches used in the examination of deviance and counterproductive work behavior, starting with discrete behaviors and moving on to typologies, in order to outline and clarify the basis of past research, before providing a more general review of what research has shown so far. We will also briefly discuss some of the advantages and disadvantages of both methods and their potential effect on the field. Discrete Behaviors The literature has examined a wide variety of discrete deviant and counterproductive behaviors. In comprehensive reviews of the literature, Gruys (1999) and Gruys and Sackett (2003) identified 66 specific behaviors sorted into 11 broader categories. These categories of behaviors included (1) theft and related behaviors, (2) destruction of property, (3) misuse of information, (4) misuse of time and resources, (5) unsafe behavior, (6) poor attendance, (7) poor quality work, (8) alcohol use, (9) drug use, (10) inappropriate verbal actions, and (11) inappropriate physical actions. The examination of such discrete behaviors has produced important work, such as, for example, Greenberg’s (1990, 2002) work on employee theft as a reaction to perceived injustice, many studies on sexual harassment (see Ilies et al., 2003), and Rosse and Hulin’s (1985) work on absenteeism.

254


While the study of discrete behaviors does have generalizability limitations, these findings are important for practitioners and academic researchers alike. For practitioners, the study of discrete behaviors can help plan interventions and other actions to deal effectively with such phenomena, especially when a specific behavior is becoming increasingly problematic or disruptive for an organization (Sackett, 2002). For academic researchers, they provide some solid starting points for the field of intentional negative work behavior, and help outline patterns that are then used in the study of aggregate deviant or counterproductive behaviors, something that is becoming increasingly important for the advancement of the field (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Studies of discrete intentional negative behaviors have been starting points for investigating taxonomies of deviance by studying covariations in behaviors or similarities between them (Gruys & Sackett, 2003; Sackett, 2002). These research efforts have led to a number of established taxonomies, which we will briefly summarize below.

Typologies of Intentional Negative Work Behaviors The movement of the field towards using aggregate constructs to examine intentional negative work behavior rather than examining specific behaviors is still relatively new. Although the field is still far from perfect consensus on the specific characteristics and domain of a broad behavioral construct (Bennett & Robinson, 2003), aggregate approaches have tended to flow in a fairly consistent way from definitions of deviance and counterproductive behavior. As such, most typologies have tended to flow from or reflect some of the characteristics of intentional negative work behaviors discussed above, namely motivation, intent, target, and severity. One of the first typologies of intentional negative work behavior involved the distinction between behaviors that involve breaking norms versus behaviors that involve failing to preserve them; examples of typologies that used this distinction are Mangione and Quinn (1974) who talked about counterproductive behavior versus doing little, Hollinger and Clarck (1982) who distinguished property deviance (theft, damage, etc.) from production deviance (low quality or volume of work), and Spector and Fox (2002) who provided a active versus passive behavior distinction. A related typology was introduced by Gruys and Sackett (2003) who added a task relevance dimension (with task relevant deviant behaviors being closer to failing to preserve norms, while non-task relevant behaviors involve actively breaking norms).


255

A common conceptualization in these typologies is that norms define ranges of acceptable behavior; thus, one can violate norms by exhibiting behavior that lies outside the organizational norms or by failing to exhibit behavior that is considered expected or typical. Apart from this motivational component, all these typologies consider intent in characterizing a behavior as deviant or counterproductive, as mentioned above. This means that none of the typologies mentioned above include things such as mistakes or harm done due to a lack of ability or other constraint; only behaviors that are explicitly meant to harm (or fail to prevent harm when it would be expected) would be characterized as deviant or counterproductive. Another common dimension in deviance typologies is the distinction of interpersonal vs. organizational intentional negative work behaviors. A reflection of the target dimension, this distinction has become perhaps the most commonly found in the literature, after being initially introduced by Robinson and Bennett (1995), and replicated in others such as the Gruys and Sackett (2003) typology. Interpersonal deviant/counterproductive behaviors refers to those behaviors intended to cause harm to an individual (whether subordinate, peer, or supervisor) while organizational deviant/ counterproductive behaviors are those behaviors intended to harm the organization as a whole (e.g., sabotage or misuse of organizational resources). The original typology of Robinson and Bennett (1995) also contained a seriousness or severity component (previously introduced by Wheeler, 1976, in his discussion of punishable offences in organizations). That is, Robinson and Bennett distinguished deviant behaviors in terms of their potential for harm (low versus high). In this conceptualization, for example, petty theft would be considered low in seriousness while assaulting a coworker would be considered a behavior with a high potential for harm. Apart from those mentioned above, a number of alternative conceptualizations have recently been introduced, all having the potential to enhance our understanding of the phenomenon and advance the knowledge of the field. In terms of antecedents of deviant behavior, Cullen and Sackett (2003) distinguished between initiated and reactive counterproductive behaviors. Initiated behaviors happen to satisfy some need of the individual (e.g., rule breaking to increase autonomy) while responsive behaviors are triggered by some event (e.g., aggressive interactions in response to some perceived or real slight to one’s character). Warren (2003) introduced an interesting perspective with a discussion of positive versus negative deviance, by contrasting organizational norm violations (what is considered appropriate, proper and desirable for an

256


organization) with hypernorm violations (what is considered appropriate, proper and desirable for society as a whole) in instances when organizational norms and societal hypernorms are discrepant. Similarly, in the Gruys and Sackett (2003) definition, a behavior can only be considered as negative if the organizational interests it threatens are ‘‘legitimate.’’ In both these cases, for example, refusing to engage in accounting malpractices would not be considered a deviant behavior because it both violates hypernorms and refers to organizational interests that are not legitimate. Because in this chapter we are looking at common manifestations of deviance (which violate organizational norms as well as hypernorms, and violate legitimate organizational interests only), the definition we are using for this chapter is not completely compatible with Warren’s work. Warren’s position constitutes, nonetheless, an interesting perspective that can provide an important contribution to the field. These are all valid and important examples of deviance typologies that have been introduced and used in the literature. The most common distinction used, however, is the individual versus organizational one (Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007) introduced by Robinson and Bennett (1995). This typology has been used by the majority of deviance research to date and its popularity can only be seen as growing. This focus, however, might have come at the expense of investigations into other dimensions of deviance, specifically the severity of actions and whether the deviant act was active or passive. A main criticism is that the individual versus organizational deviance dimensions are so highly intercorrelated as to be indistinguishable. For example Dalal’s (2005) meta-analysis found a corrected correlation of .70 between individual and organizational deviance (computed from primary correlations reported in 20 studies and based on 4,136 individuals), while Berry et al. (2007) found a meta-analytic corrected correlation of .62 (computed from primary correlations reported in 27 studies and based on 10,104 individuals). Moreover, high correlations have been found between undesirable and desirable voluntary organizational behavior (Berry et al., 2007, e.g., found a meta-analytic correlation of –.50, computed from primary correlations reported in four studies and based on 1,347 individuals). Moreover, these correlations increase when the behaviors are matched according to their target (Dalal, 2005), leading to debates about the distinctiveness of both dimensions within deviance taxonomies, as well as more general discussions of whether negative and desirable voluntary behaviors comprise a bipolar domain or not (i.e., whether these two types of behaviors comprise opposite ends of the same continuum, or represent relatively independent dimensions in themselves).


257

A potential source of this problem is that the source of the individual versus organizational distinction (Robinson & Bennett, 1995) was originally designed from employee perceptions of similarity between individual deviant/counterproductive behaviors (Berry et al., 2007; Gruys & Sackett, 2003) rather than an examination of covariation between said behaviors, something that could lead to an alternative factor structure. In other words, initial research was focused on whether a group of behaviors had some characteristics in common or were similar in their manifestation (e.g., whether lying is different from stealing), while a covariation approach would focus on whether the manifestation of one behavior makes other behaviors more common (e.g., individuals who lie also commonly steal). Even though strong correlations between intentional negative behavior dimensions defined by their target have been found in the literature, it is our contention that the individual- and organizational-targeted behavioral categories or dimensions are distinct yet related. The source of the distinction arises from theoretical conceptualizations as much as from empirical results, where different patterns of antecedents (including personality traits and organizational justice) were shown to lead to different dimensions of deviance (Berry et al., 2007; Mount et al., 2006). Similarly, we agree with the view that considers desirable and negative discretionary behaviors (i.e., organizational citizenship behaviors and intentional negative work behaviors) to be conceptually distinct rather than ends of a single continuum. Although the relationship between these two phenomena has been found to be strong (–.60; Sackett & DeVore, 2001), and previous multidimensional scaling analyses have shown a single factor solution Bennett and Stamper (2002), more recent meta-analytic work has shown that on one hand, the relationship is more modest than previously thought (–.32) and that the two phenomena exhibit a differing pattern of antecedents (Dalal, 2005), making it meaningful to maintain their examination as distinct (yet related) constructs. To summarize, intentional negative work behavior is related but distinct from organizational citizenship behavior, and has been shown to be composed of discrete behaviors nested within interrelated but conceptually and theoretically distinct factors. The literature has examined deviant or counterproductive behaviors both as discrete behavioral incidents and as aggregate dimensions; both approaches have value, and the optimal use for each question depends on a series of considerations, specifically the level of fidelity required, the specificity of the questions asked, and the theoretical approach one uses. In the case of behaviors that are of great importance to an organization or the field, the study of discrete

258


behaviors is appropriate, as well as in the case of specific research questions. On the other hand, research on the nature of intentional negative work behavior in general, or one that draws on broad theoretical foundations would probably require the use of aggregate constructs. A final consideration is the maturity of specific areas of the field; for example, in the case of withdrawal behaviors Blau (1998) argued that it is too soon to simply aggregate withdrawal behaviors in a single construct, illustrating an example of an area of research where discrete behaviors have the potential to aid the field in general. It is worth noting that, at this point, discrete behaviors can be retroactively classified into typologies by examining their characteristics, which could be of benefit to attempts to clarify the field. For example, the five dimensions used in Fox, Spector and Miles (2001) of abuse of others, threats, work avoidance, work sabotage, and overt acts can all be classified using the distinctions of individual versus organizational, and minor versus serious. In a similar vein, sexual harassment behavior can be classified as individual and range from minor to serious (Fitzgerald et al., 1988; Ilies et al., 2003; Lengnick-Hall, 1995), while petty theft could be classified as organizational and minor. As a result, as long as proper theoretical clarity and transparency are used, meta-analytic techniques and literature reviews will be able to advance knowledge of the field by aggregating available knowledge (see Berry et al., 2007). We will aim to provide one such review and brief discussion of the empirical results presented in the literature, beginning with the antecedents of intentional negative work behavior.

ANTECEDENTS OF INTENTIONAL NEGATIVE WORK BEHAVIOR In a recent review, Bennett and Robinson (2003) conceptualized organizational deviance as a reflection of personality, as reactions to experiences, and as adaptation to the social context. Deviance as a reflection of personality refers to predicting intentional negative work behavior from stable individual differences. For example, individuals higher in agreeableness are less likely to engage in interpersonal deviant behaviors (Mount et al., 2006). In general, efforts of this sort focus on whether individuals that exhibit a specific personality trait to a higher (or lesser) extent than others also tend to engage in deviant behaviors to a greater (or lesser) extent. Deviance as a


259

reaction to experiences refers to predicting negative work behavior from workplace events or experiences; an example of this would be employee theft as a reaction to experienced injustice (Greenberg, 1990). In general, this approach focuses on whether some external experiences or events (both commonplace and uncommon) can increase manifestations of deviant behaviors in an organization. Finally, adaptation to the social context conceptualizes deviance as arising the individual’s attempts to adapt to characteristics of the social environment or the work situation (consciously or unconsciously), such that deviant or counterproductive work behavior occurs as a result of organizational constraints (Miles, Borman, Spector, & Fox, 2002). This approach is focused on factors that are external to the individual, much as the reactions to events approach, but refers more to stable characteristics of the environment and less to specific events that might occur. That is, studies taking this approach typically investigate whether stable features of the environment might lead to higher manifestations of deviance compared to environments that lack these features (for a summary of the three approaches, see Fig. 1). With respect to empirical research on the antecedents of intentional negative work behavior, as we illustrate in the following sections, four main approaches have been used: (1) focusing on stable individual differences, (2) focusing on exogenous factors (environment, social relations, etc.), (3) focusing on affective (and affect/emotion-mediated processes), and (4) focusing on cognitive (and cognition-mediated processes). The first two approaches map rather closely onto Bennett and Robinson’s (2003) approach (i.e., with deviance as reflection of personality or reaction to experiences); the last two seem, at a first glance, to be more complex. However, affective and cognitive processes are in fact interrelated (with cognitive appraisals being related to affect, and affect influencing cognitive processes), with the boundaries between the two being more blurred than it was usually thought, as Barrett, Mesquita, Ochsner, and Gross (2007) have noted: ‘‘[even though] scientists are very used to thinking about cognitive events (such as thoughts, memories, and beliefs) as separate from emotional events, this distinction is probably phenomenological rather than causal and does not seem to be respected by the brain.’’ In our discussion and review below, therefore, we will conceptualize both affective and cognitive processes as reactions. We shall also examine Bennett and Robinson’s conceptualization of deviance as adaptation to the social environment but we consider exogenous influences more broadly, in order to include nonadaptive environmental effects.

260


Fig. 1.

Summary of Main Antecedents of Intentional Negative Behaviors.

Individual Differences Examinations of deviant or counterproductive behavior as arising from individual differences have been frequently conducted as part of selection efforts (Spector & Fox, 2002) with the studies by Ones, Viswesvaran and Schmidt (1993) and by Hogan and Hogan (1989) being good examples of this sort of approach. The Ones et al. (1993) study is important in that it provided strong evidence for a link between individual differences and counterproductive behaviors. The authors used meta-analytic methods to examine the relationship between integrity tests and counterproductive behaviors, and as part of this analysis, they reported a corrected correlation between personality measures and counterproductive behaviors of .32 (calculated from 158, 065 observations from 138 studies). On the other


261

hand, the Hogan and Hogan (1989) study contributed by introducing a specific personality construct (which they called ‘‘organizational delinquency’’) specifically designed to predict aspects of negative and positive employee performance. These studies provided a valuable perspective on the importance of negative work behaviors, and on the possible ways in which their manifestation could be predicted. This perspective has since been greatly expanded. In a general review of the personality – counterproductive behavior relationship, Cullen and Sackett (2003) posited five potential reasons for this relationship: (a) personality as a direct determinant of counterproductive behaviors (i.e., a direct effects model), (b) personality influencing attitudes (suggesting mediated effects), (c) personality as a determinant of perceptual variables (mediated effects), (d) the moderator role of personality in the perceptions of events, (e) personality as moderator of reactions to perceived events (e.g., personality predicting different reactions to the same stimulus). Assuming equal exposure to events and work environments, all of the above reasons could potentially lead to a direct observed relationship between facets of personality and deviant or counterproductive work behavior, although most frequently the individual differences conceptualization only involves examination of personality-behavior associations (direct effects only). The literature has generally been supportive of zero-order associations between personality constructs and intentional negative work behavior acts, facets or dimensions. Of the Big Five traits, multiple meta-analytic efforts have shown neuroticism to be positively related to intentional negative work behavior, while agreeableness and conscientiousness are generally negatively related to such behavior (Berry et al., 2007; Dalal, 2005; Salgado, 2002). Specifically, meta-analytic efforts have revealed true-score correlations between deviance and conscientiousness that ranged from .26 (Salgado, 2002, coded as lack of deviant behavior) to –.23/–.42 (Berry et al., 2007, individual/organizational deviance respectively), while Dalal (2005) reported a score of –.38, close to the middle of this range. Similarly, true score correlations between agreeableness and deviant behaviors were negative and ranged from –.32 for organizational deviance to –.46 for individual deviance (Berry et al., 2007), while Salgado (2002) reported a true-score correlation of .20 (again, the dependent variable was coded as lack of deviant behavior). Finally, neuroticism (reported as emotional stability) had true-score correlations that ranged between .06 (Salgado, 2002, same coding as above) and –.24/–.23 (Berry et al., 2007, interpersonal/ organizational deviance, respectively). Although these correlations do exhibit some amount of variation, there is enough evidence to conclude

262


that personality is important in the prediction of deviance, with fairly clear relationships between the variables. As can be seen from the Berry et al. (2007) study, specific personality variables can have differential effects with regard to the various types of deviant behavior. This phenomenon has been recently begun to be a focus of research; for example, in terms of behavioral dimensions, in an examination of 141 customer service employees of a national fast food chain, Mount et al. (2006) found that agreeableness was negatively related to interpersonal counterproductive behaviors, while conscientiousness was negatively related to organizational counterproductive behaviors, illustrating a concrete case of these differential relationships with various manifestations of deviance/ counterproductive behaviors and showing that validities increase when the behavioral theme (interpersonal versus impersonal) is matched with the predictor variable(e.g., agreeableness is an interpersonal trait, and so is individual-targeted deviant behavior at work). It is also important to note that the authors found that the relationship between personality and deviance/counterproductive behaviors was partially mediated through job satisfaction, thus providing an example of personality as a direct determinant of such behaviors, as well as an example of personality influencing such behaviors through changes in attitudes. A relationship between job satisfaction and deviance was previously documented (Dalal, 2005; reported a true-score correlation of –.37), but the more complex, mediated relationship reported in Mount et al. (2006) provides a more explicit and clear relationship between personality, job satisfaction and intentional negative work behavior. Intentional negative work behavior has also been shown to be related to other stable individual traits. Trait anger has been shown to lead to increased manifestations of various types of negative work behavior; for example, in an examination of 203 part- and full-time workers, Miles et al. (2002), found that trait anger was positively related to counterproductive work behavior, even after controlling for workload, organizational constraints, and experienced conflict. This study replicated results previously found in Fox and Spector (1999), who had found a direct positive effect of trait anger on deviant behaviors, as well as trait anxiety (which was mediated through experiences of frustration). Similarly, hostility has been shown to have a similar effect, examined within people (i.e., whether individuals engage in more deviant behaviors when experiencing higher levels of hostility than they usually do) as well as between people (Judge, Scott, & Ilies., 2006; Lee & Allen, 2002). Furthermore, Perlow and Latham (1993) found a relationship between locus of control and aggression such


263

that individuals with an external locus of control engaged in such behaviors more frequently. Recent findings include Diefendorff and Mehta’s (2007) findings that higher behavior activation sensitivity (BAS) and avoidance motivation were predictive of higher incidences of counterproductive work behaviors. Reactions to Discrete Events The main approach used in the conceptualization of intentional negative work behaviors as reactions to work events or experiences has been examinations of individual reactions to perceptions of injustice. Drawing from equity theory (Adams, 1965), for example, when the inputs that individuals bring to the work and the outcomes they receive from it (both instrumental and psychological) are inequitable, individuals experience distress. Therefore, negative behaviors could be considered a mechanism to restore balance when inequity or injustice is perceived, restoring equity and thus their experienced distress (Carrell & Dittrich, 1978). Empirical evidence provides strong support for such a relationship: the meta-analyses of Berry et al. (2007), Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, and Ng (2001), and Dalal (2005) all found that perceptions of various types of injustice were positively related to incidences of deviant or counterproductive work behaviors. Specifically, Dalal (2005) found a corrected correlation of –.25 between aggregate measures of justice and counterproductive work behaviors. Colquitt et al. (2001) used separate types of justice as predictors, reporting a corrected estimate of –.31 for a broadly defined measure of procedural justice and –.30 for distributive justice, showing a non-significant difference between the effects of the two types of justice. Furthermore, Berry et al. (2007) disaggregated the outcome into organizational and individual deviance, finding that only interpersonal justice had differential effects on these different types of outcomes (corrected correlations of –.07 and –.19 respectively). These findings illustrate the importance of justice in predicting the emergence of justice, and also that different types of justice have generally homogeneous effects on the specific types of deviance manifested (apart perhaps from interpersonal justice). Deviant/counterproductive work behaviors as reactions to injustice have been shown to have multiple forms. In a now classic study on interpersonal justice, Greenberg (1990) found that employees reacted to incidents of injustice by engaging in acts of theft, while Fox et al. (2001) found such perceptions led to a general increase in counterproductive work behaviors. These effects are sometimes complex. For example, in a study of 240

264


manufacturing employees, Skarlicki and Folger (1997) found that when individuals perceived themselves to be targets of injustice, they engaged in retaliation. The various types of justice (procedural, interactive, distributive) however, were found to exhibit interaction effects, with distributive justice (e.g.) only predicting retaliation in cases of low procedural and interactional justice. Regardless of the exact manifestation of intentional negative work behavior, justice can be considered one of the main predictors of deviant and counterproductive acts conceptualized as reactions. Moreover, apart from leading to a variety of different types of behavioral manifestations, justice can also predict the target of such manifestations. For example, Greenberg and Barling (1999) found that perceptions of justice were related to instances of aggression towards supervisors but not related to instances of aggression towards peers or subordinates without taking other variables into consideration.

