Category Archives: Culture
Everyone On Board: Encouraging Employee Whistle-Blowing (IO Psychology)
With the prevalence of corporate scandals seemingly increasing in recent years, organizations are concerned with preventing unethical behavior like never before. One way some organizations may combat unethical behavior is through employee whistle-blowing programs, in which they encourage employees who witness unethical behavior to report it internally. In this way, organizations hope to find out about problematic behavior quickly, before the issue grows and becomes more damaging and difficult to deal with. However, whistle-blowing programs have an inherent drawback: they rely on employees to take the initiative to report unethical behavior, which many employees may be reluctant to do, especially if the unethical behavior involves their manager or another powerful figure.
A recent study by David Mayer and his colleagues investigated some of the conditions that might facilitate (or suppress) employee whistle-blowing behavior. Across two field studies and a lab experiment, the authors found that both supervisors and coworkers played key roles in determining if an employee would report unethical behavior. Specifically, ethical leadership on the part of an employee’s supervisor seemed to make it more likely that the employee would engage in whistle-blowing when necessary; however, supervisors’ ethical leadership had a much smaller impact on employee whistle-blowing when an employee’s coworkers behaved unethically. Put another way, it appears that simply having an ethical boss isn’t enough to ensure whistle-blowing; the behavior of an employee’s coworkers also seems to play an important role in this process.
While research will undoubtedly continue to uncover new insights on whistle-blowing behavior, this study has important implications for practice. Specifically, consultants might advise organizations that it is important to encourage ethical behavior at all levels of the organization. If an employee’s supervisor, or coworkers, behave unethically, it reduces the likelihood that an employee will engage in whistle-blowing. Employees need to feel that unethical behavior is discouraged at all levels of the organization, thus minimizing the risk that they take by reporting such behavior.
Email Etiquette: The Unwritten Rules We Follow
Topic: Culture, Decision Making
Publication: Administrative Science Quarterly (SEP 2012)
Article: Appeasing Equals: Lateral Deference in Organizational Communication
Authors: Alison R. Fragale, John J. Sumanth, Larissa Z. Tiedens, and Gregory B. Northcraft
Reviewed By: Susan Rosengarten
Lets face it. We’re all addicted to checking our email. How many of us can go more than a day or two without succumbing to the suspicion that we’ve received some highly critical, time-sensitive message in our inbox that requires our immediate attention? Writing emails has become so routine for many of us that sometimes it seems like our fingers automatically start typing before our brain gets a chance to catch up and tell us what to write.
A recent study by Fragale et al. (2012) found that our thought processes in composing and responding to emails are a bit more complicated than meets the eye. One might think it intuitive that employees would use deferential language in their correspondence to those above them in their companies’ organizational hierarchies. We want to appease our superiors and show them that we recognize our place below them within our companies’ social structure. Surprisingly enough though, the authors found that deferential email language is most often used in communication “among equals,” or between peers of equal or similar rank within their organization. They also found that patterns of deferential language were moderated by individuals’ concern for their status positions.
Rank indicators like job titles and physical workspaces serve to clarify organizational roles and elucidate the power relationship between superiors and their subordinates. Deferential communication becomes especially important among peers of the same rank, who are most likely to see each other as a threat to their advancement within the organization and are more sensitive to perceived cues of status competition. Bet you never thought the cognitive processes involved in “shooting” someone an email could be quite so complex, huh?
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Paradoxes and Self-examination: Exploring the gaps in Global Leadership Literature
Topic: Leadership, Culture
Publication: Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice (JUN 2012)
Article: Global Leadership: A Developmental Shift for Everyone
Authors: Katherine Holt and Kyoko Seki
Reviewed By: Nupur Deshpande
To begin on a personal note, in reading even the first few lines of this article, I had several ‘Ah-ha’ moments! This article details the potential issues of having only American or U.S.-based psychologists studying cross-cultural issues in the field. The Western ideals and perspectives may bias the research and be inapplicable to other audiences. This article brings to light all the discrepancies inherent in the cross-cultural psychology literature such as definitional confusion about culture-general and culture-specific dimensions, intercultural sensitivity, and competency models.
