Search

Moralization is a crucial and growing topic in psychology and related disciplines such as political science , anthropology neuroscience , and sociology. Yet, research on the implications of moralization for organizations remains sparse. Indeed, although the literature on the implications of moralization for organizations is growing, significant questions remain. For instance, can efficiency—the ratio of process output to resource use—be moralized by managers and what might its consequences be for managerial practice? And can we capture the moralization of organizational actions by members of the public through their discourse and can we use this to predict their willingness to buy products from the organization? This symposium brings together scholars who answer such questions by placing moralization within the organizational context and addressing its implications for workplace efficiency, motivation, inclusion, and misconduct. Taken together, the four talks that are part of this symposium highlight where research on moralization within organizations is going and the practical implications it provides for managerial practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recognizing how employees embark on a multifaceted "idea journey," encompassing intricate social processes following the inception of their creative ideas (Amabile & Pratt, 2016; Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017; Rouse, 2020), has become increasingly pivotal. Now in its fourth year since the 81st Academy of Management Annual Meeting in 2021, this symposium aims to continue the productive conversation among scholars and practitioners in examining creativity in its entirety. We seek to discuss recent advancements in creativity literature connected to other important research areas such as team dynamics, diversity, and human-AI interactions using a variety of methods and thus, delve deeper into the creative journey from ideation to evaluation. Understanding The Episodic Development and Release of Ideas for Ambitious Creative Projects Author: Poornika Anantha Ramakrishnan; School of Management, U. of Bath Author: Colin Muneo Fisher; UCL School of Management Overcoming the Barriers of Disciplinary Status and Hierarchy in Interdisciplinary Teams Author: Yonjeong Paik; Ajou U. Author: Myeong-gu Seo; U. of Maryland Author: Oguz Gencay; U. of Maryland R.H. Smith School of Business Author: Rellie Derfler-Rozin; U. of Maryland R.H. Smith School of Business Author: Nicolais Chighizola; U.S. Air Force AI-Generated Sparks: The Impact of AI Assistance on Ideation Author: Qing Gong; Boise State U. Evaluation Variability Hinders Support For High Value Ideas But Not Low Value Ideas Author: Wayne Johnson; U. of Utah Eccles Author: Devon Proudfoot; Cornell U. The Penalty of Experiences in Diverse Domains in Endorsement of Novel Ideas Author: Yasha Spriha; U. of Maryland R.H. Smith School of Business Author: Vijaya Venkataramani; U. of Maryland [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we explore the process of status mobility in groups with an established hierarchy. Specifically, we investigate how and why jolts - external, disruptive events that promote reevaluation of the group's internal processes - may initiate status mobility in work groups. We propose that group member's initial status interacts with the jolt to influence perceptions of status mobility (opportunity versus threat) and consequently influence status-striving behaviors and subsequent status conferral. In a quasi-experimental field study we find that members with high initial status interpret the jolt as a status mobility threat, leading them to engage in more dominance status-striving behaviors that are ultimately counterproductive in a post-jolt environment. Conversely, members with low initial status interpret the situation as a status mobility opportunity, leading them to engage in more prestige status-striving behaviors that ultimately increase their status in a post-jolt environment. We conclude with a discussion on how these findings on jolt will extend the literature on status mobility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we document the role of referrer's power in employees' reactions to referral practices. Evoking power dependence theory (Emerson, 1962) and integrating the ethics literature with the referral literature, we delineate a model that connects referrer's power with perceived self- interested motives of the hiring manager accepting the referral. Specifically we predict that employees are more likely to see an acceptance of a referral coming from a high (as opposed to low) power referrer as a way for the hiring manager to gain more power in the referrer-hiring manager relationship, thereby attributing more self-interested motives to the hiring manager in such situations. Perceived self-interested motives of the hiring manager are then associated with harsher moral judgment of the hiring manager, which in turn lead to less support for the hiring decision. We find support for our model across two experimental studies and one field study. We discuss implications for literature on referral practices, ethics and power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current organizational theories suggest that higher levels of discretion can motivate and enable managers to contribute more to their firms' success. Challenging this view, we argue that managers often prefer to allocate outcomes or resources (e.g., project assignments, rewards, duties) to their employees based on pre-determined allocation rules, rather than using their discretionary judgment. We specifically propose that concerns about damaging the quality of relationships with employees lead managers to use more rules rather than discretion in allocation decisions. We further suggest that the valence of the allocated resource (burdens vs. benefits) and managers' social proximity to employees enhance managers' relationship concerns, and hence reduce use of discretion. Our theoretical model is supported across two experimental studies and one field study. We discuss implications to the literature on managerial discretion and employees' empowerment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Groups are not insular to external influences. Unfortunately, current theorizing on the status dynamics tend to ignore these external influences that may impact the stability of the status hierarchy. With the goal to add to this emerging literature, we theorize the effects of exogenous shock to the status hierarchy. Specifically, we propose that the "survival mentality" of individuals following the experience of shock (i.e., change in task structure, change in group structure) is to demonstrate dominance (as opposed to generosity) status-striving behaviors. Findings from both a field and laboratory study converged to reveal the paradox of such "survival mentality" under shock condition - while individuals leaned towards demonstrating dominance behaviors, they suffered a significant drop in their conferral status by other group members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current study examined the effects of different forms of deception and different types of excuses on responses to dishonesty in the negotiation context. Results indicated that lying behavior and the resulting offers are perceived more negatively than withholding relevant information, but that there is no difference in the perception of behaviors or offers when relevant information is withheld compared to when it is shared. Further, excuses that acknowledged wrongdoing lead to more negative perceptions of behaviors and offers than when denials or no excuse is offered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People are sensitive to the way their outcomes are determined. Allocation systems can be based on clear, predetermined rules and procedures (rule-based systems) or they can also allow for a high degree of discretion of an authority figure, based on an interaction with/observation of that person for whom the outcomes are allocated (discretion-based systems). I argue that the comparison to others in a discretionary allocation system elicits the fear that others (especially others who satisfy the same 'eligibility rule') will gain better outcomes than the self, following the discretionary decision. The potential relative 'failure' in a discretionary allocation system, and the attribution people and others around them might make following such relative 'failure' represent a threat to one's status in a group. In a field study and a lab experiment I show that when the presence of others is more salient, people are less likely to prefer discretion. In a follow up scenario study I document the specific role of status concerns in determining people's preference for discretionary allocation systems. This work has important implications for literature on job design by conceptualizing and examining discretion in allocation decisions from the perspective of those at the receiving end of the outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]