Stable Exogenous (to the Individual) Influences Intentional negative work behavior has also been shown to arise from a variety of exogenous influences, such as characteristics of the environment, leadership and characteristics of interpersonal relationships. An example of deviant behaviors arising from characteristics of the environment are Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly’s (1998) findings that individual deviance increased when one’s peers were also engaging in deviant (antisocial) behaviors. Siehl (1987) used a similar approach, with sub-group norms predicting instances of theft in an organization. Moreover, increased deviant or counterproductive behaviors can arise as a result of organizational constraints (Chen & Spector, 1992; Fox & Spector, 1999; Miles et al., 2002), such as lack of individual autonomy (Fox et al., 2001). This can reflect both processes that work through increases in negative emotional and cognitive individual experiences as, for example, frustration brought about as a result of organizational constraints (c.f. Fox & Spector, 1999), as well as other processes, such as limitations in the availability of methods to deal with inequity. Leadership has also been recently conceptualized as an exogenous influence that could lead to intentional manifestations of negative work behavior. Specifically, Brown and Trevino (2006) found that leadership could predict both increased and decreased manifestations of deviance, with charismatic leadership being negatively related to deviance and abusive


265

leadership being positively related. A similar positive relationship was found by Dineen, Lewicki, and Tomlinson (2006) who reported that leadership from low behavioral integrity individuals led to increased follower deviant behaviors. Another approach has involved examining characteristics of interpersonal relationships to predict deviant behaviors. Examples of this approach have involved investigations of status as a determinant of engaging in retaliatory behaviors (Aquino, 2000; Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2001), with individuals being generally more likely to direct such behaviors towards individuals with lower status than their own. More recently, Venkataramani and Dalal (2007) introduced network analysis to the field when they discussed how network characteristics such as structural or positional characteristics could be used to predict who engaged in harming behaviors against whom within a social network. This approach used a number of network variables, such as frequency of contact and quality of interaction in the prediction of harming behaviors, and while the results are not necessarily directly applicable to organizational settings (the study was not conducted in a work environment), this signifies an important methodological contribution to the study of deviance which has the potential to greatly enhance future research.

Connections across the Three Categories of Antecedents The areas outlined above are not necessarily independent of each other. That is, there exists the potential for cross-level moderation and interaction between the three categories outlined below. In the original Cullen and Sackett (2003) discussion, for example, four of the five potential mechanisms of a personality-counterproductive behavior relationship involved personality as a moderating mechanism that influenced attitudes, perceptual variables, and individual reactions directly (suggesting mediated effects) or indirectly (suggesting moderation). For example, Fox and Spector’s (1999) finding that individuals higher in trait anxiety tended to experience more frustration (an emotional reaction), which in turn led to increased levels of counterproductive behavior, is a good example of a mediated effect. Both the mediating and moderating roles that personality can play can be important, with each interactional effect providing interesting perspective into the various processes linking deviance to its antecedents (both in terms of personality and otherwise). This potential for interaction between areas has been examined in the literature, and such efforts have produced interesting findings. For example,

266


in examining the moderating role of personality, Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) found that the relationship between abusive leadership and deviance was stronger for individuals higher in negative reciprocity beliefs. In the same vein, Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, & Barrick (2004) found that personality can moderate the relationship between perceptions of the environment and organizational deviance such that individuals higher in neuroticism or lower in conscientiousness and agreeableness reacted with stronger expressions of deviant behavior to low levels of perceived organizational support. Moreover, Diefendorff and Mehta (2007) found that organizational constraints only led to interpersonal deviance for individuals high in avoidance motivation. With regards to the moderating effect of relational variables, Brown and Trevino (2006) found that value congruence moderated the relationship between charismatic leadership and manifestations of deviance, such that charismatic leadership was associated with lower deviance for leader–subordinate relationships that exhibited good congruence of values. Other streams of research have shown a mediating effect of the various categories. For example, Mount et al. (2006) found that the relationship between agreeableness and counterproductive work behaviors was partially mediated by job satisfaction. Similarly, Martinko, Gundlack, and Douglas (2002) argued that personality influences the cognitive appraisals that linked workplace experiences to various types of intentional negative work behavior. Although the various streams of research summarized above have greatly enhanced our understanding of intentional negative work behavior, there is a need for a general process model in order to better conceptualize the specific causal relationships between negative behavioral manifestations and their various antecedents. Although many models have been presented in the literature, consensus has been slow to build, making the accumulation of scientific knowledge harder and hindering the unification of the field. In the next section, we aim to offer a potential framework for a general process model and discuss how it could be used to provide integration of past and future research.

A PROCESS MODEL OF INTENTIONAL NEGATIVE WORK BEHAVIOR A key starting point for a process model of deviant or counterproductive behavior at work is considering work performance as episodic behavior


267

(Motowidlo, Borman, & Schmit, 1997). These authors argued that ‘‘work behavior is a continuous stream that flows on seamlessly as people spend time at worky. Streams of work behavior are punctuated by occasions when people do something that does make a difference in relation to organizational goals and these are the behavioral episodes that make up the domain of job performance.’’ Intentional negative acts are part of the continuous flow of work behavior in the sense that they lead to value lost or destroyed as opposed to value created (Motowidlo, 2003; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). Accordingly, intentional negative work behaviors comprise an important part of the behavioral episodes that make up the job performance domain. This issue is important because as noted by Robinson and Greenberg (1998) ‘‘current conceptualizations of workplace deviance are static in nature’’ (p. 22). If intentional negative work behaviors occur at a discrete event level, then static conceptualizations examining relationships such as those between personality and general deviant or counterproductive behaviors will miss potentially important variations in individuals’ behavior at work and cannot uncover proximal (in time) influences on discrete behaviors. That is, the ‘‘snapshot’’ nature of static approaches does not enable one to examine temporal or longitudinal effects that might be of great interest and importance. Thus an examination of dynamic processes and fluctuating antecedents and processes can greatly help advance the literature on intentional negative behavior at work (Bennett & Robinson, 2003; Judge et al., 2006). One approach that has the potential to provide insight into such dynamic processes and therefore contribute to theory on intentional negative work behaviors is Weiss and Cropanzano’s (1996) Affective Events Theory (AET). Simply stated, AET proposes that the work environment and the events that take place therein lead to affective reactions, based on a process of appraisal. This is related to Frijda’s (1993) concept of relevance to wellbeing, and Lazarus’ (1991) concept of goal relevance/congruence; in both cases, said events are appraised based on their significance to individual well-being or personal goals, leading to affective reactions depending on event relevance and importance. These affective reactions, in turn, lead to various work behaviors. By moving away from the static, snapshot treatments of the subject (Bennett & Robinson, 2003), AET can make a significant contribution in advancing theory by explaining the dynamic nature of deviant or counterproductive work behaviors by clarifying key processes and concepts (Ilies, Scott, & Judge, 2006). Moreover, the conceptualization of environment and events leading to reactions that

268


Experienced events

Affective/Cognitive reactions

Intentional Negative Behaviors

Organizational and individual negative outcomes

Individual differences

Fig. 2.

A Process Model of Intentional Negative Behaviors.

further influence behavior is consistent with Bennett’s and Robinson (2003) discussion of deviance as a reaction to an event and as a reaction to the environment, and can also integrate conceptualizations of deviance as a reflection of perpetrators’ personality. This wide compatibility means that AET can be used to extend theoretical frameworks of deviance and counterproductive behavior, and provide the springboard for an integrative, dynamic examination of the topic and a potential integration of the field. Conducting research on intentional negative work behavior within the AET framework involves a different approach than that taken by more traditional static approaches. It requires a multilevel framework that considers intraindividual effects of fluctuating antecedents over time (Fig. 2). It also involves examining cross-level interactions between time varying constructs and stable characteristics such as personality. This approach is different from the typical examination of the personality– behavior link at the interindividual level. That is, interindividual effects can only tell whether those individuals who score higher on, for example, neuroticism tend to engage more often in negative behaviors at work. However, intraindividual effects explain what influences individuals to engage in deviant/counterproductive acts and cross-level effects explain why certain individuals react more strongly (in terms of negative behavior) to certain work events or experiences (e.g., injustice). This offers the opportunity to examine moderation as well as main effects, and provide a fuller picture of how fluctuating and stable influences interact to affect individual behavior. Studies that use intraindividual or multilevel approaches, however, have been severely lacking in the literature (Bennett & Robinson, 2003). The few studies that have examined dynamic processes generally focus on either affective or attitudinal influences. An important example of such work is the study by Judge et al. (2006) presenting an investigation of the role of


269

hostility and job attitudes in predicting workplace deviance. Using a final sample of 64 full-time employees in a variety of occupations, these authors utilized a three-week multi-source survey to examine the relationships between mood, job satisfaction, perceived interpersonal treatment (a measure of justice), and workplace deviance. The results indicated that workplace deviance fluctuated significantly, and momentary hostility, job satisfaction and perceptions of deviance explained these fluctuations. Apart from providing an important standalone contribution, this study illustrated the dynamic characteristics of deviance and the importance of recognizing such characteristics of this phenomenon. With respect to the relationship between affect or emotions and deviant or counterproductive acts, Bies, Tripp, & Kramer (1997) argued that negative events lead to negative emotions which increase the incidence of deviant behaviors. Similarly, Spector and Fox (2002) argued that emotion is a central predictor of voluntary behavior, both positive and negative. Their argument is that when a variety of organizational or job conditions are experienced by the individual, they are appraised (with personality and control perceptions potentially influencing such appraisals), and then have the potential to lead to emotional reactions, both positive and negative. Those emotional reactions will, in turn, result in a higher likelihood of voluntary behavior emergence, positive (such as citizenship behaviors) and negative (counterproductive behaviors) respectively. An empirical test of this model (Miles et al., 2002) was generally supportive, and provided further evidence for the complexity and dynamic nature of emotion-centered approaches. In other empirical examinations, Fox et al. (2001) found that negative emotions arising as a result of stress and justice were related to manifestations of deviance. Furthermore, there is evidence that positive affective responses were negatively related to incidences of intentional negative work behavior. George (1989) found that positive but not negative moods predicted absenteeism, while Pelled and Xin (1999) reported that although both positive and negative mood at work predicted subsequent absenteeism, positive mood was more influential. Similarly, George (1992) found a positive relationship between mood and social loafing. In a recent metaanalysis, Dalal (2005) found that positive affect was negatively related to counterproductive work behavior, while negative affect was positively related. In summarizing the affect literature, Brief and Weis (2002) concluded that all mood states (both positive and negative) can be important in the study of negative behavioral manifestations such as withdrawal behaviors.

270


In general, the results of the research that we described above show that deviant/counterproductive behaviors and their antecedents are not static but rather fluctuate in reliable ways that can be predicted. We argue that a dynamic, multilevel examination of (1) events and experiences that lead to intentional acts of negative behavior and (2) of personal characteristics that influence the nature and magnitude of individuals’ responses to such events and experiences can be of great benefit to the field. Further, when combined with cross-level moderators, this approach can help integrate the field, expand the available avenues of research, and advance our knowledge.

LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE As can be seen from this short review of the research on intentional negative work behavior, our knowledge of the field has increased greatly in recent years. As Bennett and Robinson (2003) noted, however, there are a number of areas where research has been limited, and more work is needed to advance the field and move closer to consensus and generalizability. In our view, the main concern with the field is that research has concerned itself with mostly static conceptualizations of the phenomenon; as a result, more dynamic and process-oriented models are needed at this point. Furthermore, an integration of organizational and historical context would be of great benefit. We contended that AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) is a potentially useful framework for building dynamic multilevel models of intentional negative work behavior. We believe this should be a good starting point in moving away from the static interindividual conceptualizations that are predominant in the literature at this point. The dynamic conceptualizations that this framework can provide could also be used to extend the integration of context, both in an organizational and historical sense. In such dynamic conceptualizations of work behavior certain avenues of research seem promising. First, the research into negative organizational behavior antecedents could be advanced by examining the historical context in which such behavior occurs. In such an approach, examinations of past negative behaviors of self and others can be used to predict the emergence of similar behaviors in the future. In terms of an individual’s past actions, for example, research has already examined the role of formal and informal controls in limiting deviant behaviors in an organization (Hollinger & Clarck,


271

1982), and previous research has used previous history of aggression in predicting future aggression (Greenberg & Barling, 1999). An extension of this approach would be to examine the lack of sanctioning or other control mechanisms as a mediating mechanism between previous deviance and continuation or escalation of such behavior in the future. For example, this could be conceptualized as a hierarchy of norms broken; if one engages in a minor act and there are no consequences, the behavior could continue or even progress to more serious actions, since this would provide evidence for absent or ineffective controls. Alternatively, from an organizational perspective, the role of social learning (Akers, Krohn, Lanza-Kaduce, & Radosevich, 1979) could be integrated into a multilevel conceptualization of negative work behavior to examine behavior fluctuations across different work environments. Similarly, the role of opportunities could be examined in a multilevel models, with the question becoming what organizational contexts provide greater opportunities for intentional negative work behaviors (defined as stronger relationships between deviance antecedents and incidents of such behavior), as well as predicting mean levels of negative behaviors in general. Such research directions, of course, are only examples; in general, we suggest that a deeper integration of context would facilitate a variety of different perspectives, all of which could provide an important contribution. Moreover, a dynamic approach would also be suited to a closer examination of the events that negative work behaviors can set in motion. A possible approach to this would be to examine whether such behaviors could result in the resolution of whatever negative event prompted them, or lead to a downward spiral of deviance begetting deviance. The research question then becomes under what conditions previous negative behavioral acts lead to increased or decreased negative behavioral manifestations in the future. Moreover, the focus of this research could be the individual engaging in such behaviors, the organization in which such behaviors occur, or the individual that is the target of such behaviors. As an example of the first category, Bolino, Turnley, and Bloodgood (2002) argued that citizenship behavior can result in higher social capital for the individual; from the perspective of negative work behaviors, future research can examine whether deviance leads to reductions in social capital, and whether this is perceived as sanctioning (leading to reduction in future instances of such behavior), or as an unrelated negative event (which can accordingly lead to an increase in such). Similar perspectives could also be adapted for the other categories mentioned above. Finally, dynamic, multilevel studies that examine the frequency of instances of intentional negative behavior over time provide the capability

272


to examine person–situation interactional influences on behavior at work. That is, such studies have the potential to explain and predict cross-level phenomena, such as the influence on personality on the formation of attitudes (Cullen & Sackett, 2003) or the influence of attitudes on the affect– deviance relationship. For example, Judge et al. (2006) found that trait hostility moderated the injustice–state hostility relationship such that individuals higher in trait hostility reported higher increases in state hostility as a result of perceiving injustice. This study is a good example of a stable individual difference (second-level variable in a multilevel model) moderating the relationship between two fluctuating variables (a first-level relationship). Although examples of such research are rare in the deviance literature, they have been previously used in the examination of other voluntary work behaviors to good effect. For example, Ilies et al. (2006), in an examination of citizenship behavior, found that agreeableness moderated the relationship between mood and citizenship behavior, such that individuals high in agreeableness exhibited more consistent patterns of such behavior (i.e., individuals high in agreeableness exhibited relatively stable levels of citizenship behavior regardless of the positive affect they experienced at work, whereas individuals low in agreeableness showed a marked decrease in such behavior when their positive affect was low). We argue that an adoption of such models into the intentional negative behaviors literature could provide a significant contribution. It should be noted that some of the concerns Bennett and Robinson (2003) raised about the limitations of previous deviance research, such as the overt focus on ‘‘blue-collar’’ deviance and the lack of understanding of how victim characteristics (both on an individual as well as on an organizational level) influence the emergence and characteristics of deviance phenomena, do not necessarily require the implementation of dynamic models in order to be studied; such efforts are, however, fully compatible with the dynamic approach that we support, and could potentially benefit from a dynamic conceptualization from the start.

CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, the study of intentional negative work behavior is an important and fast-growing topic that has both applied and theoretical implications. From a practical perspective, it is important to understand such behaviors because of their pervasive and costly nature, and the potential they have for playing an influential role in organizational success;


273

moreover, they also pose a threat to the well being (financial, psychological, and physical) of the employees who perpetrate such behaviors as well as to those who are the targeted by the same. From a theoretical perspective, it is widely accepted in the field of Industrial and Organizational Psychology that job performance is multidimensional. A common conceptualization is that negative work behaviors (counterproductivity), along with task behaviors and citizenship behaviors, comprise the three major components of performance (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). Thus understanding the causes and consequences of negative work behavior has important implications for theories that seek to explain job performance. Research conducted in the past decade has provided concrete insights that have enhanced our understanding of negative work behaviors. Most notably, we have learned more about the nature of the construct itself, how individual differences and exogenous events relate to negative work behaviors, and how negative work behaviors can be conceptualized as a reaction to discrete events such as perceived injustice. Nonetheless, with few exceptions (e.g., Judge et al., 2006) the research has mostly utilized a static, interindividual perspective. As discussed in this chapter, however, we believe the adoption of approaches such as AET that combine dynamic, multilevel methods with cross-level moderators would be beneficial because they can advance our knowledge in ways that traditional approaches have not. It is our hope that by utilizing such approaches, future research can supplement the traditional paradigm thereby addressing some current limitations and greatly expanding the boundaries of our knowledge of intentional negative work behaviors.

REFERENCES Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In: L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Akers, R. L., Krohn, M. D., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Radosevich, M. (1979). Social learning and deviant behavior: A specific test of a general theory. American Sociological Review, 44, 636–655. Aquino, K. (2000). Structural and individual determinants of workplace victimization: The effects of hierarchical status and conflict management style. Journal of Management, 26, 171–193. Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2001). How employees respond to personal offense: The effects of victim and offender status on revenge and reconciliation in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 52–59. Barrett, L. F., Mesquita, B., Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2007). The experience of emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 373–403.

274


Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349–360. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2003). The past, present and future of workplace deviance research. In: J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (2nd ed., pp. 247–281). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum. Bennett, R. J., & Stamper, C. (2002). Corporate citizenship and deviancy: A study of discretionary work behavior. In: C. Galbraith & M. Ryan (Eds), International Research in the Business Disciplines: Strategies and Organizations in Transition (Vol. 13, pp. 265–284). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier Science. Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410–424. Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M., & Kramer, R. M. (1997). At the breaking point: The good, the bad, and the ugly. In: R. W. Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly & J. M. Collins (Eds), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Violent and deviant behavior (pp. 221–239). Stamford, CT: JAI. Blau, G. (1998). On the aggregation of individual withdrawal behaviors into larger multi-item constructs. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 437–451. Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002). Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 27, 505–522. Brief, A., & Weis, H. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279–307. Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Socialized charismatic leadership, values congruence, and deviance in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 954–962. Carrell, M. R., & Dittrich, J. E. (1978). Equity theory: The recent literature, methodological considerations, and new directions. The Academy of Management Review, 3, 202–210. Case, J. (2000). Employee theft: The profit killer. Del Mar, CA: John Case & Associates. Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1992). Relationships of work stressors with aggression, withdrawal, theft and substance use: An exploratory study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 117–184. Coffin, B. (2003). Breaking the silence on white collar crime. Risk Management, 50, 8. Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 599–609. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445. Cullen, M. J., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Personality and counterproductive workplace behavior. In: M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds), Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp. 150–182). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1241–1255. Diefendorff, J. M., & Mehta, K. (2007). The relations of motivational traits with workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 967–977. Dineen, B. R., Lewicki, R. J., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2006). Supervisory guidance and behavioral integrity: Relationships with employee citizenship and deviant behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 622–635.