To address these concerns holistically, the authors propose four changes to the research direction, along with inherent challenges in the definition, conception, development, and adoption of cross-cultural research by global leaders. These shifts are: (a) developing a metric for multicultural effectiveness (b) becoming adept at managing the paradoxes inherent in global work (c) cultivating the “being” dimension of human experience, and (d) appreciating individual uniqueness in the context of cultural differences. Additionally, the authors propose a framework of 10 paradoxes organized into five categories of performance, relationships, culture, agility and orientation facing global leaders.
In this article, the authors urge the I/O Psychology community to integrate the various perspectives about cross cultural psychology, explore potential dimensions that might address developmental gaps, revamp existing models to incorporate paradoxes and to create, develop, and cultivate these developmental shits in the way we work.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Dangerous Jobs: A Reason to Play Hooky? (IO Psychology)
Topic: Leadership, Culture, Health & Safety
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (JUL 2012)
Article: Aversive workplace conditions and absenteeism: Taking referent group norms
and supervisor support into account.
Authors: M. Biron, P. Bamberger
Reviewed By: Ben Sher
Why do people play hooky from work? The stress-free paradise of a day at the beach, great seats for a baseball game on a perfect summer afternoon, that irresistible allure of Olympic equestrian as it airs live on TV… these are all possible reasons. But what
about workplace dangers? Is it possible that people avoid work because they are afraid of getting injured while doing dangerous jobs? Actually, research has found mixed results. Sometimes workplace danger means more absenteeism and sometimes it means less absenteeism. What explains this? Recent research by Biron and Bamberger (2012) has provided an interesting answer to this question.
The authors first discuss the mixed results of past research. When workplace danger
was associated with increased absenteeism, researchers explained that employees
avoid work to avoid injury or to recuperate from past injuries. That certainly makes
sense. When workplace danger was associated with less absenteeism, researchers
explained that these dangerous jobs provide extra pay to offset potential danger, or
attract and retain the kind of employees who are unfazed by danger. That makes sense
too.
So what determines whether danger will lead to more or less absenteeism? The
authors conducted a study of transit workers in a major US city, and found that two
factors influence this relationship. The first factor is the perception of “permissive
peer absence norms”. This means the general attitude that an employee’s closest
co-workers share regarding the acceptability of absence. When co-workers think
occasionally missing work is acceptable, dangerous work conditions are associated with more absenteeism.
The second factor is the perception of supervisor support. When employees feel that
their supervisors support their role at work, dangerous work conditions are associated
with less absenteeism. Why would this happen? The authors say that employees who
feel supported might experience greater organizational commitment, and be reluctant to do anything which could harm the organization. Additionally, they might have greater access to training that could make the workplace safer.
Finally, the two factors of peer absence norms and supervisor support work
together. When supervisors were more supportive of employees, peer acceptance
of absenteeism was not as likely to cause actual absenteeism. This follows social
psychology research that says cultural influence from peers is subject to competing
influences, such as influence from organizational leaders.
This study highlights the importance of positive organizational culture and proper
supervisor support. If these factors help influence whether people in physically
dangerous jobs show up for work, certainly they can help positively influence employees doing jobs with less apparent danger.
Biron, M. & Bamberger, P. (2012). Aversive workplace conditions and absenteeism:
Taking referent group norms and supervisor support into account. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97(4), 901-912.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Proactive Performance Increases Customer Satisfaction (IO Psychology)
Topic: Culture, Self-Efficacy, Job Attitudes, Citizenship Behavior
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (MAY 2012)
Article: Doing the right thing without being told: Joint effects of initiative climate and general self-efficacy on employee proactive customer service performance.
