Conscientiousness and perceived ethicality: Examining why hierarchy of authority diminishes this positive relationship

IF 6 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
Aleksandra Luksyte, Joseph A. Carpini, Sharon K. Parker, Mark A. Griffin
{"title":"Conscientiousness and perceived ethicality: Examining why hierarchy of authority diminishes this positive relationship","authors":"Aleksandra Luksyte,&nbsp;Joseph A. Carpini,&nbsp;Sharon K. Parker,&nbsp;Mark A. Griffin","doi":"10.1002/hrm.22217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Human resource (HR) managers hire conscientious employees because they are both productive and are viewed as upholding high ethical standards due to their propensity to engage in voice. Organizations may strive to create a work context conducive to all employees acting ethically, not just conscientious ones, by centralizing decision-making authority and promoting formalization through a higher hierarchy of authority. Yet, we propose that from the social information processing perspective, in higher hierarchy of authority contexts, peers may view their highly conscientious colleagues as less ethical. We hypothesize these effects through the lens of trait activation theory, according to which in a higher hierarchy of authority context, others are less likely to notice the voice behaviors of conscientious employees. Problematically, when others fail to notice conscientious employees' voice, they may perceive these workers as being less ethical. We tested our hypothesized moderated mediation model in a matched sample of employees (<i>N</i> = 820), their supervisors (<i>N</i> = 445), and peers (<i>N</i> = 529). As predicted, hierarchy of authority moderated the positive relationship between conscientiousness and voice, which in turn explained others' perceptions of their ethicality. Conscientiousness was positively related to peer assessments of ethicality via promotive (not prohibitive) voice when hierarchy of authority was lower (but not higher), partially supporting our hypotheses. These results suggest HR practitioners should be cognizant of the differential evaluations of highly conscientious employees in contexts with different levels of hierarchy of authority, and continuing challenges associated with balancing flexibility and formalization.</p>","PeriodicalId":48310,"journal":{"name":"Human Resource Management","volume":"63 4","pages":"601-617"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hrm.22217","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Resource Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22217","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Human resource (HR) managers hire conscientious employees because they are both productive and are viewed as upholding high ethical standards due to their propensity to engage in voice. Organizations may strive to create a work context conducive to all employees acting ethically, not just conscientious ones, by centralizing decision-making authority and promoting formalization through a higher hierarchy of authority. Yet, we propose that from the social information processing perspective, in higher hierarchy of authority contexts, peers may view their highly conscientious colleagues as less ethical. We hypothesize these effects through the lens of trait activation theory, according to which in a higher hierarchy of authority context, others are less likely to notice the voice behaviors of conscientious employees. Problematically, when others fail to notice conscientious employees' voice, they may perceive these workers as being less ethical. We tested our hypothesized moderated mediation model in a matched sample of employees (N = 820), their supervisors (N = 445), and peers (N = 529). As predicted, hierarchy of authority moderated the positive relationship between conscientiousness and voice, which in turn explained others' perceptions of their ethicality. Conscientiousness was positively related to peer assessments of ethicality via promotive (not prohibitive) voice when hierarchy of authority was lower (but not higher), partially supporting our hypotheses. These results suggest HR practitioners should be cognizant of the differential evaluations of highly conscientious employees in contexts with different levels of hierarchy of authority, and continuing challenges associated with balancing flexibility and formalization.

Abstract Image

自觉性与道德感知:研究权威等级为何会削弱这种积极关系
人力资源(HR)管理者雇用认真负责的员工,是因为他们既有生产力,又因其参与发声的倾向而被视为坚持高道德标准。组织可能会通过集中决策权和通过更高的权力等级促进正规化来努力创造一种有利于所有员工(而不仅仅是有良知的员工)按道德行事的工作环境。然而,我们建议,从社会信息处理的角度来看,在较高的权力等级背景下,同级人员可能会认为其高度自觉的同事道德水平较低。我们从特质激活理论的角度来假设这些影响,根据该理论,在较高的权威等级背景下,其他人不太可能注意到自觉员工的声音行为。有问题的是,当他人没有注意到自觉员工的声音时,他们可能会认为这些员工的道德水平较低。我们在员工(820 人)、上司(445 人)和同事(529 人)的匹配样本中测试了我们假设的调节中介模型。正如所预测的那样,权力等级调节了自觉性与发言权之间的正相关关系,而发言权反过来又解释了他人对其道德性的看法。当权威等级较低时(而不是较高时),自觉性通过促进性声音(而不是禁止性声音)与同行对道德性的评估呈正相关,部分支持了我们的假设。这些结果表明,人力资源从业人员应该认识到,在权力等级不同的情况下,对高度自觉的员工的评价也不尽相同。
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
CiteScore
11.50
自引率
9.10%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Covering the broad spectrum of contemporary human resource management, this journal provides academics and practicing managers with the latest concepts, tools, and information for effective problem solving and decision making in this field. Broad in scope, it explores issues of societal, organizational, and individual relevance. Journal articles discuss new theories, new techniques, case studies, models, and research trends of particular significance to practicing HR managers
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信