275

Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S. L., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J., Gold, Y., Ormerod, A. J., & Weitzman, L. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 152–175. Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). The model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 915–931. Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291–309. Frijda, N. H. (1993). Moods, emotion episodes and emotions. In: M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds), Handbook of emotions (pp. 381–403). New York: Guildford Press. George, J. M. (1989). Mood and absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 317–324. George, J. M. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 191–202. Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561–568. Greenberg, J. (2002). Who stole the money and when? Individual and situational determinants of employee theft. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 985–1003. Greenberg, L., & Barling, J. (1999). Predicting employee aggression against coworkers, subordinates and supervisors: The roles of person behaviors and perceived workplace factors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 897–913. Griffin, R. W., & Lopez, Y. P. (2005). ‘‘Bad Behavior’’ in organizations: A review and typology for future research. Journal of Management, 31, 988–1005. Gruys, M. L. (1999). The dimensionality of deviant employee performance in the workplace. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota. Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 30–42. Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1989). How to measure employee reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 273–279. Hollinger, R. C., & Clarck, J. P. (1982). Formal and informal social controls and employee deviance. The Sociology Quarterly, 23, 333–343. Hunt, S. T. (1996). Generic work behavior: An investigation into the dimensions of hourly job performance. Personnel Psychology, 49, 51–83. Ilies, R., Hauserman, H., Schwochau, S., & Stibal, J. (2003). Reported incidence rates of work – related sexual harassment in the United States using meta-analysis to explain reported rate disparities. Personnel Psychology, 56, 607–631. Ilies, R., Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2006). The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced states on intraindividual patterns of citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 561–575. Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: Test of a multilevel model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 126–138. Kaplan, H. B. (1975). Self-attitudes and deviant behavior. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear. Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2003). By any other name: American perspectives on workplace bullying. In: S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf & C. Cooper (Eds), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 31–61). London: Taylor Francis.

276


Kidwell, R. E., Jr., & Bennett, N. (1993). Employee propensity to withhold effort: A conceptual model to intersect three avenues of research. Academy of Management Review, 18, 429–456. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press. Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131–142. Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (1995). Sexual harassment research: A methodological critique. Personnel Psychology, 48, 841–864. Mangione, T. W., & Quinn, R. P. (1974). Job satisfaction, counterproductive behavior, and drug use at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1, 114–116. Martinko, M. J., Gundlack, M. J., & Douglas, S. C. (2002). Toward an integrative theory of counterproductive workplace behavior: A causal reasoning perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 36–50. Melzer, S. A. (2002). Gender, work, and intimate violence: Men’s occupational violence spillover and compensatory violence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 820–832. Miles, D. E., Borman, W. E., Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). Building an integrative model of extra role work behaviors: A comparison of counterproductive work behavior with organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 51–57. Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1159–1168. Motowidlo, S. J. (2003). Job performance. In: W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski (Eds), Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 39–53). New York: Wiley. Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10, 71–83. Mount, M. K., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 59, 591–622. Murphy, K. R. (1993). Honesty in the workplace. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679–703. Pearson, C. M. (1998). Organizations as targets and triggers of violence: Framing rational explanations for dramatic organizational deviance. In: S. Bacharach (Ed.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 15, pp. 197–223). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Pelled, L. H., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Down and out: An investigation of the relationship between mood and employee withdrawal behavior. Journal of Management, 25, 875–895. Perlow, R., & Latham, L. L. (1993). Relationship of client abuse with locus of control and gender: A longitudinal study in mental retardation facilities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 831–834. Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572. Robinson, S. L., & Greenberg, J. (1998). Employees behaving badly: Dimensions, determinants, and dilemmas in the study of workplace deviance. In: C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 1–30). New York: Wiley.


277

Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 658–672. Rosse, J. G., & Hulin, C. L. (1985). Adaptation to work: An analysis of employee health, withdrawal and change. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 324–347. Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66–80. Sackett, P. R. (2002). The structure of counterproductive work behaviors: Dimensionality and relationships with facets of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 5–11. Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2001). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In: N. Anderson, D. Ones, H. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (pp. 145–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Salgado, J. F. (2002). The big five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 117–125. Siehl, E. W. (1987). Garment workers: Perceptions of inequity and employee theft. British Journal of Criminology, 27, 174–190. Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434–443. Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 269–292. Taylor, S. E. (1991). The asymmetrical impact of positive and negative events: The mobilization–minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 67–85. Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190. Venkataramani, V., & Dalal, R. (2007). Who helps and harms whom? Relational antecedents of interpersonal helping and harming in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 952–966. Viswesvaran, C. (2002). Absenteeism and measures of job performance: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 12–17. Warren, D. E. (2003). Constructive and destructive deviance in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 28, 622–632. Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 1–74. Wheeler, H. N. (1976). Punishment theory and industrial discipline. Industrial Relations, 15, 235–243.

THE LEARNING OF SOCIALIZATION CONTENT: A FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCHING ORIENTATING PRACTICES Howard J. Klein and Aden E. Heuser ABSTRACT This chapter briefly reviews findings from recent socialization research to provide an updated view of the socialization literature. To help advance the literature, this chapter then takes an instructional system approach, viewing socialization fundamentally as a process of learning about a new or changed role and the environment surrounding that role. As such, attention will first be given to further understanding exactly what needs to be learned during socialization. In doing so, an expanded socialization content typology is presented. In addition, two other components are added to this typology to reflect the fact that (a) each of those content dimensions needs to be learned relative to different organizational levels (e.g., job, work group, unit, organization) and (b) socialization occurs over several months and there are temporal considerations relating to the different socialization content dimensions. This chapter then examines how to best facilitate the learning of that expanded socialization content. The Gagne´-Briggs theory of instruction is used in connecting socialization content with the means of learning that content. The socialization and orienting activities commonly used by organizations to help new Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Volume 27, 279–336 Copyright r 2008 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0742-7301/doi:10.1016/S0742-7301(08)27007-6

279

280

HOWARD J. KLEIN AND ADEN E. HEUSER

employees in the adjustment process are also identified and then mapped onto the learning outcomes they could best help facilitate. Finally, the conceptual, measurement, and research needs suggested by these extensions to the socialization literature are identified.

INTRODUCTION Entry into an organization is a critical time for newcomers as they learn to adjust to their new environment while assessing, and possibly questioning, their fit and contributory potential as a new organizational member. This sense-making, learning, and assimilation process is commonly called organizational socialization (Fisher, 1986, Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Although socialization is a continuous process throughout organizational tenure (e.g., as individuals change jobs and jobs change), adjustment during initial entry is generally believed the most intense and problematic. It is during this adjustment period that newcomers’ anxieties and uncertainties about the demands of, and fit with, their new position and organization hopefully lessen (e.g., Saks & Ashforth, 1997). During this ‘‘breaking-in’’ phase newcomers must also overcome ‘‘entry shock’’ arising from discrepancies between their expectations and reality as they cognitively make sense of their new surroundings by attaching meaning to organizational events, practices, and procedures (Jones, 1986; Louis, 1980; Saks & Ashforth, 1997; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). This process involves adjustment not only on the part of the newcomer but also the influence new employees can have on the organization (Ashforth, Sluss, & Harrison, 2007). Although socialization is not limited to the adjustment of organizational newcomers, that is the focus of this chapter. Organizational socialization has been linked to important outcomes for both the organization and new employees. For the organization, socialization helps new employees develop into effective organizational members and facilitates their becoming more productive in their new roles (Feldman, 1981; Fisher, 1986). Socialization has also been linked to increased organizational commitment, job involvement, and tenure (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Fisher, 1986; Jones, 1986). For the individual, socialization has been associated with greater role clarity, job satisfaction, selfconfidence, career involvement, career effectiveness, and personal income, (Chao, O’Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, & Gardner, 1994; Fisher, 1986). Initial socialization experiences of newcomers, including their social interactions

The Learning of Socialization Content

281

and involvement in orienting activities, are believed to impact the establishment of guiding perceptions on the part of the newcomer that govern their continued attitudes and behaviors throughout their organizational tenure (e.g., Ashforth et al., 2007; Fisher, 1986; Morrison, 1993a, 1993b; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Wanous, 1992; Wesson & Gogus, 2005). Newcomer organizational socialization has been examined from a variety of perspectives within the literature. That is, different researchers have tended to focus on different aspects of the socialization process. One perspective has concerned the stages through which newcomers progress (e.g., Buchanan, 1974; Feldman, 1976, 1981; Wanous, 1992). A second perspective focuses on how new hires make sense of their new environment and the role of pre-entry knowledge and newcomer proactivity in facilitating that adjustment (e.g., Jones, 1983; Louis, 1980; Miller & Jablin, 1991; Morrison, 1993a; Nicholson, 1984; Wanous, 1992). A third approach to studying socialization has focused on the role of organizations’ formal socialization tactics and practices (e.g., Jones, 1986; Louis, Posner, & Powell, 1983; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979; Wesson & Gogus, 2005). Yet another approach has focused on how interpersonal communication and relationships with various social agents (within and outside the organization) foster information acquisition and assimilation (e.g., Moreland & Levine, 2001; Morrison, 2002b). Finally, socialization researchers have focused on the content of socialization (e.g., Chao et al., 1994; Feldman, 1981; Fisher, 1986). There have also increasingly been efforts to integrate these approaches and simultaneously examine issues from multiple perspectives (e.g., Griffin, Colella, & Goparaju, 2000; Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003; Klein & Weaver, 2000). This chapter first briefly reviews advancements made to the socialization literature over the last 10 years. To help further advance the literature, this chapter then takes an instructional system approach. There is not a single instructional systems model but rather a set of instructional system models (e.g., Goldstein, 1974). Common to these models is the systematic approach for assessment, design, implementation, and evaluation. Although typically applied to training and development programs, we argue that both the study and practice of socialization can be greatly enhanced by taking a more systematic approach to both formal and informal efforts to facilitate new employee socialization. Taking an instructional systems approach requires first understanding what all new employees need to learn and, based on the nature of those learning needs, designing programs to facilitate the successful acquisition of that content.

282


Toward that end, attention will be given to further understanding exactly what needs to be learned during socialization. In doing so, an expanded socialization content typology – the information and behaviors individuals need to acquire in order to be effective organizational members – that builds upon the Chao et al. (1994) framework will be presented. In addition two other components will be added to this typology to reflect the fact that (a) each of those content dimensions needs to be learned relative to different organizational levels (e.g., job, work group, unit, organization) and (b) socialization occurs over several months and that there are temporal considerations relating to the different socialization content dimensions. Next, this chapter further integrates socialization content and orientating practices by examining how to best facilitate the learning of that expanded socialization content. To achieve this linkage, the Gagne´-Briggs theory of instruction (Gagne´ & Briggs, 1979) is used to articulate the nature of the learning required to master each content dimension. The socialization and orienting activities commonly used by organizations to help new employees in the adjustment process are also identified and then mapped onto the learning outcomes they could best help facilitate, to connect orientating activities to the socialization content dimensions.

RECENT ADVANCES This brief review covers empirical findings reported since 1998 and is loosely structured based on the multi-level process model presented by Saks and Ashforth (1997). Specifically, three sets of socialization factors impact learning which impacts proximal and in turn, distal socialization outcomes. The three socialization factors in Saks and Ashforth (1997) model (organizational, group, and individual) are largely reflective of three of the approaches taken in the study of socialization noted previously, namely organizational tactics and practices, social agents, and newcomer proactivity. Conjointly these approaches are often identified as the antecedents of socialization adjustment (e.g., Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007; Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Within each of these antecedent categories, we summarize the research findings with respect to learning (the socialization content approach) proximal, and then distal outcomes. This organizing framework is illustrated in Fig. 1. The socialization stages approach is not explicitly captured in this framework but our review did not reveal any new research focusing on this perspective.

283


Organizational Tactics and Practices

Social Agents

Newcomer Proactivity

Learning Outcomes (i.e., Mastery of Socialization Content)

Proximal Outcomes (e.g., role clarity, social integration, perceived fit)

Distal Outcomes (e.g., satisfaction, commitment, retention, performance)

Fig. 1.

Framework for Organizing the Socialization Literature.

Organizational Tactics and Practices Organizational socialization tactics and orienting practices are commonly defined as the approaches and activities organizations use to help structure newcomers’ early experiences. These activities typically involve mechanisms by which organizations attempt to mold and shape individual behavior to facilitate the adjustment of new organizational members. The tactics an organization uses not only influences the way information is disseminated to new employees but also the type and source from which that information is received (e.g., Miller & Jablin, 1991). These tactics are also felt to influence newcomers’ interpretation and responses to the information provided (e.g., Louis, 1980; Weick, 1995). The conceptual link between the tactics

284


used by an organization and the subsequent adjustment of the newcomer lies in the reduction of uncertainty (e.g., Berger, 1979). Namely, organizational socialization activities are posited to help facilitate newcomer adjustment by reducing newcomer uncertainty and ambiguity that often accompanies a new job (e.g., Allen, 2006). Through participation in various orienting activities, it is hoped that newcomers gain information, bringing greater clarity and understanding to their role (Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2005; Klein & Weaver, 2000; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Research within this perspective can be grouped into two distinct but related categories, both of which focus on the organization’s role in facilitating newcomer adjustment. The first category concerns the general approach organizations adopt in structuring the socialization experiences of newcomers. The socialization tactics articulated by Van Maanen and Schein (1979), the most thoroughly researched approach to understanding socialization, fall within this category. The second category examines the role of specific socialization activities in facilitating newcomer adjustment. This research focuses on how employees are recruited and hired, the information provided to recruits and new hires (e.g., realistic job previews (RJPs)), and various orientating practices, both formal and informal, once applicants are hired (e.g., orientation training programs). Organizational Socialization Tactics The most frequently utilized typology of organizational socialization tactics was developed by Van Maanen and Schein (1979). Their typology consists of six bipolar tactics: collective (vs. individual), formal (vs. informal), sequential (vs. random), fixed (vs. variable), serial (vs. disjunctive) and investiture (vs. divestiture) tactics. This typology was later reconceptualized by Jones (1986) into three dimensions: context, content, and social aspects as well as a singular continuum where institutionalized socialization tactics includes collective, formal, sequential, fixed, serial and investiture tactics and individualized socialization tactics subsumes individual, informal, random, variable, disjunctive, and divestiture socialization tactics. All three versions continue to be found in recent research, with the single and six dimensional models being most prevalent. Considerable empirical evidence links organizational socialization tactics to socialization outcomes. Looking first at learning outcomes, institutionalized socialization tactics have been linked to increased newcomer learning regarding their role, organization, interpersonal sources, and social aspect of their environment (Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2002). Although prior studies suggested institutionalized tactics can also help foster newcomer task


285

mastery (e.g., Anakwe & Greenhaus, 1999; Saks & Ashforth, 1997), a more recent study (Gruman, Saks, & Zweig, 2006) did not find support for that relationship. Some variance in findings with respect to the single institutionalized vs. individualized tactics may be due to the fact that the outcomes examined may related to some but not all of the six specific tactics within that composite. For example, Hart and Miller (2005) found fixed and serial tactics to lead to information acquisition about performance proficiency. Similarly, while examining proximal rather than learning outcomes, the Bauer et al. (2007) meta-analysis found all six socialization tactics to be positively related to role clarity, all but the formal tactic to be related to self-efficacy, and only fixed, serial and investiture tactics to be related to social acceptance. Continuing with findings regarding proximal outcomes, institutionalized tactics have been shown to foster higher role clarity (e.g., Bauer et al., 2007), lower role conflict (Bravo, Peiro, Rodriguez, & Whitely, 2003; Gruman et al., 2006), higher newcomer proactivity, lower anxiety, lower role innovation, increased expatriate adjustment (Feldman, Folks, & Turnley, 1998; Harvey & Kiessling, 2004; Palthe, 2004), fewer perceived psychological contract violations (Robinson & Morrison, 2000), and higher social integration (Anakwe & Greenhaus, 1999; Bravo et al., 2003; Gruman et al., 2006). Newcomers experiencing fixed and serial tactics at organizational entry have also been shown to have better relations with supervisors and coworkers two years afterwards than those initially receiving less social support (Bravo et al., 2003). Fixed, collective, and investiture tactics have also been found to be positively related to newcomer on-the-job embeddedness (Allen, 2006). Newcomers experiencing structured and formalized socialization tactics are also more likely to engage in proactive behaviors of information and feedback seeking, relationship building, and general socializing than those participating in more individualized programs (Gruman et al., 2006). The link between organizational socialization tactics and fit, another proximal outcome, has been examined in several recent studies (Cable & Parsons, 2001; Cooper-Thomas, van Vianen, & Anderson, 2004; Gruman et al., 2006; Kim, Cable, & Kim, 2005; Riordan, Weatherly, Vandenberg, & Self, 2001). For example, Cable and Parsons (2001), using the three dimensional framework, found newcomers who experienced content and social socialization tactics reported greater subjective person-organization (PO) fit perceptions while context socialization tactics were not related to fit perceptions. Using the singular dimension, Kim et al. (2005) and Gruman et al. (2006) similarly found institutionalized socialization tactics to be

286


positively related to newcomer subjective fit with the organization and job respectively. Organizational socialization tactics have also been examined with respect to distal socialization outcomes. In their meta-analysis, Bauer et al. (2007) found individuals experiencing institutionalized socialization tactics expressed higher job satisfaction than individuals experiencing individualized socialization programs. Institutionalized socialization tactics have also been consistently related to higher organizational commitment (e.g., Cooper-Thomas et al., 2004) and negatively related to work withdrawal (Bauer et al., 2007). Only a few studies have examined mediators and moderators of socialization tactics and outcomes. Investiture and serial socialization tactics have been found to be negatively related to newcomer turnover, with on-the-job embeddedness partially mediating the effects of investiture tactics (Allen, 2006). Information acquisition has been found to mediate the relationship between institutional socialization tactics and both job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2002). Newcomer positive framing, general socializing, and proactive relationship building with one’s boss were found to moderate the relationship between socialization tactics and newcomer PO fit perceptions (Kim et al., 2005). Feedback and information seeking have also been found to moderate the relationship between institutional socialization tactics and PO fit perceptions, social integration, job satisfaction, and intent to return (Gruman et al., 2006). Orientation Programs Research in this category examines the effectiveness of specific socialization activities, practices, and policies, formal or informal, put in place by the organization to facilitate newcomer adjustment. Relatively few studies were located for this category, with the majority of those focusing on formal organization-level orientation programs (Klein & Weaver, 2000; Wesson & Gogus, 2005) and a single study examining department-level orientation programs (Holladay, Donnelly, Murray, & Halverson (2006). Two additional studies examined the perceived usefulness and effectiveness of several specific new employee development activities (Holton, 2001; Slattery, Selvarajan, & Anderson, 2006). Formal organizational orientation programs are commonly characterized as training programs intended to introduce new employees to the organization and the people comprising it (Klein & Weaver, 2000). These training programs can take many different forms (e.g., Anderson, Cunningham-Snell, & Haigh, 1996; Louis et al., 1983), varying in how they are administered (e.g., formal training programs,


287

informal orienting activities by peers and supervisors, computer-based programs) as well as in the type of information they provide. Despite the prevalent use of orientation programs in practice, relatively little empirical research has examined the usefulness, optimal content, structure, or timing of orientation programs as socializing activities and even less attention has been paid to other specific orienting practices. Although only a few studies have examined formal orientation programs, these studies have established a link between orientation programs and newcomer learning, contrary to earlier concerns as to whether formal orientation programs helped foster newcomer adjustment (e.g., Anderson et al., 1996; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). In terms of learning outcomes, formal orientation programs have been shown to help facilitate the learning of the organization’s history, people, goals and values (Klein & Weaver, 2000; Wesson & Gogus, 2005). What content is learned obviously depends on the objectives and content of the specific training program and the delivery method used can also differentially impact these learning outcomes as demonstrated by Wesson and Gogus (2005). Specifically, using a ‘‘socialbased’’ delivery mode was more effective in impacting more ‘‘socially rich’’ learning content areas (e.g., people, values) whereas no delivery mode differences were observed with respect to more ‘‘information-based’’ content areas (e.g., language, history). In terms of proximal outcomes, Wesson and Gogus (2005) found that participants in the social-based session had greater role understanding than computer-based participants. Orientation programs have also been linked to distal socialization outcomes. Klein and Weaver (2000) found employees attending a voluntary orientation program exhibited greater organizational affective commitment than employees who did not attend. Wesson and Gogus (2005) found both commitment and job satisfaction to be lower for those employees receiving the computer-based orientation program than the social-based program. Summary Over the past decade a considerable amount of research has examined the relationship between organizational socialization tactics and important outcomes of socialization beyond that of role orientation. Since the Saks and Ashforth’s (1997) and Bauer, Morrison, and Callister (1998) reviews, more studies have begun to investigate the effects of socialization tactics on proximal outcomes of newcomer fit perceptions, learning, task mastery, role clarity, and social integration. Although support for a direct relationship between institutionalized socialization tactics and several distal outcomes of socialization has been well established in the literature, a significant

288


contribution of the past decade is increased understanding of critical mediators and moderators of those relationships. Although more research is needed, it is encouraging to see that at least some studies have begun to examine the interacting effects of organizational socialization tactics with newcomer proactive behaviors and personality on both proximal indicators of newcomer adjustment and more distally related outcomes of socialization.