Authors: S. Raub, H. Liao
Reviewed By: Ben Sher
In the customer service division, men and women of the proactive service performance unit go above and beyond the call of duty. Their efforts often lead to increased customer satisfaction. These are their stories…
When customer service professionals follow established protocols and scripts during their interactions with customers, they are engaging in general service performance. Successfully meeting these standards is the mark of a good employee. Still, employees can do even better. One way to exceed expectations is to engage in proactive customer service performance. Employees who do this think about the future and have a long-term-oriented approach to anticipating and solving problems. They are also self-starters who do not wait to be told what to do. Instead, they take initiative to make decisions and do things that will help satisfy customers.
How can you get employees to engage in proactive customer service performance? Research by Raub and Liao (2012) has provided some clues. After conducting a large study involving dozens of service organizations, they found a positive relationship between initiative-climate and proactive customer service performance. What is initiative-climate? This is when an organization’s culture rewards and supports employees who show initiative. By doing so, they encourage employees to engage in behavior which is proactive.
The researchers also found that employee self-efficacy is positively related to proactive customer service performance. Why would this be? Employees with high self-efficacy, or the belief that they will be successful at work-related activities, are more likely to take a chance and be proactive. After all, they believe their actions have a high chance of leading to a successful outcome. Employees with low self-efficacy who do not believe they will be successful at work-related activities are less likely to be proactive. The researchers also found that the relationship between self-efficacy and proactive behavior is strengthened in an initiative-climate.
What happens when employees use proactive customer service performance? The authors found that this behavior is related to customer satisfaction, above and beyond general service performance. This means that it’s the extra, proactive behavior that is associated with the increase in customer satisfaction.
This study is important because it suggests a method for managers to increase customer satisfaction. It’s both the organization and the employee that make for a proactive environment. Organizations can create an initiative-climate that supports and rewards proactive behavior and recruit employees with high self-efficacy. Taking these steps can create an environment which is ripe for proactive service performance and customer satisfaction. And even if we are not in the service industry, don’t we all have customers whom we would like to satisfy?
Raub, S. & Liao, H. (2012). Doing the right thing without being told: Joint effects of
initiative climate and general self-efficacy on employee proactive customer service
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 651-667.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
The Competitive Advantage Behind Investing in Employees (Human Resource Management)
Topic: Performance, Human Resources, Culture, Business Strategy
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (2012)
Article: Impact of High-Performance Work Systems on Individual- and Branch- Level Performance: Test of a Multilevel Model of Intermediate Linkages
Authors: Samuel Aryee, Fred O. Walumbwa, Emmanuel Y. M. Seidu, & Lilian E. Otaye
Reviewed By: Lauren A. Wood, M.S.
With the rapid growth of global competition and the speed with which competitors can imitate products and technology, organizations are turning to human capital to differentiate themselves. As such, researchers and practitioners have stressed the value that employees play in creating and sustaining an organization’s competitive edge. As a result, many organizations have implemented high-performance work systems (HPWS), which are HR programs closely linked to the goals and culture of the organization that are designed to develop employee skills and organizational commitment in order to create a self-sustaining competitive advantage.
With a sample of 37 branches of two banks, Aryee, Walumbwa, Seidu, and Otaye tested a model linking HPWSs and performance to individual-level (i.e., employee service) and unit-level (i.e., branch market) performance outcomes. They based the model on empowerment theory which centers on redesigning work to minimize top-down control and build in greater decision-making autonomy in lower rungs of the organizational ladder. In general, the model proposes that HPWS leads to greater empowerment, and more empowered employees lead to increased customer service and branch market performance.
The authors found that variables assessed at the individual level of analysis (experienced HPWPs, employee empowerment, and service orientation) and at the unit level (use of HPWPs, empowerment climate, and aggregated service performance) influenced both levels of performance outcomes (individual level: service performance; unit level: branch market performance). Specifically, at the unit level, they found that the greater the usage of HPWPs level led to stronger empowerment climate. And, at the individual level, employee service orientation impacted the relationship between employee empowerment and service performance. They also found that empowerment climate and employee reports of experienced HPWS (at least in part) impacted the effect of unit level HPWPs on individual level employee empowerment. Additionally, individual reports of empowerment partially mediated the effect of experienced HPWS and empowerment climate on service performance.
