Content uploaded by Wekselberg Victor
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Wekselberg Victor on Apr 03, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Abstract
This article presents a series of editorials in response to articles published in the issue as well as in previous issues, including the article “Negative affectivity and coping with job loss,” by J. M. George and A. P. Brief and “An integrative model of organizational trust,” by R. C. Mayer, J. H. Davis, and F. D. Schoorman. Topics of discussion include organizational behavior, industrial management, executive ability, and professional ethics.
... On the other hand, a benevolence-based breach will not be a critical issue in CBT relations as that kind of expectations is not germane to such relations. However, we put forth that benevolence and integrity perceptions have some sort of moral communality, which might make it hard to separate these two (Tinsley, 1996). Especially after a benevolence-based breach, this can easily contaminate integrity-based perceptions, which makes it hard to examine this type of breach exclusively. ...
This study aims to answer the question how previous trust experiences contextualize trust repair efforts. The concepts of calculus-based and relational trust are utilized to show the influence of the kind of trust on trust repair tactics, specifically apologies. We focus on a neglected referent of trust, that is trust between peers, and elucidate apology and its complements that might be effective between peers. We propose that the effectiveness of apologies and its specific complements depend not only on trust breach but also on the type of trust prior to a breach. Specifically, we claim that when apology is complemented with compensation or external attributions, these tactics repair trust more effectively in calculus-based trust. But, when apology is complemented with empathy, acknowledgment of violated norms, and extensive involvement, these tactics can effectively repair trust in relational trust. The paper aims to contribute to our understanding of apologies and the effectiveness of it under different conditions.
We measure the effects of motivation and ability on the early career success of a sample of Master's of Business Administration (MBA) graduates in the early years of their careers. We argue that performance is a joint effect of two important individual characteristics: general cognitive ability and motivation. General cognitive ability, which is representative of the general population, refers to individual differences in tasks or pursuits that demand mental effort, such as abstraction, rule inference, generalization, and manipulating or transforming problems. Motivation is conceptualized as a stable mental state that energizes human behavior. Results show that the combination of high general cognitive ability and motivation is significantly associated with more early career success. MBAs who were both smarter and worked harder were more successful in their job search upon graduation, were earning higher salaries, had more rapid pay increases, and received more promotions in their early careers. These findings add to the mounting evidence that studying enduring individual characteristics is critical to predicting behavior.
Numerous researchers have proposed that trust is essential for understanding interpersonal and group behavior, managerial effectiveness, economic exchange and social or political stability, yet according to a majority of these scholars, this concept has never been precisely defined. This article reviews definitions from various approaches within organizational theory, examines the consistencies and differences, and proposes that trust is based upon an underlying assumption of an implicit moral duty. This moral duty—an anomaly in much of organizational theory—has made a precise definition problematic. Trust also is examined from philosophical ethics, and a synthesis of the organizational and philosophical definitions that emphasizes an explicit sense of moral duty and is based upon accepted ethical principles of analysis is proposed. This new definition has the potential to combine research from the two fields of study in important areas of inquiry.
This chapter describes the methods applied in social psychology differ from those applied in physics because the two sciences have different objects. Psychophysiological theories explain social influence as a mechanical phenomenon that arises directly out of some sort of sensitivity or sympathy. According to Weber, a meaning can be understood by direct observation or by emotional reactions, whereas the understanding of motives is mediated, that is, it requires additional information and reasoning by which a motive background is constructed. Interaction consists both in people's acts and words, and in the common knowledge and experience that gives them meaning and that enables these meanings to be interpreted. In the individual personality, there are no equivalents for the group level concepts of average of individual traits or distribution of individual traits. The rules according to which individual traits influence the group's syntality are bound up with social organization, which can exist only at the group level.
Social psychology investigates not only episodes where cooperation is visible and successful; it is also interested in episodes of interaction where one would expect to find cooperation but there is none, or where cooperation fails or turns into a conflict. Exchange theory is not as universal and scientific, a representation as social psychologists seem to believe. As a matter of fact it is very limited and ethnocentric. We need tools that can help us grasp both community and society at one, and the same time on their own terms, and also to understand the historical change from the former to the latter; in other words we need historical sociology and social psychology. Georg Simmel studied the differences between immediate and mediated relations in many of his writings. The simplest case of an immediate social relation is the dyad.
We argue in this paper that in an age of complexity, change, large enterprises, and nation states, leaders are more important than ever. However, their effectiveness depends on their personality and charisma and not solely on their control over bureaucratic structures. We used a study of U.S. presidents to test a general model of leader effectiveness that includes leader personality characteristics, charisma, crises, age of the institution headed by the leader, and leader effectiveness. Age of the presidency accounted for approximately 20 percent of the variance in presidential needs for power, achievement, and affiliation. Presidential needs and a measure of leader self-restraint in using power, the age of the presidency, and crises accounted for 24 percent of the variance in presidential charisma. Age of the presidency, crises, needs, and charisma together predicted from 25 percent to 66 percent of the variance in five measures of presidential performance. Our study demonstrates that personality and charisma do make a difference.
Although the stress of involuntary job loss is well documented, the process through which people cope and ultimately adapt following this stressful event needs clarification. This article provides a crucial next step by introducing new theory to explain how people cope with job loss. The process model developed in this article incorporates constructs from coping theory, control theory, and self-efficacy. Future research strategies are suggested regarding coping effectiveness and reciprocal causality.
In this article we reply to Davis-Blake and Pfeffer's (1989) critique of dispositional research in organizational behavior and their suggestions for what it would take for dispositional research to make a valid contribution to the field. Based on a review of studies of different populations in various settings and the different assessments of dispositions, we conclude that the evidence presents a compelling argument for incorporating dispositional theory into explanations of behavior in organizations.
There has been renewed interest in dispositional explanations of individual behavior in organizations. We argue that this new stream of dispositional research is flawed both conceptually and methodologically, and we suggest several theoretical and empirical improvements. We conclude by discussing the costs of a dispositional perspective for both organizations and organizational participants.