Social Agents Social agents are individuals or groups who facilitate the adjustment of newcomers by providing ‘‘information, feedback, role models, social relationships and support, as well as access to broader networks and work-relevant resources’’ (Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2006, p. 495) and a sense of social validation (Ashforth, 2001). Several different types of socializing agents have been identified in the literature including supervisors, coworkers, team members, colleagues from other departments, mentors, and other individuals outside of the organization. These social agents are believed to help facilitate newcomer adjustment by helping them make sense of (Louis, 1980) and develop an identity in their new environment (Ashforth, 2001; Reichers, 1987; Sluss & Ashforth, 2007). Some researchers contend that newcomer adjustment arises primarily through these social interactions (Moreland & Levine, 2001; Reichers, 1987) and that these information exchanges help build the relationships necessary for social acceptance and integration (Bauer & Green, 1998; Chan & Schmitt, 2000; Jablin, 2001). The most frequently examined social agents are supervisors and coworkers and these two types of agents have been found to differentially impact learning and proximal outcomes. Bravo et al. (2003), for example, found a negative association between newcomers’ relations with superiors and their role conflict but not role ambiguity. Coworker relations, on the other hand, were found by Bravo et al. (2003) to be positively related to newcomers’ role conflict and negatively related to role ambiguity. Kammeyer-Mueller and Wanberg (2003) found that leader influence positively related to political knowledge but not group integration whereas coworker influence positively related to group integration but not task mastery. Similar differences in that same study were evident for distal outcomes as leader influence was significantly related to reduced turnover but not organizational affective commitment while coworker influence was related to commitment but not turnover. Social agents have also been found


289

to influence other distal outcomes as Riordan et al. (2001) demonstrated that the availability and helpfulness of role models was associated with higher organizational commitment and lower turnover intentions. Similarly, Klein, Fan, and Preacher (2006) found learning of organizational goals and values mediated the relationship between socialization agent helpfulness and affective organizational commitment, while learning of people only partially mediated this relationship. Newcomer learning of people, politics, and mastery of performance were found to fully mediate the effect of agent helpfulness on role clarity but only the people dimension partially mediated the effects on job satisfaction (Klein et al., 2006). Research further shows that personality may moderate the impact of social agents, as Bauer, Erdogan, Liden, and Wayne (2006) found leader member exchange (LMX) to be linked to higher job performance, lower turnover intensions, and lower actual turnover among introverted, but not extroverted new executives. The types of relationships (technical/informational vs. friendship/social) as well as the type of information newcomers acquire from supervisors (performance feedback) versus coworkers (job-specific knowledge, normative information) also matters. Chan and Schmitt (2000) examined the interaction between information type and information source and found that ‘‘the extent to which newcomers seek technical information decreases over time when the information source is coworkers (consistent with Smith, 1993) but remains constant when the source is the supervisor. On the other hand, the extent to which newcomers seek referent information increases over time when the information source is the supervisor but remains constant when the source is coworkers’’ (p. 207). They also found that as tenure increases, newcomers become less concerned with fitting in and engaging in relationship building with coworkers and more concerned with performance feedback. Thus, although earlier research suggested that newcomers acquire more information from coworkers than from any other sources (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992), the Chan and Schmitt (2000) results suggest this depends on tenure and the type of information. Mentors have received less attention as social agents, perhaps because they are not as universally available to newcomers (Holton, 2001; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). Yet recent studies indicate that positive relationships exist between mentoring and socialization outcomes (e.g., Lankau & Scandura, 2002). Allen, McManus, and Russell (1999) found different forms of mentoring to be differentially related to socialization learning outcomes. Psychosocial mentoring was found to be significantly positively related to the politics and performance proficiency dimensions while career-related mentoring related significantly to the people socialization dimension

290


(Allen et al., 1999). Contrary to prior research, however, neither form of mentoring was related to the goals and values dimension in the Allen et al. study. Schrodt, Cawyer and Sanders (2003) found faculty prote´ge´s had a stronger sense of ownership of their departments, felt more connected in their work environment, and received more adequate information about expectations of and opportunities in the organization than non-mentored faculty (Schrodt et al., 2003). Social networks have also been studied to examine the collective role of social agents in facilitating newcomer socialization. Morrison (2002b) examined the social network patterns most conducive to effective newcomer socialization. Contrary to expectations, the status of newcomers’ informational network was not related to learning of organizational knowledge. Social integration was stronger for newcomers who had larger rather than smaller networks. Newcomers were also found to distinguish between informational sources and friends, ‘‘with the former having greater impact on the newcomers’ learning and the latter having greater impact on assimilation’’ (Morrison, 2002b, p. 1157). A final area of research related to social agents has examined the collective influence of team members on the socialization of newcomers to teams (Ahuja & Galvin, 2003; Chen, 2005; Chen & Klimoski, 2003). Chen and Klimoski (2003) found individual differences, motivational, and interpersonal processes conjointly influenced newcomer feelings of empowerment and role performance. In a later study, Chen (2005) also explored how these factors influence socialization in teams over time. Newcomer empowerment and team expectations impacted newcomers’ initial levels of performance, but not later performance, with later performance being largely a function of the team’s effectiveness. In addition, more adaptive newcomers demonstrated greater performance improvement than less adaptive newcomers. Furthermore, newcomer performance improvement was positively associated with subsequent team performance, but was unrelated to subsequent newcomer empowerment or turnover intensions. Summary Research in this area has primarily examined differences among various types of social agents, largely supervisors and coworkers, and the role they play in the socialization process. These studies indicate that certain agents are more relevant for certain socialization content domains than others. The influence of co-workers as socialization agents has been recently extended to team contexts. Other studies have examined the consequences of the availability or helpfulness of social agents on newcomer socialization, rather


291

than the type of agent. Research has also begun to examine the role of social agents by examining how social networks facilitate newcomer adjustment. As a whole, it is clear that social agents play a critical but complex role in relating to socialization outcomes.

Newcomer Proactivity Research in this area examines the role newcomers play in facilitating their own adjustment and includes how new employees develop and test expectations (e.g., Sutton & Griffin, 2004; Taris, Feij, & Capel, 2006; De Vos, Buyens, & Schalk, 2003), take proactive steps to obtain information about their new environment (e.g., Crant, 2000; Morrison, 2002a), deal with surprises encountered, and make sense of their new role. Of these issues, only research on proactive behaviors has received considerable attention over the past decade. Although a variety of proactive behaviors and tactics have been identified in the literature, proactivity refers to any behavior by which the newcomer takes initiative in order to improve existing circumstances or to create new ones (Crant, 2000; Gruman et al., 2006). Researchers have examined the antecedents of proactivity as well as the range of behaviors that constitute proactivity. Although there has been some debate regarding antecedents (Crant, 2000), research has shown that newcomer decisions to engage in proactive behaviors are influenced by individual differences (e.g., Ashford & Black, 1996; Chan & Schmitt, 2000; Finkelstein, Kulas, & Dages, 2003; Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003; De Vos et al., 2003; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000) as well as contextual and social variables that provide situational cues (e.g., Gruman et al., 2006; Kim et al., 2005; Morrison & Phelps, 1999). Those proactive behaviors can be aimed at acquiring information, seeking feedback, and/or building relationships and social networks (e.g., Crant, 2000; Griffin et al., 2000; Gruman et al., 2006; Jones, 1983; Miller & Jablin, 1991; Morrison, 2002a, 2000b). A newcomer’s outlook or ‘‘positive framing’’ of socialization experiences (e.g., Ashford & Black, 1996; Kim et al., 2005; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000) and self management tactics (e.g., Maier & Brunstein, 2001; Porath & Bateman, 2006; Saks & Ashforth, 1996) have also been considered proactive behaviors. Of these, proactive personality and information and feedback seeking have received the most empirical attention in the past decade as summarized in the next sections followed by a brief discussion of other, less often, examined aspects of newcomer proactivity.

292


Individual Differences Several newcomer characteristics have been examined as predictors of proactive behavior. Self-efficacy has been researched as a direct and mediating antecedent of socialization outcomes. In general, individuals higher in self-efficacy are more likely to engage in proactive behaviors. Gruman et al. (2006), for example, found self-efficacy to be a significant antecedent to several (e.g., feedback and information seeking, networking, and relationship building with supervisor) but not all (job change negotiation) newcomer proactive behaviors even when controlling for organizational socialization tactics. Gruman et al. (2006) further found that newcomer proactivity partially mediates the relationship between both selfefficacy and institutionalized socialization tactics, and socialization outcomes including PO fit, social integration, and job satisfaction. Overall, the relationships between self-efficacy and socialization outcomes are mixed (Bauer et al., 1998). Self-efficacy has generally been positively linked to social integration, person-job and PO fit perceptions, and task mastery. Data are inconsistent or non-supportive regarding role clarity, role ambiguity, role overload, unmet expectations, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational identification, and intentions to quit (Gruman et al., 2006; Saks & Ashforth, 2000). Negative affectivity (NA) has also been examined in the literature, however, support for its relationship with proactivity and socialization outcomes has been weak (Saks & Ashforth, 2000). Saks and Ashforth (2000) did not find NA to be related to work adjustment outcomes of role clarity, role ambiguity, role overload, or unmet expectations. NA was found to be positively related to newcomer frustration and stress symptoms, however, contrary to expectations NA was not found to be related to most other outcomes of socialization (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational identification, intentions to quit) with the exception of a negative relationship with self-reported job performance (Saks & Ashforth, 2000). Personality traits have also been linked to proactivity reflecting hypotheses that dispositional tendencies partially explain why some individuals are more proactive in seeking out information and actively work to control their environment. One such trait, termed proactive personality, is defined as an individual’s disposition toward proactive behavior (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Crant, 2000). The few studies that have empirically examined the role of proactive personality in facilitating socialization have shown it to relate positively to task mastery, work group integration, and political knowledge (Chan & Schmitt, 2000; Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003). Results


293

between these two studies were mixed, however, with regard to role clarity. Wanberg and Kammeyer-Mueller (2000) examined the Five Factor Model personality traits and found extraversion and openness to experience, to be differentially related to outcomes of proactivity whereas the remaining three dimensions, agreeableness, neuroticism, and conscientiousness, were not significantly related to proactive socialization variables. Specifically, they found that extroverted individuals sought more feedback and participated in more relationship building activities than introverted individuals. Individuals high in openness were found to seek more feedback and engage in positive framing than those low in openness. Information and Feedback Seeking Behaviors Newcomer information and feedback seeking have been the most frequently examined proactive behaviors (Bauer et al., 1998; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Information seeking is important for newcomers because it helps to reduce their uncertainty as well as supplement the information provided by other, more formal socialization activities (Miller & Jablin, 1991). It has been suggested that newcomers seek information to gain competence, selfevaluate, correct errors, and manage impressions (Ashford & Cummings, 1983; Morrison & Bies, 1991). Both the types of information sought (e.g., technical, referent) and the source from which the information is best obtained have been found to influence newcomer information-seeking strategies (e.g., Griffin et al., 2000; Miller, 1996; Morrison, 2002a). Newcomers acquire information from both social agents, discussed previously, and ‘‘non-interpersonal’’ sources (e.g., observation, experimentation, and objective referents such as employee handbooks or websites) using both overt and covert tactics to acquire that information (Ashford & Cummings, 1983; Griffin et al., 2000; Miller & Jablin, 1991). A number of factors are believed to enter into newcomers’ decisionmaking regarding the type of information to seek, when to seek it, and the best tactics and sources by which to obtain that information (Morrison, 2002a). Both social costs (e.g., Morrison & Vancouver, 2000) and the perceived difficulty of obtaining the information are considered along with the costs and benefits associated with direct (e.g., face-loss) versus indirect (e.g., proneness to misinterpretation errors) information seeking tactics when deciding upon the best information seeking approach (Miller, 1996). Other variables such as characteristics of the individual (e.g., proactive personality, prior transition experience, pre-entry knowledge), characteristics of available information sources (accessibility, credibility, supportiveness), and characteristics of the organizational context (e.g., norms,

294


evaluation criteria) and the socialization tactics used also influence newcomer proactive information seeking behaviors (Chan & Schmitt, 2000; Gruman et al., 2006; Morrison, 2002a; Morrison & Vancouver, 2000; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). As briefly noted earlier when discussing social agents, it appears that the type of information sought varies temporally, with newcomers most frequently seeking information regarding how to perform their jobs (e.g., technical/ task information) shortly after entry (e.g., Chan & Schmitt, 2000). However, as time passes newcomers more frequently seek feedback on how well they are performing (Jablin, 2001; Chan & Schmitt, 2000). Research also suggests that newcomers vary their use of tactics and type of sources depending on the type of information desired (Chan & Schmitt, 2000). Recent research further suggests that the type of information sought will differentially impact newcomer adjustment. Namely, seeking normative information was related to feelings of social integration while seeking technical information and appraisal feedback was positively related to perceived job mastery and role clarity (Chan & Schmitt, 2000; Morrison, 1993a). Chan and Schmitt (2000) also examined the information type by source interaction as described previously. An interesting unexpected finding in that study was that newcomers with less transition experience increased their referent information seeking from supervisors more rapidly than those with more transition experience. Other recent studies examining the effects of information and feedback seeking behaviors have yielded mixed results concerning learning, proximal and distal socialization outcomes. Feedback seeking has been found to be positively related to job satisfaction and lower turnover (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000) but not to task mastery, social integration, or role clarity (Gruman et al., 2006; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). Gruman et al. (2006) found that feedback and information seeking behaviors moderated the relationships between socialization tactics and PO fit, social integration, and job satisfaction, but Kim et al. (2005) did not find information and feedback seeking to moderate the relationship between institutionalized socialization tactics and perceptions of PO fit. Other Proactive Behaviors Other types of newcomer proactivity, positive framing and relationship and social network building, have also been explored but to a lesser degree. Beginning with proximal outcomes, newcomer relationship building has been found to be positively related to newcomer social integration and role clarity (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000) and relationship building


295

with the supervisor specifically has been found to replace the effects of institutionalized socialization tactics on newcomer perceived PO fit (Gruman et al., 2006). However, institutionalized tactics were a significant predictor of PO fit for newcomers that did not develop a strong relationship with their supervisor (Kim et al., 2005; Gruman et al., 2006). The size of a newcomer’s information network was positively related to organizational knowledge (Morrison, 2002b), but information network density and tie strength were, counter to expectations, unrelated to organizational knowledge (Morrison, 2002b). Turning to distal outcomes, positive framing has been found to be positively related with newcomer job satisfaction but unrelated to intent to turnover and actual turnover behavior (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). Newcomer positive framing was also found to moderate the relationship between institutionalized socialization tactics and PO fit such that as newcomers’ use of positive framing increased, the relationship between institutionalized socialization tactics and perceived PO fit became stronger (Gruman et al., 2006; Kim et al., 2005). Summary Early socialization research was criticized for not considering the role and actions of the newcomer, but that is no longer the case. Research examining the importance of newcomers in facilitating their own adjustment has increased substantially and considerably more is known about the antecedents and outcomes of various types of newcomer proactivity. Some characteristics of the newcomer have received attention, but other individual differences (e.g., personality, demographics, prior work and transition experience, pre-entry knowledge) could be expected to not only impact proactive behaviors but also to have direct effects on socialization learning outcomes and should influence how companies structure orientating activities for newcomers. Similarly, the role of new employee expectations and psychological contracts need to be examined further with respect to proactivity and socialization outcomes. Several different types of newcomer proactive behaviors have been examined in the recent literature and found to differentially impact socialization outcomes. There are some inconsistent findings which need to be resolved but in general, newcomer proactive behaviors have been shown to be positively related to numerous proximal and distal socialization outcomes. To summarize our review of the past decade’s research, great strides have been made in understanding the process of organizational socialization and the interactive relationships among the multiple factors that contribute to socialization. Of particular note has been the increased understanding of the

296


interactive effects of both organizational socialization tactics and newcomer proactive behaviors on important outcomes. Although much work remains within this realm, it is only by examining how various socialization factors (e.g., individual, social agents, organization) collectively contribute to the process of socialization that the process of organizational socialization can be fully understood. Future research should continue to examine the role of both formal and informal socializing activities and how social agents contribute to the learning process. In addition, past studies have often not differentiated between learning and proximal outcomes even though learning is a necessary precondition for those proximal outcomes. Greater attention needs to be given to learning outcomes as learning is the most direct socialization outcome. To facilitate a greater focus on the learning of socialization content, we next turn our attention to further understanding exactly what needs to be learned during socialization.

SOCIALIZATION CONTENT This section provides an overview of the content learning approach, noted in the previous section when reporting results concerning socialization learning outcomes. After summarizing the approach, the advantages of this approach will be discussed, the different typologies in the literature described and contrasted, and the criticisms of those typologies summarized. The socialization content approach views socialization as primarily a learning process in which newcomers acquire a variety of information, attitudes, and behaviors in order to become more effective organizational members (Chao et al., 1994; Fisher, 1986). The focus within this approach has been on demarcating and measuring the distinct knowledge domains that all newcomers need to master for successful adjustment. Recent models of socialization (e.g., Saks & Ashforth, 1997) have recognized the central role that learning plays in facilitating newcomer adjustment and exactly what newcomers need to learn has received increased attention. One advantage of the content learning approach is that it recognizes that employees may reach varying levels of socialization on each of the content areas at different points in their tenure with the organization (Chao et al., 1994). The second main advantage is that socialization content domains provide a more direct set of criteria for assessing the extent or degree to which an individual is socialized in each distinct content area and for assessing the impact of antecedents to socialization. The most immediate outcomes of the socialization process are changes in knowledge


297

(Fisher, 1986). The most appropriate criteria are therefore indicators of the learning that occurs during the socialization process (Chao et al., 1994). The alternative is to use proximal or distal outcomes as secondary criteria or to infer a newcomer’s degree of socialization from proxy measures such as length of tenure (Chao et al., 1994; Fisher, 1986). The problem with using secondary criteria is that, while they are impacted by successful socialization, they are also influenced by a multiplicity of factors other than socialization (Chao et al., 1994; Fisher, 1986; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). As such, it is unclear if the observed relationships are the result of socialization and/or those extraneous factors.