Taken together, organizations can benefit from designing HPWS based on the goals and culture of the company. The findings indicate that investing in employees pays off in increased individual level and unit level performance. Investing in people can be the key that differentiates your organization from the competition.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
The relationship between job performance and turnover – It’s not as simple as we thought! (IO Psychology)
Topic: Job Performance, Turnover, Culture
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (JAN 2012)
Article: The effect of culture on the curvilinear relationship between performance and turnover
Authors: Michael C. Sturman, Lian Shao, & Jan H. Katz
Reviewed by: Alexandra Rechlin
The relationship between job performance and turnover has long been thought to be curvilinear (U-shaped). In other words, the highest and lowest performers are most likely to quit their jobs. Numerous studies have replicated these findings, but these studies were almost entirely conducted in the United States. In a recent article, Michael Sturman and his colleagues investigated the effect that culture may have on the relationship between performance and turnover.
The authors analyzed data from employees in 24 countries. They compared the countries in terms of in-group collectivism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance. In a culture that is highly collectivistic, people have a strong desire to be part of a group, and group goals are more important than individual ones. Power distance refers to the extent that people in that culture are accepting of unequal power distribution, and uncertainty avoidance is the extent to which a culture’s members are comfortable with uncertainty and risk.
Sturman and his colleagues found that the curvilinear relationship between job performance and turnover didn’t really hold up in some cultures. The U-shaped relationship was weaker (in other words, it’s a much flatter U) for collectivist cultures and for cultures high in power distance and high in uncertainty avoidance. Voluntary turnover was less likely in those cultures than in cultures high in individualism and low in power distance and uncertainty avoidance. The relationship between performance and turnover was stronger (more U-shaped) in cultures that were high in performance orientation.
These findings are important because they indicate that the nature of the relationship between performance and turnover is not the same for all cultures. Therefore, the same HR practices used to reduce turnover may or may not be effective, depending on the country in which they’re used. HR practices (e.g., efforts to encourage turnover of low performers, retention of high performers) should be chosen based on the target culture.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Creating Happiness at Work! (IO Psychology)
Topic: Culture, Employee Satisfaction
Title: The Science Behind the Smile
Publication: Harvard Business Review (FEB 2012)
Author: Gardiner Morse
Reviewed by: Liz Brashier
In a recent interview with psychologist Daniel Gilbert, Morse (2012) examines new research into an investigation of happiness from a scientific perspective. Happiness, long considered to be a topic better suited for philosophers or writers, is now moving into the realm of data analysis and scientific query, and Gilbert fills us in on what this new work might mean for our understanding of happiness.
You might be wondering if it’s even possible to measure something as personal and subjective as happiness. Gilbert gives us a resounding “yes” before delving into various methodologies for assessment. Across the various academic disciplines researching happiness, including neuroscience and psychology, important findings appear to be emerging. On the whole, we don’t seem to be that good at predicting what will make us happy over time. As studies reveal, we tend to overestimate the value of “happy” events in making us happy while we overestimate the value of “unhappy” events in making us sad. A break-up, the start of an exciting job, or a failing grade on exam don’t make us anywhere near as happy or unhappy as we predict. So why is that? According to Gilbert, we are excellent at finding good in any situation – we are naturals at wanting to feel happy despite our circumstances. On the flip side, when great things happen, we’re good at “snapping back to reality” quickly, and we enjoy the moment while staying realistic.
Gilbert calls this concept of finding the best in bad situations a form of “synthetic happiness.” It’s what we create for ourselves when bad things happen; real, or natural happiness, is what we experience when good things happen. So what does all of this mean for an organization? Employees function best when they are challenged, which creates a sense of natural happiness and fulfillment. Reward and respect – not punishment – is best for producing happy employees. Also, the frequency, rather than the intensity, of our happy experiences is much more meaningful in creating happiness – focus on a constant stream of good experiences for employees instead of one big reward every so often.
So go to work with a smile, challenge and reward employees, and remember that the “bad” things we experience on the job will have much less of an effect on your happiness than you think!
