The Trouble with Troubled Projects: Keeping Mum during Times of Crisis

S. Petter, Adriane B. Randolph, J. DeJong, A. Robinson
{"title":"The Trouble with Troubled Projects: Keeping Mum during Times of Crisis","authors":"S. Petter, Adriane B. Randolph, J. DeJong, A. Robinson","doi":"10.17705/1ATRR.00013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study is a near exact replication of an experiment by Smith et al. (2001) that explores how individuals respond to the need to share bad news about an IT project. The replication results reinforce the crux of the original findings, which identify that when individuals think that negative information should be reported, they feel a greater responsibility to do so, but only to internal sources. In contrast with the original study, this replication study finds that a greater responsibility to report leads to more (rather than less) reluctance to report to an individual within the chain of command. Further, this study finds that an increased risk perception of a project does not necessarily result in a person being more likely to claim that the project’s status ought to be reported, and perceived wrongdoing does not have a significant impact on responsibility to report. The results imply that whistle-blowing theories may vary greatly with internal versus external sources for reporting, and individuals may be sensitized by several notable company scandals and subsequent legislation to curtail wrongdoing. Further, researchers are encouraged to continue examining other factors impacting one’s need and responsibility to report bad news.","PeriodicalId":146711,"journal":{"name":"AIS Trans. Replication Res.","volume":"198200 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AIS Trans. Replication Res.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17705/1ATRR.00013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This study is a near exact replication of an experiment by Smith et al. (2001) that explores how individuals respond to the need to share bad news about an IT project. The replication results reinforce the crux of the original findings, which identify that when individuals think that negative information should be reported, they feel a greater responsibility to do so, but only to internal sources. In contrast with the original study, this replication study finds that a greater responsibility to report leads to more (rather than less) reluctance to report to an individual within the chain of command. Further, this study finds that an increased risk perception of a project does not necessarily result in a person being more likely to claim that the project’s status ought to be reported, and perceived wrongdoing does not have a significant impact on responsibility to report. The results imply that whistle-blowing theories may vary greatly with internal versus external sources for reporting, and individuals may be sensitized by several notable company scandals and subsequent legislation to curtail wrongdoing. Further, researchers are encouraged to continue examining other factors impacting one’s need and responsibility to report bad news.
问题项目的麻烦:在危机时期保持沉默
这项研究几乎完全复制了Smith等人(2001)的一项实验,该实验探讨了个人如何应对分享IT项目坏消息的需求。重复的结果强化了最初发现的关键,即当个人认为应该报告负面信息时,他们觉得自己有更大的责任这样做,但仅限于内部来源。与最初的研究相反,这项重复研究发现,更大的报告责任导致更多(而不是更少)不愿意向指挥链中的个人报告。此外,本研究发现,对项目风险感知的增加并不一定会导致一个人更有可能声称项目的状态应该被报告,并且感知到的错误行为对报告责任没有重大影响。结果表明,举报理论可能会因内部和外部举报来源而大不相同,个人可能会因几起引人注目的公司丑闻和随后的限制不法行为的立法而变得敏感。此外,研究人员被鼓励继续研究影响一个人报告坏消息的需求和责任的其他因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信