Existing Typologies Several socialization learning typologies have been advanced in the literature; five of which have associated measures and are briefly described below. The first is Ostroff and Kozlowski’s (1992) four-domain measure comprised of task, role, group, and organization dimensions. A second typology, presented by Haueter, Macan, and Winter (2003) has three dimensions (organization, group, and work) and is most similar to Ostroff and Kozlowski’s. The primary difference among the two is the conceptualization of role. Ostroff and Kozlowski (1992) identified role as a separate dimension encompassing the newcomer’s understanding of responsibilities and expectations for their position (particularly as it relates to how their job has been designed), but Haueter et al. (2003) acknowledge the importance of and variance in role across multiple levels and therefore integrate role demands within their other three dimensions. A third model, offered by Taormina (1994, 2004) consists of training, coworker support, understanding, and future prospects. The learning content is provided within understanding, which is conceptualized as the employee’s comprehension of how the organization functions and how to operate within it including knowledge of organizational goals, personal work roles, and organizational operations. Note that unlike the first two typologies, this framework does not differentiate the content to be learned by different levels within the organization. A fourth typology was presented by Cooper-Thomas and Anderson (2002) and consists of the dimensions of role, social, organization knowledge, and interpersonal resources. The organization knowledge dimension in this typology is similar to Taormina’s understanding dimension. A unique component in the Cooper-Thomas and Anderson (2002) typology is the interpersonal

298


resources dimension representing the importance of social networks in newcomer socialization. The final typology is that provided by Chao et al. (1994) who identified six specific knowledge dimensions: history, language, goals and values, politics, people, and performance proficiency. These knowledge domains represent the content of socialization that needs to be learned across levels. As such, direct comparisons are difficult to the Ostroff and Kozlowski (1992) or Haueter et al. (2003) typologies but can be made to some of Cooper-Thomas and Anderson’s (1998) and Taormina’s (1994). Chao et al.’s people dimension is most similar to Cooper-Thomas and Anderson’s social dimension, although the later assesses the outcomes of social acceptance and integration rather than actual learning. The performance proficiency dimension in the Chao et al. (1994) typology is similar to Cooper-Thomas and Anderson’s (2002) role dimension but both conceptually confound task-related learning with the proximal outcome of task mastery. In this respect, the task dimension in both the Ostroff and Kozlowski’s (1992) and Haueter et al. (2003) typologies more directly conceptualize the learning that needs to occur to perform one’s workrelated tasks. Finally, several of the Chao et al. (1994) dimensions, particularly the politics and goals/values dimensions, more specifically cover Taormina’s (1994) understanding dimension and Cooper-Thomas and Anderson’s (1998) organizational knowledge dimension. Most of these typologies, with the exception of the Haueter et al. (2003), do not sufficiently differentiate between socialization learning outcomes and the proximal socialization outcomes thought to result from that learning (e.g., task mastery, role clarity, social integration). In other words, some dimensions overlap with (or their corresponding measurement scales include items that tap) proximal outcomes. This overlap is problematic as it creates conceptual confusion and can potentially over inflate the relationships observed between socialization learning and proximal outcomes. Ideally, socialization learning content dimensions should only include the knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes that need to be acquired in order to result in proximal socialization outcomes such as task mastery, role clarity, and social integration. The other main differences between the typologies concern whether to primarily differentiate what needs to be learned by level or content as well as how to represent role. Although socialization needs to occur relative to all levels, we believe that the identification of specific learning content areas (e.g., culture/values, rules/policies) as Chao et al. (1994) had done, allows a more precise representation of the mastery of socialization content as long as it is recognized that those content areas need to be mastered relative to each level and that the nature and

299


importance of that content may differ depending on the level. As for the learning of one’s role, we take the position that learning one’s role involves the mastery of multiple content learning areas across all levels. Among the socialization typologies and scales, the Chao et al. (1994) typology and accompanying scale have been the most favorably received in the literature (Bauer et al., 2007) and characterized as being one of the most comprehensive measures of socialization to date (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). The Chao et al. (1994) socialization learning content typology is comprised of six dimensions. Those dimensions are presented in Table 1. The Chao et al. (1994) scale was designed to assess the degree to which a newcomer had learned about various knowledge content areas thought critical for their adjustment. Chao et al.’s six content areas represent a good beginning but other content areas exist (Saks & Ashforth, 1997) and Chao et al. never meant their typology to be comprehensive. Several authors have noted limitations with both the dimensions and the scale developed to assess those dimensions (e.g., Bauer et al., 1998; Haueter et al., 2003; Klein & Weaver, 2000; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). As noted by Bauer et al. (1998), some of the Chao et al. (1994) dimensions are conceptually multidimensional and very broad. Goals and values are, for example, distinct constructs that are combined into one content dimension. Furthermore, other knowledge areas (e.g., Rules and Policies) deemed critical to the socialization process are excluded (e.g., Taormina, 2004). Another criticism is that some scale items assess learning while others address the application or integration of that Table 1. Chao et al.’s 1994 Socialization Learning Content Typology. Dimension Performance Proficiency People Politics

Language

Organizational Goals and Values History

Definition ‘‘the extent to which the individual has learned the tasks involved on the job’’ (p. 731) ‘‘establishing successful and satisfying work relationships with organizational members’’ (p. 731) ‘‘the individual’s success in gaining information regarding formal and informal work relationships and power structures within the organization’’ (p. 732) ‘‘the individual’s knowledge of the profession’s technical language as well as knowledge of the acronyms, slang, and jargon that are unique to the organization’’ (p. 732) ‘‘the learning of specific organizational goals and values y also extends to unwritten, informal, tacit goals and values espoused by members who are in powerful or controlling position’’ (p. 732) ‘‘an organization’s traditions, customs, myths, and rituals’’ (p. 732)

300


learning, the issue noted above regarding the overlap between learning and proximal outcomes. A final issue with the Chao et al. (1994) scale is that most of the items refer to socialization at the organizational level but some items assess content learning regarding the job, work group, or one’s trade or profession. Because some but not all dimensions include items for these different levels, some items may be inappropriate for some studies without alterations to the scales which could potentially compromise the integrity of the measure. The fact that items assess different levels as well as different content areas may explain the problems some studies have had replicating the factor structure reported by Chao et al. (1994). The results of smaller sample factor analyses do not invalidate the results from a large sample study, but the scale intercorrelations, reported in the Chao et al. (1994) study are larger than what might be desired among distinct dimensions. Despite these limitations, the Chao et al. (1994) typology is the least problematic, contains the fewest dimensions that confound outcomes with learning content, and has been the most widely used of the frameworks currently available within the literature. In addition, many of the Chao et al. (1994) dimensions have been empirically linked to both orientating practices and socialization outcomes as reviewed in the first part of this chapter. As such, it offers the strongest foundation for conceptual clarification and expansion.

EXPANDED SOCIALIZATION LEARNING CONTENT TYPOLOGY Building from the above comparison and critique of existing learning content typologies, an expanded 12 dimension typology of socialization content is proposed based on the work of Chao et al. (1994). The socialization and related literatures (e.g., expatriate adjustment, adaptation, culture) informed the conceptualization of each dimension with the theoretical underpinnings for our expanded typology based on the work of Schein (1968), Feldman (1981), Fisher (1986), and Reicher’s (1986). Two of the Chao et al. (1994) dimensions, Language and History were retained without substantial change. A third, Performance Proficiency, was refined slightly to better differentiate it from task mastery (a proximal outcome) and renamed for conceptual clarity. The remaining three Chao et al. (1994) dimensions, People, Politics, and Goals and Values were each reconceptualized and subdivided to isolate distinct aspects of socialization. In addition,

301


three new content dimensions were added based on omissions noted by others and our own review of the literature. Each of these twelve content dimensions are defined in Table 2 and described in the paragraphs that follow. The proposed typology focuses on the content of what needs to be learned rather than level. However, the proposed typology recognizes that nearly all of the content dimensions are relevant and need to be learned relative to multiple levels and the need to develop measures of these content dimensions that can be adapted to target specific levels. Table 2. Expanded Dimensions of Socialization Content. Dimension

Construct Definition

Language

The extent to which the individual has learned the unique technical language, acronyms, slang, and jargon The extent to which the individual has learned the history, traditions, origins, and changes The extent to which the individual has learned the necessary job knowledge and skills needed to successfully perform required ‘‘inrole’’ tasks The extent to which the individual has learned the necessary information about others to establish effective working relationships including the learning of work colleagues’ expectations, needs, and working styles The extent to which the individual has learned the necessary information about others to develop a network of social relationships including the extent to which an individual has learned personal things about a work colleague (i.e., common interests, family) The extent to which the individual has learned the formal structure including the physical layout and where formal responsibility and authority is assigned The extent to which the individual has learned the informal power structure including where actual control of resources, decision making, and influence over decisions resides The extent to which the individual has learned the current product/ market mix, competitive position, mission, goals and strategies The extent to which the individual has learned the customs, myths, rituals, beliefs, and values including guiding principles, symbols, and ideology The extent to which the individual has learned the formal workplace rules, policies, and procedures The extent to which the individual has learned the implicit rules, norms, and procedures of the workplace The extent to which the individual has learned what is offered in exchange for their contributions including pay, development opportunities, benefits, and intangibles

History Task Proficiency

Working Relationships Social Relationships

Structure

Politics

Goals and Strategy Culture and Values Rules and Policies Navigation Inducements

302


Retained Dimensions History The history of an organization often explains why it operates as it does, and how it reacts to various situations. That history may be rooted in the personality(ies) of its founder(s) or others who are viewed as having had a profound influence on the organization’s success or failure (Schneider, 1987). Understanding the history of an organization allows an individual to understand why people behave in a certain fashion in response to a specific stimulus and as such serves as a guide to an employee regarding the expected behavior. Knowledge of history thus allows employees to behave appropriately in given circumstances and the extent to which an employee exhibits ‘‘normal’’ behavior is an indication of how well an employee ‘‘fits in’’ (Schein, 1968). Conversely, a lack of knowledge of history can unintentionally result in behavior that is considered non-conforming (Ritti & Funkhouser, 1987). In addition, an understanding of history is necessary to successfully effect change, as existing practices, concerns, and potential bases for resistance are rooted in that history. Thus, the mastery of history allows for both conformity, and for being a change agent when necessary. The history dimension in the current typology is conceptually consistent with the Chao et al. (1994) dimension and is defined as the extent to which the individual has learned the history, traditions, origins, and changes.

Language Terminology may be defined in a context that is unique to a specific job, work group, other sub-units within the company or within the organizational environment. An understanding of that contextual meaning is necessary to communicate effectively with other organizational members. Mastery of unique terms is also needed to comprehend procedures, expectations, and both role and task requirements. In addition to the cognitive role of language (facilitating communication and learning) there is also a social role in that being able to speak the same language facilitates social integration by eliminating an explicit indicator that one is not yet an insider. Language is a unifying force in a societal sense, and serves a similar unifying role in organizations. The level of mastery of the language that is specific to an organization (or subgroup within that organization) is an indicator of how well an individual is integrated into that organization (or subgroup). The Language dimension in the current typology is largely consistent conceptually to that provided by Chao et al. (1994) and defined as


303

the extent to which the individual has learned the unique technical language, acronyms, slang, and jargon. Task Proficiency The importance of newcomers’ learning of how to perform their jobs is well documented in the literature (e.g., Morrison, 1993a, 1993b) and the acquisition of job-related knowledge, skills, and behaviors is integral to newcomer adjustment (Dubinsky, Howell, Ingram, & Bellenger, 1986; Feldman, 1981; Fisher, 1986; Katz, 1980; Louis, 1980; Morrison, 1993a, 1993b; Reichers, 1987; Taormina, 2004; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). In its simplest form, task proficiency is how successfully an employee learned to perform the expected ‘‘in-role’’ tasks. As a learning content dimension, the focus is on mastering the knowledge and skills required to successfully perform those tasks. Through socialization newcomers must learn the tasks that fall within the scope of their responsibility, understand how those tasks need to be performed, master the knowledge and skills needed to perform those tasks at the expected level of proficiency, and be able to successfully perform those tasks at that level. This dimension overlaps considerably with the one Chao et al. (1994) termed performance proficiency but has been refined to better differentiate it from task mastery (a proximal outcome) and renamed. Task proficiency is defined as the extent to which the individual has learned the necessary job knowledge and skills needed to successfully perform required in-role tasks.

Modified Dimensions Three of the Chao et al. (1994) dimensions were subdivided and conceptually modified. First, the Chao et al. (1994) ‘‘people’’ dimension was divided into two separate dimensions, a ‘‘Working Relationships’’ dimension and a separate ‘‘Social Relationships’’ dimension based on the evidence that these are two distinct types of relationships that are often established with different individuals, serve different purposes, provide different types of information, and relate differentially to socialization outcomes (Bauer et al., 1998; Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003; Morrison, 2002a, 2002b; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). In addition to distinguishing between these two distinct types of relationships, the new dimensions are more clearly defined in terms of the learning that is needed to develop those relationships to better distinguish these learning content dimensions from the proximal outcome of social integration.

304


Working Relationships Working relationships, sometimes described as informational ties, are based on the need to cooperate and exchange information in order to successfully perform required job tasks, understand role expectations, responsibilities, and constraints as well as understand organizational issues and attributes (Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003; Morrison, 1993b; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). Working relationships are nondiscretionary in nature (Tschan, Semmer, & Inversin, 2004) in that interaction between the individuals is required by the nature of the work. Interaction may be required, but relationship quality can vary greatly and the importance of establishing successful and satisfying working relationships is well documented (i.e., Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003; Louis, 1980; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992; Reichers, 1987). Effective working relationships allow for more efficient communication and feedback between work colleagues and greater cooperation which can influence performance outcomes (Argyle & Henderson, 1985) and lead to increased organizational commitment, lower turnover, and greater group integration (e.g., Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003). The working relationships dimension is defined as the extent to which the individual has learned the necessary information about others to establish effective working relationships including the learning of work colleagues’ expectations, needs, and working styles. Social Relationships Social relationships, sometimes referred to as friendship ties, are based on mutual interests and commonalities that often extend beyond the workplace. Social and working relationships are typically distinct although in some cases, the same relationship can represent both a working and social relationship (Ibarra, 1995; Morrison, 2002b). Unlike task-related interactions, social interactions are discretionary in that one can choose to interact or not (Tschan et al., 2004). For newcomers, work relationships primarily facilitate information acquisition whereas social relationships provide support and help foster a sense of acceptance, belonging, integration, and identity (Morrison, 2002b; Podolny & Baron, 1997). Social relationships also provide a ‘‘safe’’ outlet for expressing, receiving assistance, and coping with the uncertainty and anxiety of organizational entry. Research has found opportunities for social interaction, social support, the strength of friendship ties, and the quality of friendship relationships to be positively related to socialization outcomes such as higher job satisfaction and organizational commitment and lower turnover intentions (e.g., Fisher, 1986; Morrison, 2002b; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000; Winstead,


305

Derlega, Montgomery, & Pilkington, 1995). The social relationships dimension is defined as the extent to which the individual has learned the necessary information about others to develop a network of social relationships including the extent to which an individual has learned personal things about a work colleague (i.e., common interests, family). Structure The Chao et al. (1994) ‘‘politics’’ dimensions included both the formal and informal relationships and power structures within the organization. The literature draws a distinction between the formal and informal workings of an organization, recognizing that they are often times not the same. We divided those two distinct sets of knowledge into separate dimensions as it is important to define and measure these constructs separately as the information conveyed about the formal structure will not necessarily generalize to understanding the informal structure of an organization (Klein & Weaver, 2000). The formal aspects of power and structure that Chao et al. (1994) included in the politics dimension now reside in a separate content dimension that reflects knowledge of the formal structure of an organization, often embodied in an organization chart. The formal structure also includes descriptions of the purposes, functions, products, or services that are produced or performed by different elements within that structure and the formal designation of authority and decision making responsibility. Structure may also be codified in flow charts that show the sequence of products produced or services performed, the assignment of responsibility for each task, and when each must be performed. Understanding structure is important for socialization because it conveys hierarchy and helps the employee understand priorities, as well as formal guidelines about where to find things and who to go through to get things done. Understanding the structure allows the employee to know where to get the input necessary to perform tasks and how those tasks fit within a broader context. The structure dimension is defined as the extent to which an individual has learned the formal structure including the physical layout and where formal responsibility and authority is assigned. Politics The label politics is retained from Chao et al. (1984) to reflect the ‘‘informal network of power and interpersonal relationships in an organization’’ (Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003, p. 782). Politics involves the knowledge of who makes what decisions and of what and who they rely upon to make those decisions (Drory & Romm, 1990; Kacmar &

306


Baron, 1999). Knowing who influences a decision maker allows an individual to either formally or informally influence, predict, and understand the decisions. Politics also involves the knowledge of what motivates a decision maker. Understanding the goals and motivations of the decision maker allows the individual to make contributions that are more likely to be viewed favorably in the decision process. It is also important to understand what the decision maker expects in return for a favorable decision. Politics is ultimately a matter of expectations. Individuals must learn what they can expect and from whom, and what is expected in return. The Politics dimension is defined as the extent to which the individual has learned the informal power structure including where actual control of resources, decision making, and influence over decisions resides. Goals and Strategy The final Chao et al. (1994) dimension that we subdivided was goals and values. Goals and values are distinct concepts and were therefore placed in separate dimensions; the first being goals and the strategies for achieving those goals, the second being values and the culture that supports those values. Clear goal direction has often been linked to motivation (e.g., Locke & Latham, 1990) and other important organizational outcomes. A strategy or plan of action is established to help facilitate the achievement of a particular established goal. Strategies help guide and align individual and group efforts so as to ensure maximum efficiency and use of available resources. Knowledge of goals and strategy, allows an employee to understand how successful task completion contributes to overall success. Goals also communicate criteria or expectations of what is considered successful, and how success is measured. Knowledge of goals and strategy can also enhance understanding of the relationships between complementary roles within the organization (Ashford & Taylor, 1990; Louis, 1980). Therefore, the goals and strategy dimension is defined as the extent to which the individual has learned the current product/market mix, competitive position, mission, goals and strategies. Culture and Values Socialization has often been viewed as a primary mechanism for transmitting organizational culture (e.g., Bauer et al., 1998) and consequentially a task of socialization is to facilitate newcomer adaptation to an organization’s culture through the inculcation of prevailing norms and values (Comer, 1991; Louis, 1990). Inculcated culture and values allow employees to react automatically to routine situations with behavior that is recognized as conforming to the


307

expected behavior (Jones, 1986; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). In situations where the employee must exercise judgment, culture and values provide guidance as to how to proceed (Cable & Parsons, 2001; Kim et al., 2005). Acceptance of organizational values is an essential component of several theories of work adjustment (e.g., Ashford & Taylor, 1990; Reichers, 1987; Wanous, 1992) and a key antecedent of commitment (Mowday et al., 1982). Ignorance of culture and values can lead to uncertainty and doubt as to how to proceed as well as norm violations (Kim et al., 2005; Gruman et al., 2006). The culture and values dimension is defined as the extent to which the individual has learned the customs, myths, rituals, beliefs, and values including guiding principles, symbols, and ideology.

New Dimensions Rules and Policies Some rules are solely at the discretion of the organization, other rules are imposed or established by entities outside the organization. The organization’s adherence to laws, regulations, and standards is crucial to its success and even to its survival. Some rules are established to avoid the negative consequences (e.g., violation of a law or regulation), but others are established to receive or maintain positive outcomes (e.g., accreditation, awards) that can improve the competitive position or reputation of the organization. Gaining employee adherence to rules, policies, and procedures has been determined crucial to organizational functioning (Bell, McLaughlin, & Sequeira, 2002; Laufer & Robertson, 1997; Vardi & Weitz, 2004). Rules and policies stipulate required and/or desired employee behavior and organizational benefits when those policies are followed (Tyler & Blader, 2005). Consequentially, learning the procedural knowledge and expected behaviors reflected in established rules and policies is an important aspect of new employee acclimation. The importance of learning this dimension is evident in the emphasis most organizations place on covering policies during formal orientation. Therefore the rules and policies dimension was added to the typology and defined as the extent to which the individual has learned the formal workplace rules, policies, and procedures. Navigation In addition to the formally established rules governing an organization, it’s not uncommon for informal rules to concurrently exist in a workplace (Feldman, 1981; Henderson & Argyle, 1986). Implicit rules can take several

308


forms and include norms concerning the degree of cooperation or exchange within and between work groups and appropriate levels of output (e.g., rate busting). Implicit rules can contradict or complement the formally established rules issued by the organization. Navigation conveys how things are actually done in contrast to structure and formal policies which formally designate ‘‘where you find something’’ and ‘‘who you talk to’’ to get something done. For example, understanding navigation allows an employee to know the accepted shortcuts as well as when and how often those shortcuts can be used. In some cases learning the navigation dimension is largely a matter of acquiring the unofficial rules and procedures known to longer tenured employees, analogous to getting the unofficial map with all of the preferred routes and approved shortcuts highlighted. In other cases, there is no existing shared ‘‘map.’’ In those situations, mastery of the navigation dimension involves the employee learning enough about their new environment to create their own map. Learning ‘‘how things really work’’ is central to socialization and therefore the navigation dimension has been added and defined as the extent to which the individual has learned the implicit rules, norms, and procedures of the workplace, and how they can be utilized to achieve successful performance. Inducements The inducements-contributions balance has long been central to the study of organizational behavior (e.g., Barnard, 1938) and has been used to explain employee commitment, turnover, and organizational citizenship behaviors (e.g., Conway & Briner, 2002; Lester, Turnley, Bloodgood, & Bolino, 2002; Robinson & Morrison, 1995; Turnley & Feldman, 1999, 2000). This balance is also central to psychological contracts and organizational entry is an important period in the formation of psychological contracts (CooperThomas & Anderson, 1998; Rousseau, 1995; Shore & Tetrick, 1994). It is during the early entry period that newcomers begin to more fully understand what the employer provides in exchange for their contributions (De Vos et al., 2003). The degree to which inducements are perceived to adequately satisfy employees’ needs, desires, and preferences also contributes to needssupplies fit perceptions (Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). Learning about the inducements provided can thus influence fit perceptions and, subsequently, other socialization outcomes. For example, newcomers’ job satisfaction (Witt & Nye, 1992) and organizational commitment (Schwarzwald, Kozlowsky, & Shalit, 1992) have been linked to their perceptions that they can obtain desired rewards (Taormina, 2004). The adding of the inducements dimension not only


309

recognizes this additional piece of information that new employees need to learn but also serves to emphasize that the learning of socialization content begins with the recruitment process not at orientation (Klein et al., 2005). The inducements dimension is defined as the extent to which the individual has learned what is offered in exchange for their contributions including pay, development opportunities, benefits, and intangibles. Summary This expanded typology provides a more comprehensive representation of the socialization learning, the content that must be learned to be well socialized, and addresses many of the limitations noted previously regarding prior typologies. First, we have extended prior typologies by including additional dimensions suggested by others and our own review of the literature. The one dimension others have suggested that has not been added is a separate role dimension. Like Haueter et al. (2003), we feel role is best captured across multiple dimensions than as a separate dimension. Second, we have addressed concerns regarding the breadth and multidimensionality of several of the Chao et al. (1994) dimensions. Third, each dimension was explicitly defined and described as applicable across multiple levels (e.g., job, work group, work unit, organization), with the exception of task proficiency which is only applicable conceptually at the job level. Finally, this expanded typology more clearly distinguishes learning from other proximal socialization outcomes such as task mastery, social integration, and role clarity. This is an important distinction as learning is an antecedent to these proximal adjustment outcomes and as such cannot be confounded by the inclusion of elements of those proximal outcomes.