Morse, G. (2012). The science behind the smile. Harvard Business Review, 90, 84-90.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
When Does Conflict Improve Team Performance? (IO Psychology)
Topic: Teams, Conflict, Culture, Performance
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (JAN 2012)
Article: Reaping the Benefits of Task Conflict in Teams: The Critical Role of Team Psychological Safety Climate
Authors: B.H. Bradley, B.E. Postlethwaite, A.C. Klotz, M.R. Hamdani, K.G. Brown
Reviewed By: Ben Sher
There’s a battle in the meeting room! Tempers flare, fists pound the table, insults are hurled, a chair flies through the air! No, this is probably not the best way to get things done. But what happens if team members engage in spirited debate that is strictly focused on the work at hand? Will that be productive? According to research by Bradley, Postlethwaite, Klotz, Hamdani, and Brown (2012), the answer depends on the type of team climate already in place.
First, the authors discuss the difference between relationship conflict and task conflict. Relationship conflict is when team members argue on a personal level, which only leads to tension and animosity. Task conflict is when team members express differences of opinion that relate only to work tasks. Past research has shown that task conflict may sometimes be beneficial and sometimes be detrimental to team performance.
So what determines when task conflict is productive? According to this study, it is the presence of something called psychological safety climate. The authors explain that safety climate occurs when team members are not afraid to speak up and offer dissenting opinions that challenge the status quo. If people believe that they will be attacked for expressing alternative viewpoints, the climate is said to have low psychological safety. In this case, the team could be in danger of groupthink, which is when reluctance to speak up leads to poor or catastrophic team decision making.
The authors found that under a psychologically safe climate, task conflict leads to better team performance. This is because team members feel secure with discussing differing viewpoints and they understand that these opinions are strictly related to the work at hand. Under these circumstances, the team will produce more ideas and engage in healthy debate to arrive at the best solution. When psychological safety is low, team members may interpret any type of dissent as personal and threatening, even when it is task related.
This study highlights the importance of maintaining a work environment that encourages people to speak up and does not punish people for offering alternative opinions. When this happens, conflict related to work tasks will become a conduit for improving team performance and not a potential pitfall.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
What are the performance implications of your organization’s culture?
Topic: Culture, Human Resources, Organizational Performance
Publication: Journal of Applied Psychology (JULY 2011)
Article: Organizational Culture and Organizational Effectiveness: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Competing Values Framework’s Theoretical Suppositions
Authors: Hartnell, C.A., Ou, A.Y., & Kinicki, A.
Reviewer: Neil Morelli
Try to define your organization’s culture in one word… The word you came up with may be a predictor of how your organization is performing. Although organizational culture is assumed to be a key component of organizational effectiveness, the theoretical connection between these two important concepts remains fuzzy. Hartnell, Ou, and Kinicki conducted a meta-analysis to explore how a prolific taxonomy of organizational cultures, called the competing values framework (CVF), may help connect our understanding of organizational culture to organizational effectiveness.
Briefly, the CVF arranges organizational cultures into four categories: clan (internal focus on human capital and membership), adhocracy (external focus on adapting through creativity, innovation, and gathering of resources), market (external focus on competitiveness and aggressiveness to meet customer demands), and hierarchy (internal focus on maintain predictability and performance through precise control and clearly defined roles).
After examining 84 studies across three dimensions of organizational effectiveness (employee attitudes, operational effectiveness, and financial effectiveness), the authors found that clan cultures were more positively associated with job satisfaction than were adhocracy cultures, subjective innovation was more strongly related to market cultures than adhocracy cultures, and market cultures had stronger positive relationships with financial effectiveness criteria than were clan or adhocracy cultures.
All that to say, each of the CVF culture types were related to organizational effectiveness criteria in varying ways; this highlights the importance of organizational culture’s role in predicting firm performance. However, the authors concluded that more work is needed regarding the CVF’s nomological validity—as researchers and practitioners look to “tried and true” methods of defining organizational culture, they must also be careful to not ignore both the role of culture in organizational functioning or the theoretical foundations of their taxonomies.