Level of Socialization In choosing to base the socialization learning dimensions on content rather than level, it was recognized that those content areas need to be mastered relative to multiple levels within the organization. Having expanded upon the content of what all new employees need to learn, we now turn to exploring the implications of that recognition. Specifically, the learning that characterizes the socialization process needs to take place relative to the job, the immediate work group, sub-units within the organization (e.g., departments, locations, divisions), as well as to the organization as a whole. Nearly all of the content dimensions discussed previously are relevant at all of these different levels but the exact nature of that content

310


and the relative importance likely differs across these levels. The socialization literature has previously recognized that contextual factors relating to these different levels may influence socialization factors (e.g., Ashforth et al., 2007; Feldman, 1981; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Ashforth et al. (2007), for example, suggest that socialization at the ‘‘local’’ level may be particularly relevant for facilitating identification, social support, and social conduits to the organization. In practice, many companies recognize this distinction by having supervisors or coworkers conduct a local orientation in addition to a company-wide orientation. There have been a few studies examining socialization at multiple levels (e.g., Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992) but precisely how the content of what needs to be learned differs across those different levels has received little attention and, as a result, the academic basis for recommending what content needs to be mastered for each level is limited. An initial effort to represent the importance of each of the content dimensions across these five levels is presented in Fig. 2. This figure is not based upon any empirical evidence but was inductively developed based on role theory and the descriptions of each of the content dimensions. Specifically, the relevance of each of the content dimensions for successful

Organization Division/Unit Department Work group

Note: The width of the bar reflects the importance of the dimension for that focus: = Less important, = Important, = Critical.

Fig. 2.

The Importance of the Content Dimensions Across Levels.

Inducements

Goals & Strategy

Culture &Values

History

Politics

Structure

Navigation

Rules & Policies

Social Relationships

Working Relationships

Task Proficiency

Language

Job


311

role adjustment relative to each of five different levels was subjectively evaluated independently by the authors and a group of four Ph.D. students familiar with the socialization literature. The authors then discussed discrepant evaluations to arrive at the judgments presented in Fig. 2. The results are presented graphically, even though a rating scale was used in determining these evaluations of importance, so as not to convey an unwarranted degree of precision. Of the various levels, the job is most unique in that some of the content dimensions are not applicable. For some jobs, determining the boundary between the job and workgroup or department can be difficult as many job tasks may require interactions with others. For our purposes, we considered all such internal interactions as belonging to the broader workgroup or department levels and not the job. As a result of defining the social contexts as largely outside of the job level, the socialization content dimensions of social and working relationships, structure and politics, and culture and values are less applicable to the job level. All of the remaining dimensions at the job level are important to master, with the exception of history. Understanding the history of the specific job can be of some value but is usually not key to facilitating newcomer adjustment. Task proficiency, the content dimension probably most closely associated with the job level is also somewhat unique in that compared to all of the other content dimensions, the importance of task proficiency dissipates to the greatest degree as one moves from the job focus up through the work group, department, and division to the organizational level as indicated in Fig. 2. In contrast to task proficiency which is highly relevant at the job and work group levels but much less relevant for the broader levels, two content dimensions – rules/policies and goals/strategies – are consistently of great importance across all of the levels, although the specifics of what needs to be learned varies according to the level. For example, at the job level, it is task goals that need to be learned, team goals at the work group level, department and division/unit objectives at those levels, and the strategic goals of the organization at the organizational level. Similarly, culture/ values is consistently important across all levels except the job which is somewhat unique as discussed above. At the organizational level, a new employee needs to learn about the culture and values of the organization as a whole. Moving down through these levels, there are unique aspects of the sub-cultures within the unit/division, department, and work group that must also be mastered. The history dimension is similarly of consistent importance (and unique content) across levels although at a lesser degree of importance than culture/values. The remaining content dimensions

312


become either slightly or moderately less important moving from the more local work group level up through the broader organizational levels. Those dimensions that we believe become only slightly less important for the broader levels include language, navigation, structure, and inducements. An understanding of these dimensions is still of great importance relative to these higher levels but is not as critical as mastering these content dimensions at the work group level. Finally the content dimensions of working relationships, social relationships, and politics remain of importance at higher levels, but are less important at the organizational level than the others discussed here. The above discussion focuses primarily on the importance or relevance of the different content dimensions across levels. Research is needed to verify these assessments of importance, document precisely how the specific content within each dimension needs to differ across these levels, and identify any key moderators (e.g., company size, type of position), that might change the nature or importance of learning at these different levels. For example, in a small firm, we would expect to see less distinction between levels (and some levels may not exist) than in a large firm. Similarly, we believe all of the dimensions to be relevant at most levels for most positions, but the type of position (e.g., extent of boundary spanning required) and the level of the position (i.e., entry-level vs. executive) would clearly impact the profile of what is most important to master to ensure the successful adjustment of a newcomer.

Temporal Considerations The need for socialization to occur at multiple levels has received some conceptual attention in the academic literature (Ashforth et al., 2007; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992; Saks & Ashforth, 1997), but temporal considerations have been largely absent, despite the increased awareness of the importance of temporal issues in organizational research (e.g., George & Jones, 2000) and the fact that socialization is a process occurring over time. One exception is Ashforth et al. (2007) which identifies three key temporal issues: the changing rate of learning over time, potential time lags before socialization effects are evident and the possibility that those effects may dissipate, and measurement stability issues. There have been a few empirical studies examining changes in the socialization process over time (Chan & Schmitt, 2000; Chen, 2005) and articles in practitioner journals highlighting companies thought to do a good job of orienting their


313

employees over several months (e.g., Flynn, 1994) but in terms of our current focus on the optimal learning of socialization content, no research to our knowledge has examined the optimal timing for learning the different socialization content dimensions, Temporality is, to some degree, inherent to stage models of the socialization process (e.g., Feldman, 1981; Wanous, 1992) as they break the socialization process into distinct temporal periods (e.g., pre-entry, initial encounter) and highlight different processes and issues at those different stages. As such, stage models provide some insight into the content areas which may be most relevant at different stages. For example, the central issues at the pre-entry stage are expectation setting, understanding of rewards, and the initial assessment of fit. This suggests the need for activities aimed at facilitating the learning of goals, inducements, and culture/values. The initial encounter stage generally covers too long of a period to be of help in identifying the timing of learning different content areas as all twelve dimensions need to be addressed within this stage. We suspect that stage models have fallen out of favor because research suggests that socialization (a) does not necessarily unfold in the lockstep fashion suggested by stage models (Wanous, 1992) and (b) occurs rapidly with the resulting adjustment largely stable (e.g., Bauer & Green, 1994; Morrison, 1993a). Yet, all of the learning that needs to take place to facilitate socialization cannot occur within a few days, suggesting that the learning be spaced out over the first several weeks and months. Integrating the heuristics of stage models with other socialization perspectives could therefore be informative (Ashforth et al., 2007). Even if socialization occurs rapidly (Chan & Schmitt, 2000; Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2005; Lance, Vandenberg, & Self, 2000), important temporal distinctions can still be made during the socialization process and we currently do not have a good understanding of the most advantageous timing of different activities aimed at facilitating the learning of the different socialization content dimensions. In considering the temporality of socialization, several distinct time frames can be identified. Socialization begins during recruitment, as individuals seek out and are presented information during the hiring process. Next is a pre-entry period between the time of hire and the start date. Like the recruitment period, this pre-entry period could be very short (perhaps just hours) or extend several months. Also like recruitment, individuals can seek out and be presented with information during this period. Next, distinctions can be made between the first day, the rest of the first week, the rest of the first month, the second and third months, months four through six, and the rest of the first year. We stop at one year given our

314


focus on newcomer socialization. However, as noted by Chao et al. (1994) and others, the relative importance of the different content dimensions likely continues to shift over time. Having identified these time frames, the issue then becomes one of determining the most appropriate time frame for learning the different socialization content dimensions. Given the absence of any empirical evidence on this issue, we are left to inductively consider what might be optimal. In our opinion, a ‘‘just in time’’ approach needs to be taken. In determining what needs to be learned when, both the organizational and individual perspectives need to be considered, perspectives that may not always be in agreement. By individual perspective, we are not suggesting that companies must customize all aspects of their orientating efforts to each individual employee, rather that the needs of the ‘‘typical’’ new hire in that job be considered. From the individual’s perspective, we suggest that new hires will be most receptive to learning those content areas that relate to their ‘‘current concerns’’ (Klinger, 1975). The perceived relevance or meaningfulness of the material creates richer associations for learners and makes the material easier to learn and remember (McGehee & Thayer, 1961). It has been demonstrated that individuals learn more when they perceived a strong need for that learning (e.g., Smith-Jentsch, Jentsch, Payne, & Salas, 1996). In the case of socialization, content areas that more directly address a new hire’s anxieties and concerns at that point in time should thus be more highly attended to, processed, and mastered. For example, employees may be much more concerned with navigation on their first day than history. In terms of levels, Ostroff and Kozlowski (1992) found that in the first six to nine months acquiring organizational-level information was less important than acquiring job and work-group level information. In addition, based on patterns of information seeking behavior, newcomers are initially more concerned with establishing relationships with coworkers but later become more concerned about how their supervisors will appraise their performance (Chan & Schmitt, 2000). From the organization’s perspective, there are several possible reasons for needing to cover some content sooner rather than later. These include legal requirements and liability concerns (e.g., rules and policies), helping convince an applicant to accept a job offer (e.g., inducements, culture/ values), providing information when new hires may be most receptive (e.g., culture and values), and content areas viewed as critical to moving the new hire up the job performance learning curve (e.g., task proficiency, goals and strategy) and forming the foundation for further learning (e.g., language, working relationships). Research is needed to systematically determine what

315

The Learning of Socialization Content During recruitment & hiring After hire (before 1st day) On the 1st day During 1st week (after 1st day) During 1st month (after first week) During the 2nd or 3rd months During months 4-6

Inducements

Goals & Strategy

Culture &Values

History

Politics

Structure

Navigation

Rules & Policies

Social Relationships

Working Relationships

Task Proficiency

Language

during 1st year (after 6 months)

Note: The width of the bar reflects how critical it is to have mastered that dimension by that point in time: = Critical to know. = No need to know, = Would help to know,

Fig. 3.

The Optimal Timing for Learning each of the Content Dimensions.

new hires and organizations each view as ‘‘need to know’’ at different points of time and again to identify the key moderators (e.g., type of position) that might impact the temporal importance of learning different content dimensions. Because of the lack of research on the temporality, Fig. 3 is presented not as prescriptive, but solely as an illustration of a desired temporal blueprint for determining what to cover and when. It is also important to note that the most appropriate timing depends on the level discussed above. For example, an employee may want to master navigation at the work group level by the end of the first week and not be concerned with navigation at higher levels until months later. Integration of Content and Practices In taking an instructional system approach, having defined what needs to be learned, the next step is determining the most effective means of facilitating

316


that learning. Viewing socialization as a learning process also allows the incorporation of learning theories to help understand and predict how to facilitate the learning of socialization content. For example, it has been shown that requirements for learning are different for different learning outcomes (Gagne´, 1984). One of the most widely used taxonomies of learning outcomes comes from the Gagne´-Briggs theory of instruction (Gagne´ & Briggs, 1979). This theory differentiates five distinct learning outcomes and identifies the conditions and instructional events that are optimally suited for learning each outcome. Therefore, as a way to understand how to best facilitate the learning of each socialization content dimension, we sorted the content dimensions according to the type of learning required for each. This was done based on Gagne and Briggs’ conceptual definition of each learning outcome and our definitions provided earlier for each of the socialization content dimensions. These results are provided in Table 3. Several dimensions reflect a single type of learning, but others are more complex, encompassing multiple learning outcomes. The next step is to determine what socialization practices are likely to be most effective in facilitating the learning of each socialization content dimension, given the nature of the learning outcomes required for each. Most of the work examining socialization activities has been based on the organizational tactics provided by Van Maanen and Schein (1979). Without discounting the value of considering these broad tactics, we have chosen to instead focus on specific activities, formal and informal, that organizations can offer to help socialize new employees and facilitate the learning of the socialization content dimensions. This is consistent with Ashforth et al.’s (2007) recommendation that future research look beyond socialization tactics to the sources of those tactics. Unlike Van Maanen and Schein’s tactics, there is surprisingly little research on specific orientation practices. Despite their being one of the most common types of training, only a handful of studies have systematically examined orientation training programs (e.g., Anderson et al., 1996; Klein & Weaver, 2000; Wesson & Gogus, 2005) and the examination of other orienting activities is even rarer. We also were not able to find any comprehensives reviews or conceptual typologies of organizational orienting practices. To address this gap, we conducted a review of both the academic and practitioner literatures to compile a list of specific socializing activities or what we term orientating practices. Orientating practices is an umbrella term that is broader than the ‘‘tactics and practices’’ label used earlier when reviewing the recent literature. It incorporates all formal and informal practices, programs, and policies enacted or engaged in by the organization

Language Task Proficiency Working Relationships Social Relationships Rules & Policies Navigation Structure Politics History Culture &Values Goals & Strategy Inducements

Gagne-Briggs Learning Outcomes and the Socialization Content Dimensions. Intellectual Skills

Verbal Information

Cognitive Strategies

Motor Skills

Attitudes

Procedural knowledge – rules, concepts and procedures that need to be followed

Declarative knowledge – facts and ideas that one needs to memorize and be able to recite

Strategic knowledge – learned skills that are used to control learning, thinking, and remembering

Learning to use body movements to manipulate things

States of mind that influence preferences for activities and behavioral choices

p p

p p p

p p

p

p p p p

p p p p p p p


Table 3.

p

p p

317

318


or its agents to help socialize new employees. Proactive behavior on the part of newcomers is excluded, but actions that organizations can take to promote and facilitate proactivity, and to maximize the effectiveness of proactivity are included. We also consulted textbooks on staffing and training that discussed orientation and examined the websites of organizations cited in the practitioner literature as exemplars of effective orientation. We then went through a process of categorizing and sorting those activities based on our assessment of the primary purpose of the activity, rather than on the nature or content of the activity. The resulting typology of informing, welcoming, and guiding newcomers, is presented in Table 4. The first and largest category of orienting activities consists of efforts aimed at providing newcomers with information. This inform category includes all efforts to provide information, materials, and experiences, beginning with recruitment, to help newcomers learn what they need to know to be successful in their new role. Because the majority of orienting activities fell into this category, we further subdivided these activities into communication efforts (planned one-way messages or opportunities for twoway dialogues), providing resources (making materials available), and training (planned efforts to facilitate learning). The second category of orienting activities, termed welcome, consists of efforts aimed at celebrating the arrival of the newcomer and/or providing opportunities for new hires to meet and socialize with other members of the organization. The final category, labeled guide, consists of efforts aimed at providing a more ‘‘hands-on,’’ personal guide to help the newcomer navigate the transition. These different categories of learning experiences are next aligned with the Gagne´-Briggs learning outcomes. Gagne´ and Briggs (1979) identify nine steps or instructional events and discuss the different conditions of learning needed relative to those events across the five learning outcomes. For example, for the step of ‘‘presenting material,’’ Gagne´ and Briggs recommend presenting examples of the concept or rule for intellectual skills, presenting novel problems for cognitive skills, and presenting information in propositional form for information. For the ‘‘providing learning guidance’’ step, Gagne´ and Briggs recommend providing links to a larger meaningful context for information, providing a model of an actor’s choice of actions and the consequences of those actions for attitude, and providing practice with feedback or motor skills. Gagne´ and Medsker (1996) further highlighted external conditions important in facilitating each of the different learning outcomes. The learning of verbal information, for example, is facilitated by providing meaningful chunks of information and advance organizers, whereas the

Category of Activities

Sub-Categories

Inform Communication

Resources

Training

A Typology of Socialization Practices.

Description of Category or Sub-Category

Activities that provide information, materials, and experiences Planned efforts to facilitate communication with newcomers. Includes both the provision of one-way messages and opportunities for twoway dialogues Making materials or assistance available to new hires. These efforts differ from communication in that the new hire has to take the initiative to access them Planned efforts to facilitate the systematic acquisition of skills, behaviors, knowledge

Welcome

Activities that provide opportunities for new hires to meet and socialize with other organizational members and/or celebrate the arrival of the newcomer

Guide

Activities that provide a personal guide for each new hire

Examples of Activities

Providing a brochure during recruitment outlining benefits and opportunities Scheduling a conference call question and answer session for new hires Having a section of the company website just for new hire with things like a glossary of company terms and a list of key contacts Having a newcomer hotline Formal orientation programs (online or classroom based, company wide or specific to the work unit) Training on job skills (on-the-job or off) Planned activities to ensure new hires meet their coworkers and other key individuals Receiving a welcome phone call from an executive A formal ‘‘buddy’’ system that assigns an experienced coworkers to each new hire A welcome coordinator that oversees all aspects of the orientation process


Table 4.

319

320


learning of attitudes is enhanced by providing strong, credible messages, with the mastery of motor skills aided by practice, demonstration, and feedback. Taking an instructional system approach to socialization may thus not only help identify the kinds of orienting activities most effective for learning different socialization content dimensions, but also provides insights into how to structure those activities to provide an optimal learning environment for that type of learning. In order to identify which orienting activities may best facilitate the learning of different socialization content dimensions, based on the kinds of learning outcomes each dimension represents, it is necessary to link the different orienting activities described above to Gagne´’s (1984) learning outcomes. This was done based on the conceptual definition of each learning outcome and the descriptions provided for each set of orientating activities. These results are provided in Table 5. Two of the orientating practices, inform-training and guide, can be potentially used to impact any type of learning outcome because of the wide range of possible training programs and wide scope of interactions and activities than can be directed by a guide. It was further determined that cognitive strategies and motor skills could only be impacted through these two orientation practices. Intellectual skills and verbal information, on the other hand, could be impacted by any of the orientation practices. It was our assessment that inform-resources was unlikely to impact attitudes but that inform-communication and welcome activities (along with inform-training and guide) could effectively do so. Finally, the contents of Tables 3 and 5 can be combined to connect orientating activities with the socialization content dimensions based on the learning outcomes they facilitate and require. This integration is provided visually in Fig. 4. Note that the lines in Fig. 3 do not represent causal influences. Rather, the different learning outcomes are used to link orientation practices to the learning of socialization content dimensions

Table 5.

Socialization Practices Relating to Each Learning Outcomes.

Inform

Communication Resources Training Welcome Guide

Intellectual Skills

Verbal Information

p p p p p

p p p p p


Motor Skills

Attitudes p

p

p

p

p

p p p

321

The Learning of Socialization Content Socialization Practices

Learning Outcomes

Learning of Content Dimensions Language History

Inform Communication

Intellectual Skills

Resources

Verbal Information

Training


Task Proficiency Working Relationships Social Relationships Politics Structure

Welcome

Motor Skills

Goals/ Strategy Culture/ Values

Attitudes Guide

Rules/ Policies Navigation Inducements

Fig. 4.

Socialization Practices to Facilitate the Learning of each of the Content Dimensions Based on the Nature of the Learning Outcomes.

by recognizing the types of learning each category of activity is best able to impact and the type of learning required to master each content dimension.

SUMMARY This chapter summarized findings from recent socialization research to provide an updated view of the socialization literature. Viewing socialization fundamentally as a process of learning about a new or changed role and the environment surrounding that role, this chapter then took an instructional system approach. Attention was first given to further understanding exactly what needs to be learned by organizational newcomers. In doing so, an expanded model of socialization content – the information and behaviors individuals need to acquire in order to be effective

322


organizational members – was provided. We built upon the content dimensions presented by Chao et al. (1994) but expanded that typology to be more comprehensive, disentangled dimensions that had been criticized as being too broad or multidimensional, and better differentiated these socialization learning outcomes from proximal socialization outcomes. In addition the level of socialization was more explicitly recognized as each of the content dimensions needs to be learned relative to different organizational levels (e.g., job/role, work group, unit, organization). Previous articles have recognized that contextual factors relating to these different hierarchical levels may influence socialization (Feldman, 1981; Saks & Ashforth, 1997) but precisely how the content of what needs to be learned differs across those different levels has not been articulated. Determining exactly how the content within each dimension varies for each level was beyond the scope of this chapter but suggestions were provided concerning the relative importance of each content dimension at the various levels. Temporality was also more explicitly recognized, as socialization is a process occurring over several months or even years. Several distinct time frames (e.g., recruitment, pre-entry, 1st days, 1st weeks,) were identified, temporal considerations for learning the different socialization content dimensions identified and suggestions provided concerning the relative importance of mastering the different content dimensions by certain points in time. Taken together, socialization content, level, and timing yields a three dimensional perspective of what new employees need to master at different levels by different points in time. This three dimensional view is illustrated in Fig. 5. Each cell represents the learning that needs to occur during a particular time frame relative to a particular level in order for successful adjustment to occur. Thinking about socialization along these three dimensions is of value for researchers and practitioners. For practitioners, the issue is what orienting activities should be provided within each cell to help facilitate those learning needs. We are far from being able to be prescriptive in terms of knowing what orientating practices work best in which cells under what circumstances. It is those gaps in our knowledge that provide the value to researchers. Consistent with taking an instructional system approach, after identifying the learning needs, we examined what orientating practices (formal programs and informal activities) might be most effective in facilitating the learning of those different socialization content dimensions. In doing so, each content dimension was categorized based on required learning outcomes (Gagne´ & Briggs, 1979). The implications of those outcomes


323

Organization

Level

Division/Unit Department Work group Job

Content

Fig. 5.

Content, Level and Temporal Dimensions of Socialization.

were explored relative to common socialization tactics. In the remainder of this chapter, we identify the conceptual, measurement, and research needs suggested by this review of and extensions to the socialization literature.

Conceptual Needs Conceptually, there are a number of socialization frameworks and models of socialization stages, processes, activities and content. The most comprehensive model, in our opinion, is the one presented by Saks and Ashforth (1997). The argument could be made that more systematic efforts to test and refine these models is what is most needed, but there are two areas where we believe further conceptual development would be advantageous (along with comprehensive and systematic model testing efforts). The first conceptual need is to better integrate the different approaches researchers have taken in examining socialization. Of the

324


existing models, the one presented by Saks and Ashforth (1997) does the best job of this but it does not fully integrate the divergent views of socialization researchers (i.e., stages, tactics, content, proactivity, social agents, fit). Further conceptual integration of those multiple perspectives is needed with consideration given to possible interactions among key constructs from different perspectives. The second, and perhaps more fundamental, conceptual need is for the stronger application of theory to the study of socialization. Although there are numerous models and frameworks in the literature there is relatively little application of theory to explain socialization processes. Hypotheses, including many of the connections suggested in this chapter, tend to be based on deduction rather than theory. Most often, the theory cited in support of socialization research is uncertainty reduction (Berger, 1979). Uncertainty reduction is certainly an important part of socialization, but there is more to socialization than just the reduction of uncertainty. Beginning a new position is a complex and sometimes turbulent transition with the potential for substantial shifts in emotion and attitude. The excitement and anticipation of pre-entry can quickly change to not just uncertainty but also bewilderment, stress, doubt, disorientation, detachment, or shock. For experienced workers, this issue can be compounded because of false assumptions about similarities to prior transitions (negative transfer).

Measurement Needs Several scales measuring socialization content are available in the literature (e.g., Chao et al., 1994; Haueter et al., 2003; Taormina, 2004), but this chapter presents an expanded, more comprehensive, framework. As such, research is needed developing and validating a multi-dimensional scale measuring each of the socialization content dimensions summarized in Table 2. Examining the factor structure and degree of overlap among the dimensions will also be important. There were sound conceptual reasons behind subdividing some of the Chao et al. (1994) dimensions but it remains to be demonstrated that measures can be created to reflect those distinctions. In doing so, it is important that the items be flexible enough to be adapted to each of the multiple levels discussed here. For example an item from the politics dimension may be something along the lines of I am aware of the unwritten procedures for getting things done in my____. where the blank could be filled in with organization, division, department, work


325

group, or job. Such a scale will enable researchers to more precisely assess what learning occurs relative to different levels during specific orientating activities as well as how the learning of that content at different levels relates to desired socialization outcomes. Because of the increased number of dimensions, it will often not be practical for researchers to include all 12 scales in a study, particularly if multiple levels are being examined. In such cases, this set of measures will provide researchers with the flexibility to select the scales that tap the particular content dimensions of interest and examine those dimensions at the levels appropriate to the research questions being examined. In addition to the above described need for revised and improved scales to assess the expanded content dimensions of socialization, scales are also needed to more systematically assess company orienting practices. Field experiments examining alternative orientating practices are needed, but scales assessing general approaches are needed for survey research. For example, tapping the typology presented here, scales that assess the extent to which companies inform, welcome and guide new hires would be a valuable addition to the currently available tactics measures. A more comprehensive inventory of orientating practices is also needed. Surveys have gauged the extent to which companies provide orientation training programs (e.g., Industry reports provided by Training magazine), but there has not been any systematic assessment of the content, level, timing or methods used in those programs nor of the frequency or timing with which orientating practices other than formal orientation training are used. A comprehensive inventory of orientating practices given to a broad cross-section of companies would be an important first step in better understanding what is currently done and when to facilitate the socialization of new hires with subsequent research focusing on determining which practices have the greatest impact (under what circumstances).

Research Needs One set of future research needs is the validation of the scales discussed in the preceding section. Once developed, research is needed to demonstrate appropriate psychometric properties and establish the construct and criterion-related validity for the expanded socialization content dimension scales as well as orientating practices scales. A number of other issues discussed within this chapter also point to needed research. Starting with the expanded content dimensions, research is needed exploring exactly how the

326


content of what needs to be learned differs by level as well as to confirm or refine the importance of mastering that content at different levels for successful adjustment. In addition, to understand the unique content differences at each level, additional research is also needed to better understand the effect of context at each level on the socialization process (Bauer et al., 1998; Moreland & Levine, 2000; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). At the group level, for example, research has begun to examine how team membership impacts newcomer socialization, but further consideration of contextual effects are needed at all levels. Research is needed to determine the optimal (in terms of maximizing learning) timing for learning the different content dimensions at the different levels. Again here, suggestions have been provided regarding the importance of a new employee mastering each of the content dimensions by a given point in time but research is needed to confirm or refine those assertions. For example, research could focus on how to optimally use the pre-entry period between the time of hire and the start date. This pre-entry period may last just hours or be several months long but, regardless of duration, it is often an underutilized period of time in socializing new employees. There may be legitimate reasons for withholding some information prior to the official start date, but this need not be a ‘‘dead’’ time with new hires having no contact with or receiving no information from the new organization. Thus, in examining the role of temporality, there are issues of salience and feasibility that need to be examined in addition to effectiveness. Another major area for future research is the systematic assessment of what orientating practices best facilitate the learning of the different socialization content dimensions and how and why specific content dimensions affect specific outcomes (Ashforth et al., 2007). In our opinion, the absence of systematic research assessing the effectiveness of different of socializing activities, both formal and informal, that occur during the socialization process is a major gap in the literature. In this chapter, we have presented an organizing framework for the wide range of orientating practices used by companies and connected those categories of practices to socialization content dimensions through learning outcomes as a first step in addressing that gap. Hypotheses regarding the consequences of different orienting activities can thus be derived by considering the type of learning outcomes required to master each content dimension and the type of learning outcomes that can be impacted by different orienting approaches. Only a handful of studies have examined formal orientation programs and even less research has examined other orientating activities. As a result,


327

relatively little is known about the most appropriate methods, timing, and content of these activities for facilitating newcomer adjustment or how the organizational context affects the selection of specific socialization activities. In contrast, there has been systematic research examining the relative effectiveness of other key Human Resources practices including alternative recruitment sources, selection methods, training methods, and incentive systems. Given the frequency and importance of orientating activities, similar knowledge of what works best under different conditions is surprisingly scarce, particularly since potential gains from using effective recruitment, selection, training, and incentive systems may be lost without successful socialization. Implied in the above statement is the existence of likely moderators such that given orienting practices will work best under particular circumstances and future research is needed to determine the exact nature of those interactions. Characteristics of the company (e.g., climate, size, HR strategy) are likely important as are several dimensions of the position (e.g., entry level vs. executive; contingent vs. core, degree of boundary spanning required). Individual differences are also likely important in determining the effectiveness of given practices including personality traits, needs and expectations, learning preferences, and prior socialization experiences. The focus in the latter part of this chapter has been on orientating activities, but we do not view this as being limited just to the ‘‘organizational tactics and practices’’ box in Table 1. Orientating practices cover formal and informal programs and activities planned by the organization as well as actions taken to facilitate and encourage both newcomer proactivity and the assistance of social agents. In terms of newcomer proactive behaviors, additional research is needed on self-managing behaviors (e.g., self-goal setting), behaviors that are political in nature (e.g., impression management, networking), and other recognized forms of proactivity that have received less empirical attention than information and feedback seeking behavior. Longitudinal research assessing within subject changes in proactive socialization behaviors over time is also needed to better understand the causal relationships between newcomer proactivity and socialization outcomes. A better understanding of the role of agents in facilitating adjustment is also needed. This research needs to examine the full range of possible agents both within and outside of the workplace (most research to date has just considered supervisors and co-workers) and examine how interactions among these various agents might impact socialization. Research is also needed looking at what social agents proactively do to help newcomers to adjust in terms of the types and helpfulness of various

328


orientating activities they initiate. In general, it would be helpful to examine how specific attitudes and behaviors exhibited by organizational insiders as well as support among insiders for the socialization process as perceived by newcomers (e.g., ‘‘climate for socialization’’) influences their adjustment. A final future research need is for more comprehensive and systematic examination of models that reflect the full set of causal chains presented in the socialization literature. That is, specific orienting activities (as well as other individual and situational factors that are thought to impact socialization) impacting the mastery of socialization content, impacting proximal outcomes, and then distal outcomes. For example, understanding how supervisor-initiated activities during socialization facilitate newcomer learning of socialization content to, in turn, impact perceptions of fit (and/or other proximal outcome) and, in turn, result in greater organizational commitment (and/or other distal outcomes). The potential role of localized structures and processes should also be examined in future research on these linkages between organization-level predictors and newcomers’ learning and adjustment (Ashforth et al., 2007). Although we have identified numerous areas needing future research attention, many of the methodological criticisms noted in prior reviews were less apparent in the research published in the past 10 years that we reviewed. Specifically, the recent literature used diversified samples, usually examined data from multiple sources, and made use of more sophisticated analytical approaches. Experimental or quasi-experimental studies are still rare, and although the recent literature consists of mostly longitudinal research, few studies adequately capture the changes that occur over time as newcomers become socialized. Finally, research has begun to rely less on traditional, distal outcomes but there is still great inconsistency in what outcomes are examined and how they are labeled. Hopefully the expanded set of content dimensions presented here and the above suggestions for measurement refinement will facilitate greater consistency.

CONCLUSION Our review of the literature reveals that great strides have been made over the past 10 years. Research designs have become sounder, samples more diverse, and analyses more sophisticated. Research on some topics has been more systematic (socialization tactics, proactivity) but there are numerous questions, including those outlined above, that remain unanswered. Socialization is a ubiquitous topic, mentioned in Organizational Behavior,


329

Human Resource Management, Industrial-Organizational Psychology, Staffing, and Training textbooks, yet it is often given scant attention in those texts. Orientation and onboarding programs exist in most organizations to help socialize new employees but these activities similarly are often given little systematic attention or careful evaluation. Trends including a greater focus on talent management issues, projected skills shortages, and increased worker mobility with individuals changing jobs, organizations, and occupations more frequently all point to the increased importance of effectively and efficiently socializing newcomers. In addition, achieving a competitive advantage through a firm’s human capital requires a strong and unique culture and workforce. Socialization facilitates the attraction and retention of employees, perpetuates and strengthens culture, and allows newcomers to more quickly become proficient. We believe that taking an instructional system approach will allow researchers and practitioners to better understand the needs of new hires, design interventions to address those needs, and evaluate those programs. It is our hope that the frameworks presented here serve to invigorate and guide future research on socialization and orientating practices.

REFERENCES Ahuja, M. K., & Galvin, J. E. (2003). Socialization in virtual groups. Journal of Management, 29, 161–185. Allen, D. (2006). Do organizational socialization tactics influence newcomer embeddedness and turnover? Journal of Management, 32, 237–256. Allen, D., McManus, S. E., & Russell, J. E. A. (1999). Newcomer socialization and stress: Formal peer relationships as a source of support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(3), 453–470. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). Organizational socialization tactics: A longitudinal analysis of links to newcomers’ commitment and role orientation. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 847–858. Anakwe, U. P., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1999). Effective socialization of employees: Socialization content perspective. Journal of Management Issues, 11, 315–329. Anderson, N. R., Cunningham-Snell, N. A., & Haigh, J. (1996). Induction training as socialization: Current practice and attitude to evaluation in British organizations. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 4, 169–183. Argyle, M., & Henderson, M. (1985). The rules of relationships. In: S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds), Understanding personal relationships: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 63–84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: A role of desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 199–214.

330


Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32(3), 370–398. Ashford, S. J., & Taylor, S. M. (1990). Adaptation to work transitions: An integrative approach. In: K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 8, pp. 1–39). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Ashforth, B. E. (2001). Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Harrison, S. H. (2007). Socialization in organizational contexts. In: G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 1–70). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Barnard, C. (1938). Functions of the executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 102–118. Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 707–721. Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1994). Effect of newcomer involvement in work-related activities: A longitudinal study of socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 211–223. Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1998). Testing the combined effects of newcomer information seeking and manager behavior on socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 211–223. Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W., & Callister, R. R. (1998). Organizational socialization: A review and directions for future research. In: G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 16, pp. 149–214). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bauer, T. N., Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C., & Wayne, S. J. (2006). A longitudinal study of the moderating role of extraversion: Leader-member exchange, performance, and turnover during new executive development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 298–310. Bell, M. P., McLaughlin, M. E., & Sequeira, J. M. (2002). Discrimination, harassment, and the glass ceiling: Women executives as change agents. Journal of Business Ethics, 37, 65–76. Berger, C. R. (1979). Beyond initial interaction: Uncertainty, understanding, and the development of interpersonal relationships. In: H. Giles & R. N. St. Clair (Eds), Language and social psychology (pp. 122–144). Baltimore, MD: University Park. Bravo, M. J., Peiro, J. M., Rodriguez, I., & Whitely, W. T. (2003). Social antecedents of the role stress and career-enhancing strategies of newcomers to organizations: A longitudinal study. Work & Stress, 17, 195–217. Buchanan, B., II. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533–546. Cable, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (2001). Socialization tactics and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 54(1), 1–23. Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (2000). Interindividual differences in intraindividual changes in proactivity during organizational entry: A latent growth modeling approach to understanding newcomer adaptation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 190–210. Chao, G. T., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardner, P. D. (1994). Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 730–743. Chen, G. (2005). Newcomer adaptation in teams: Multilevel antecedents and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 101–116.


331

Chen, G., & Klimoski, R. J. (2003). The impact of expectations on newcomer performance in teams as mediated by work characteristics, social exchanges, and empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 591–607. Comer, D. R. (1991). Organizational newcomers’ acquisition of information from peers. Management Communications Quarterly, 5, 64–89. Conway, N., & Briner, R. (2002). A daily dairy study of affective responses to psychological contract breach and exceeded promises. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 287–302. Cooper-Thomas, H. D., & Anderson, N. (2002). Newcomer adjustment: The relationship between organizational socialization tactics, information acquisition and attitudes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 423–437. Cooper-Thomas, H. D., & Anderson, N. (2005). Organizational socialization: A field study into socialization success and rate. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13(2), 116–128. Cooper-Thomas, H. D., & Anderson, N. (2006). Invited manuscript: Organizational socialization: A new theoretical model and recommendations for future research and HRM practices in organizations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(5), 492–516. Cooper-Thomas, H. D., van Vianen, A., & Anderson, N. (2004). Changes in personorganization fit: The impact of socialization tactics on perceived and actual P-O fit. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(1), 52–78. Crant, M. C. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435–462. De Vos, A., Buyens, D., & Schalk, R. (2003). Psychological contract development during organizational socialization: Adaptation to reality and role of reciprocity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 537–559. Drory, M., & Romm, T. (1990). The definition of organizational politics: A review. Human Relations, 43(11), 1133–1154. Dubinsky, A. J., Howell, R. D., Ingram, T. N., & Bellenger, D. N. (1986). Salesforce socialization. Journal of Marketing, 50, 192–207. Feldman, D. C. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 433–452. Feldman, D. C. (1981). The multiple socialization of organization members. Academy of Management Review, 6, 309–318. Feldman, D. C., Folks, W. R., & Turnley, W. H. (1998). The socialization of expatriate interns. Journal of Managerial Issues, 10, 403–418. Finkelstein, L. M., Kulas, J. T., & Dages, K. D. (2003). Age differences in proactive newcomer socialization strategies in two populations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 473–502. Fisher, C. D. (1986). Organizational socialization: An integrative review. In: K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 4, pp. 101–145). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Flynn, G. (1994). Attracting the right employees and keeping them. Personnel Journal, 73(12), 44–49. Gagne´, R. M. (1984). Learning outcomes and their effects: Useful categories of human performance. American Psychologist, 39, 377–385. Gagne´, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1979). Principles of instructional design. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

332


Gagne´, R. M., & Medsker, K. L. (1996). The conditions of learning. Fort Worth, TX: HarcourtBrace. George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2000). The role of time in theory and theory building. Journal of Management, 26, 657–684. Goldstein, I. I. (1974). Training: Program development and evaluation. Monterey, CA: Brooks/ Cole. Griffin, A. E. C., Colella, A., & Goparaju, S. (2000). Newcomer and organizational socialization tactics: An interactionist perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 10(4), 453–474. Gruman, J. A., Saks, A. M., & Zweig, D. I. (2006). Organizational socialization tactics and newcomer proactive behaviors: An integrative study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(1), 90–104. Hart, Z. P., & Miller, V. D. (2005). Context and message content during organizational socialization: A research note. Human Communications Research, 31, 295–309. Harvey, M., & Kiessling, T. (2004). The negative effects of being a ‘‘late’’ newcomer during an expatriate assignment. International Journal on Intercultural Relations, 28, 551–576. Haueter, J. A., Macan, T. H., & Winter, J. (2003). Measurement of newcomer socialization: Construct validation of a multidimensional scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(1), 20–39. Henderson, M., & Argyle, M. (1986). The informal rules of working relationships. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 7(4), 259–275. Holladay, C. L., Donnelly, T. M., Murray, S., & Halverson, S. K. (2006). On-boarding employees: A model examining manager behavior, socialization, and commitment. Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX. Holton, E. F., III. (2001). New employee development tactics: Perceived availability, helpfulness, and relationship with job attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(1), 73–85. Ibarra, H. (1995). Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial networks. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 673–703. Jablin, F. M. (2001). Organizational entry, assimilation, and disengagement. The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 732–818). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication. Jones, G. R. (1983). Psychological orientation and the process of organizational socialization: An interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 8, 464–474. Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustment to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262–279. Kacmar, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (1999). Organizational politics: The state of the field, links to related processes, and an agenda for future research. In: G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in human resources management, 17, 1–39. Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Wanberg, C. R. (2003). Unwrapping the organizational entry process: Disentangling multiple antecedents and their pathways to adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 779–794. Katz, R. (1980). Time and work: Toward an integrative perspective. In: B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 81–127). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Kim, T. Y., Cable, D. M., & Kim, S. P. (2005). Socialization tactics, employee proactivity, and personal-organization fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 232–241.


333

Klein, H. J., Fan, J., & Preacher, K. J. (2006). The effects of early socialization experiences on content mastery and outcomes: A mediational approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(1), 96–115. Klein, H. J., & Weaver, N. A. (2000). The effectiveness of an organizational level orientation training program in the socialization of new hires. Personnel Psychology, 53, 47–66. Klinger, E. (1975). Consequences of commitment to and disengagement from incentives. Psychological Review, 82, 1–25. Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1–49. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individual’s fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, persongroup, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342. Lance, C. E., Vandenberg, R. J., & Self, R. M. (2000). Latent growth models of individual change: The case of newcomer adjustment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 107–140. Lankau, M. J., & Scandura, T. A. (2002). An investigation of personal learning in mentoring relationships: Content antecedents, and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 779–790. Laufer, W. S., & Robertson, D. C. (1997). Corporate ethics initiatives as social control. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 1029–1048. Lester, S. W., Turnley, W. H., Bloodgood, J. M., & Bolino, M. C. (2002). Not seeing eye to eye: Differences in supervisor and subordinate perceptions of and attributions for psychological contract breach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(1), 39–56. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 212–247. Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226–251. Louis, M. R., Posner, B. Z., & Powell, G. N. (1983). The availability and helpfulness of socialization practices. Personnel Psychology, 36, 857–866. Maier, G. W., & Brunstein, J. C. (2001). The role of personal work goals in newcomers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 1034–1042. McGehee, W., & Thayer, P. W. (1961). Training in business and industry. New York: Wiley. Miller, V. D. (1996). An experimental study of newcomers’ information seeking behaviors during organizational entry. Communications Studies, 47, 1–24. Miller, V. D., & Jablin, F. M. (1991). Information seeking during organizational entry: Influences, tactics, and a model of the process. Academy of Management Review, 16, 92–120. Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (2001). Socialization in organizations and work groups. In: M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 69–112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Morrison, E. W. (1993a). Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on newcomer socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 173–183. Morrison, E. W. (1993b). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 557–589.

334


Morrison, E. W. (2002a). Information seeking within organizations. Human Communication Research, 28(2), 229–242. Morrison, E. W. (2002b). Newcomers’ relationships: The role of social network ties during socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1149–1160. Morrison, E. W., & Bies, R. J. (1991). Impression management in the feedback-seeking process: A literature review and research agenda. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 522–541. Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extra-role efforts to initiate the workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403–419. Morrison, E. W., & Vancouver, J. B. (2000). Within-person analysis of information seeking: The effects of perceived costs and benefits. Journal of Management, 26(1), 119–137. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press. Nicholson, N. (1984). A theory of work role transitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 172–191. Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1992). Organizational socialization as a learning process: The role of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45, 849–874. Palthe, J. (2004). The relative importance of antecedents to cross-cultural adjustment: Implications for managing a global workforce. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28, 37–59. Podolny, J. M., & Baron, J. N. (1997). Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review, 62(5), 673–693. Porath, C. L., & Bateman, T. S. (2006). Self-regulation: From goal orientation to job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 185–192. Reichers, A. E. (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomer socialization rates. Academy of Management Review, 12, 278–287. Riordan, C. M., Weatherly, E. W., Vandenberg, R. J., & Self, R. M. (2001). The effects of preentry experiences and socialization tactics on newcomer attitudes and turnover. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 159–176. Ritti, R. R., & Funkhouser, G. R. (1987). The ropes to skip and the ropes to know (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley. Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Psychological contracts and OCB: The effect of unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(3), 289–298. Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development of psychological contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 525–546. Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). Proactive socialization and behavioral self-management. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 301–323. Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Organizational socialization: Making sense of the past and present as a prologue for the future. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 234–279. Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2000). The role of dispositions, entry stressors, and behavioral plasticity theory in predicting newcomers’ adjustment to work. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 21, 43–62. Schein, E. H. (1968). Organizational socialization and the profession of management. Industrial Management Review, 9, 1–16.


335

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453. Schrodt, P., Cawyer, C. S., & Sanders, R. (2003). An examination of academic mentoring behaviors and new faculty members’ satisfaction with socialization and tenure promotion processes. Communication Education, 52(1), 17–29. Schwarzwald, J., Kozlowsky, M., & Shalit, B. (1992). A field study of employees’ attitudes and behaviors after promotion decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 28, 133–154. Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory framework in the employment relationship. In: C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds), Trends in organizational behavior (pp. 91–109). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons. Slattery, J. P., Selvarajan, T. T., & Anderson, J. E. (2006). Influences of new employee development practices on temporary employee work-related attitudes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17(3), 279–303. Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relationship identity and identification: Defining ourselves through work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 32, 9–32. Smith, E. M. (1993). Newcomer adaptation: An exploration of information-seeking, its antecedents, and outcomes. Unpublished master’s thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Jentsch, F. G., Payne, S. C., & Salas, E. (1996). Can pretraining experiences explain individual differences in learning? Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 110–116. Sutton, G., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Integrating expectations, experiences, and psychological contract violations: A longitudinal study of new professionals. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(4), 493–514. Taormina, R. J. (1994). The organizational socialization inventory. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 2, 133–145. Taormina, R. J. (2004). Convergent validation of two measures of organizational socialization. International Journal of Human Resources Management, 15, 76–93. Taris, T. W., Feij, J. A., & Capel, S. (2006). Great expectations – and what comes of it: The effects of unmet expectations on work motivation and outcomes among newcomers. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14(3), 256–268. Thomas, K. M., & Anderson, N. (1998). Changes in newcomers’ psychological contracts during organizational socialization: A study of recruits entering the British army. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 745–767. Tschan, F., Semmer, N. K., & Inversin, L. (2004). Work related and ‘‘private’’ social interactions at work. Social Indicators Research, 67(1–2), 145–182. Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1999). A discrepancy model of psychological contract violations. Human Resource Management Review, 9(3), 367–386. Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2000). Re-examining the effects of psychological contract violations: Unmet expectations and job dissatisfaction as mediators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(1), 25–42. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2005). Can businesses effectively regulate employee conduct? The antecedents of rule following in work settings. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1143–1158. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209–264. Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

336


Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of proactivity in the socialization process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 373–385. Wanous, J. P. (1992). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, and socialization of newcomers (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wesson, M. J., & Gogus, C. I. (2005). Shaking hands with a computer: An examination of two methods of newcomer orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1018–1026. Winstead, B. A., Derlega, V., Montgomery, M. J., & Pilkington, C. (1995). The quality of friendships at work and job satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12(2), 199–215. Witt, L. A., & Nye, L. G. (1992). Gender and the relationship between perceived fairness of pay or promotion and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(6), 910–917.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Susan Brodt (PhD, Stanford University) is E. Marie Shantz associate professor of organizational behavior and associate professor of psychology at Queen’s University. Her research examines aspects of effective work relationships and how psychological and organizational processes help or hinder their development. She is currently studying the dynamics of interpersonal trust – trust building, violation, and repair – and how factors external to a work relationship (e.g., personal blogs) can facilitate trust development and repair. Her work has been published in numerous scholarly as well as practitioner-oriented journals. Susan has served on Editorial Review Boards of several scholarly journals and has held leadership positions in both the Academy of Management (Program and Division Chair, Conflict Management Division) and the International Association for Conflict Management (Program Chair, Board of Directors). She is also an experienced executive educator and consultant on such topics as negotiation, executive leadership, interpersonal trust, and managing global teams. Graham Brown is the Lee Foundation Fellow for Research Excellence and assistant professor of organizational behavior at the Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore Management University (SMU). His primary research area is in territoriality with a specific focus on people’s claiming of territories and their reactions when others infringe on these territories. His research has been published in a variety of outlets, including the Academy of Management Review and the Journal of Environmental Psychology. Christopher J. Collins is an associate professor of human resource management in the ILR School at Cornell University. He earned his PhD in Organizational Behavior and Human Resources from the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland. Dr. Collins’ research interests include strategic human resource management, the link between HR practices and knowledge creation and innovation, the role of leadership and HR practices in creating employee engagement, and employment brand equity. His research has appeared in the Academy of 337

338

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Human Resource Management Review, Human Performance, and the Journal of Business and Psychology. Dr. Collins serves on the editorial review boards of the Academy of Management Journal and the Journal of Applied Psychology. Dr. Collins is a member of the Academy of Management, Strategic Management Society, and the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Catherine E. Connelly (PhD, Queen’s University) is an assistant professor of organizational behavior and human resources management at the DeGroote School of Business at McMaster University. Her research focuses on workers with non-standard employment relationships (e.g., volunteers, contractors, temporary and part-time workers), as well as the predictors and consequences of knowledge sharing and hiding in organizations. Her research has been published in several journals, including the Journal of Management, the Journal of Applied Psychology, the Journal of Vocational Behavior, the Journal of Management Information Systems, and Human Resource Management Review. Nikolaos Dimotakis is a doctoral student in management and organizational behavior at the Eli Broad Graduate School of Management at Michigan State University. His research focuses on two distinct areas. First, in the area of affective processes, he is interested in the formation, transfer, and decline of moods and emotions. Second, he is interested in reactions to stressors, both discrete and environmental, and how those reactions arise and change across time. Prior to pursuing a PhD in Management, he earned a Master in Business Administration degree from Michigan State University and a BA in International and European Studies from the University of Macedonia in Greece. Gerald R. Ferris is the Francis Eppes Professor of Management and Professor of Psychology at Florida State University. He received a PhD in Business Administration from the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. Ferris has research interests in the areas of social influence and effectiveness processes in organizations, and the role of reputation in organizations, and he is the author of articles published in such journals as the Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Personnel Psychology, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, and the Journal of Organizational Behavior. He served as editor of the annual research series, Research in Personnel and

About the Authors

339

Human Resources Management from its inception in 1983 until 2003. Ferris was the recipient of the Heneman Career Achievement Award, from the Human Resource Division of the Academy of Management, in 2001. Dwight D. Frink is the PMB and William King Self Chair of Free Enterprise and Professor of Management at the University of Mississippi, and Visiting Professor at Universidad de Costa Rica and INCAE. He received his PhD in Labor and Industrial Relations from the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, and has also been a member of the Management faculty at the University of Oklahoma. His research interests focus on accountability in organizations and workplace social dynamics and influences. His work can be found in outlets such as Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, the Academy of Management Journal, Human Relations, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, the Journal of Management, the Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, and the Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Angela T. Hall is assistant professor of Business Law at Florida State University, College of Business. She is also has a courtesy faculty appointment with Florida State University, College of Law. She received her undergraduate degree in Management from New York University, Stern School of Business, her juris doctorate from Florida State University, College of Law, and her PhD in Business Administration from Florida State University, College of Business. Dr. Hall has co-authored several book chapters and numerous articles in journals such as Personnel Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, and Journal of Occupational and Health Psychology. Morela Hernandez is an assistant professor of management in the Michael G. Foster School of Business at the University of Washington. She received her PhD from Duke University. Her research interests revolve around the study of leadership, in particular, focusing on the roles that stewardship, intergenerational dynamics, ethics, and trust play in leadership behavior. She also studies the topics of negotiation, culture, and workforce diversity within organizational contexts. Aden E. Heuser is a doctoral student in organizational behavior and human resources management in the Fisher College of Business at the Ohio State University. She earned her BA in International Economics and French at the University of Kentucky in 2001. Her work has been presented at the

340

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology and her primary research interests center around socialization, technology mediated communication, and groups and teams. Wayne A. Hochwarter is the Jim Moran Professor of Management in the College of Business at Florida State University. Prior to this appointment, he served as a faculty member at the University of Alabama and Mississippi State University. He received a PhD in Organizational Behavior from Florida State University. He has research interests in the areas of social influence, social networking, and work stress. His research can be found published in Administrative Science Quarterly, the Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, the Journal of Management, and the Journal of Organizational Behavior. Stephen E. Humphrey is an assistant professor of Management at The Pennsylvania State University. He received his PhD in Organizational Behavior/Human Resources Management from Michigan State University, with a minor in Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Dr. Humphrey’s research focuses primarily on two basic questions: (1) how do temporal issues impact decision-making and performance, and (2) how are work and teams structured? These two areas intersect in research exploring changing the members and roles of teams. His research has been published in journals including the Academy of Management Journal, the Journal of Applied Psychology, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Remus Ilies is the Gary Valade Research Fellow and an associate professor of management in the Eli Broad Graduate School of Management at Michigan State University. Professor Ilies received his doctorate from the University of Florida and earned a Master in Business Administration degree from Iowa State University. He conducts research on topics such as employee satisfaction, affect, work–family balance, health and well-being, leadership and group processes, and motivation and selfregulation. This research has been published in scholarly journals such as Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, and Journal of Organizational Behavior, and has received multiple research awards. Dr. Ilies currently serves on the editorial boards of Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Leadership Quarterly, and Psihologia Resurselor Umane.

About the Authors

341

Rebecca R. Kehoe is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Human Resource Studies in the ILR School at Cornell University. Her research interests include strategic human resource management, equifinality in HR systems, organizational commitment, and diversity management in organizations. She is a member of the Academy of Management. Howard J. Klein is a professor of management and human resources in the Fisher College of Business at The Ohio State University. He received his PhD in organizational behavior and human resource management from Michigan State University. His research interests center on improving individual and team performance through the use of selection, socialization, commitment, goal setting, performance management, and training. Professor Klein has authored more than 40 articles and book chapters on these and other topics and edited a book on commitment. His articles have been published in outlets including the Academy of Management Review, Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Personnel Psychology, and Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. Professor Klein has received awards for his research, teaching, and service. He serves on several editorial review boards including the Human Resources Management Review, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Frederick P. Morgeson is a professor of management and Valade Research Scholar at the Eli Broad College of Business at Michigan State University. He received his PhD in Industrial and Organizational Psychology from Purdue University. Dr. Morgeson’s research has focused on leadership, particularly with respect to the role of leadership in self-managing teams and the nature of the relationship between leaders and followers; the nature of work, which includes how work is structured and how people perceive their work; effectiveness and consequences of different selection techniques; and issues of theory development. Dr. Morgeson is the associate editor of Personnel Psychology, is on the Board of Directors for the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) Foundation, is on the Editorial Committee for the Annual Review of Psychology, is a member of the Academy of Management’s HR Division Executive Committee, has served on the editorial boards of Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, and the Journal of Management, and is a recipient of the American Psychological Association Distinguished Scientific Award for Early Career Contribution to Psychology in Applied Psychology.

342

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Michael K. Mount is the Henry B. Tippie Research Professor in the Department of Management and Organizations at the University of Iowa. Professor Mount’s current research interests fall into two broad categories. The first examines relations between the Five-Factor Model of personality and job performance in different occupations. The second examines multirater feedback ratings and their relationship to organizational outcomes. Professor Mount has published over 100 journal articles, book chapters, and/or convention papers on human resource management topics. He is the co-author of two personality-based selection tools, The Personal Characteristics Inventory (PCI; with M. Barrick), and the Wonderlic Productivity Index (WPI; with M. Barrick and D. Waldschmidt.). He currently serves on the board of Personnel Psychology and previously served on the Editorial Board of the Journal of Applied Psychology. He is a Fellow in the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology (SIOP) and in the American Psychological Association (APA). Alexa A. Perryman is assistant professor of management in the Neeley School of Business at Texas Christian University. She received a PhD in Strategic Management at Florida State University, a BA degree from Jacksonville University, and an MBA from the University of North Florida. Her research interests are primarily in the area of individual and organizational celebrity. Her research has been presented at the Academy of Management, Southern Management Association, and the Academy of International Business-Southeast, and published in Human Resource Management, The Journal of Management Studies, International Business: Research, Teaching, and Practice, and the Research in Management series. Annette L. Ranft is associate professor of management, and chairperson of the Management Department, in the College of Business at Florida State University. She received a PhD in Strategic Management from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, an MS in Management from Georgia Tech, and a BS in Mathematics from Appalachian State University. Prior to pursuing her PhD, she worked as a systems consultant with AT&T and client service manager for EDS. Her research interests are in the areas of knowledge management, strategic leadership, and acquisition integration. She has published work in such journals as Organization Science, Journal of Management, Journal of International Business Studies, Group and Organization Management, The Academy of Management Executive, Human Resource Management, and Organizational Dynamics.

About the Authors

343

M. Todd Royle is assistant professor of management at Valdosta State University. He received a PhD in Organizational Behavior from Florida State University. His main research interests relate to accountability, culture, and organizational politics. He has published in the Journal of Managerial Psychology, the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Organizational Analysis, and the International Journal of Management and Marketing Research. Sim Sitkin (PhD, Stanford University) is professor of management and faculty director of the Center on Leadership and Ethics at the Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business. His current research focuses on leadership and control systems and their influence on how organizations and their members become more or less capable of change and innovation. He is widely known for his research on the effect of formal and informal organizational control systems and leadership on risk taking, accountability, trust, learning, change, and innovation, including a book, The Legalistic Organization, numerous articles in journals and edited books, and teaching cases. Sim has served as senior editor of Organization Science, associate editor of the Journal of Organizational Behavior, as a member of the Board of Governors of the Academy of Management and has also worked as a consultant and executive educator with many large and small corporations, non-profit and government organizations worldwide. Leigh Plunkett Tost is a PhD student in management at the Fuqua School of Business at Duke University. Her research focuses on power, organizational justice, intergenerational conflict, and ethical decision making. She is currently exploring the psychological effects of power on the power holder, with particular focus on the ways in which power endowment affects social responsibility motivations. She completed her undergraduate work at Harvard College and earned an MA in Political Science from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Kimberly A. Wade-Benzoni is an associate professor of management and Center of Leadership and Ethics Scholar at the Fuqua School of Business at Duke University. Her research focuses on intergenerational decisions, ethics, environmental issues, and social responsibility. Her work on intergenerational behavior has been recognized and funded by numerous organizations including the International Association of Conflict Management, State Farm Companies Foundation, US Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, Kellogg Environmental Research

344

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Center, and Kellogg Dispute Resolution Research Center. She is co-editor of the book, Environment, Ethics, and Behavior: The Psychology of Environmental Valuation and Degradation and co-editor of a special issue of American Behavioral Scientist. Jane Webster received her PhD from New York University and is the E. Marie Shantz Professor of MIS in the School of Business at Queen’s University in Canada. She has served as a senior editor for MIS Quarterly, guest associate editor of Information Systems Research, and the VP of Publications for the Association for Information Systems. She has published in a variety of journals including the Academy of Management Journal, Communication Research, Journal of Organizational Behavior, MIS Quarterly, and Organization Science. Her research investigates the impacts of technologies in the support of distributed work, organizational communication, employee recruitment and selection, employee monitoring, training and learning, and human–computer interaction issues. David Zweig is an associate professor of organizational behavior and human resources at the University of Toronto. He received his PhD in Industrial/ Organizational Psychology from the University of Waterloo. His research interests include the impact of employee monitoring technologies, goal orientation and learning outcomes, structured interviewing, and knowledge hiding in organizations. He has published in a variety of journals including Personnel Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Vocational Behavior, and most recently, co-authored a book chapter on electronic monitoring for the Oxford Handbook of Organizational Decision Making.

Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Volume 27

Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Volume 25 (Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management)

Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management