道德修复与惩罚:对管理反应的影响

Q2 Social Sciences
Kenneth D. Butterfield, Nathan R. Neale, E. Shin, Mengjiao (Rebecca) He
{"title":"道德修复与惩罚:对管理反应的影响","authors":"Kenneth D. Butterfield, Nathan R. Neale, E. Shin, Mengjiao (Rebecca) He","doi":"10.1108/omj-11-2021-1398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe current management literature suggests that when employees engage in wrongdoing, managers typically respond with punishment. The emerging moral repair literature suggests an alternative to punishment: a reparative response that focuses on repairing harm and restoring damaged relationships. However, little is currently known about restorative managerial responses, including why managers respond to employee wrongdoing in a reparative versus punitive manner. The purpose of this paper is to examine a variety of cognitive and emotional influences on this managerial decision.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis study used a scenario-based survey methodology. The authors gathered data from 894 managers in sales and financial services contexts to test a set of hypotheses regarding individual-level influences on managers’ punitive versus restorative responses.\n\n\nFindings\nThis study found that managers’ restorative justice orientation, retributive justice orientation, social considerations (e.g. when employees are relatively interdependent versus independent), instrumental considerations (e.g. when the offender is highly valuable to the organization) and feelings of anger influenced their reparative versus punitive responses.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nData are cross-sectional, so causality inferences should be approached with caution. Another potential limitation is common method bias due to single-source and single-wave data.\n\n\nPractical implications\nThe findings of this study show that managers often opt for a restorative response to workplace transgressions, and this study surfaces a variety of reasons why managers choose a restorative response instead of a punitive response.\n\n\nSocial implications\nThis study focuses on social order and expectations within the workplace. This is important to victims, offenders, observers, managers and other stakeholders. This study seeks to emphasize the importance of social factors, a shared social identity, social bonds and other relationships within this manuscript. This is an important component of organizational-focused restorative justice research.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis is the first study, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, to explicitly test individual-level influences on managers’ reparative versus punitive responses to employee wrongdoing.\n","PeriodicalId":39393,"journal":{"name":"Organization Management Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Moral repair versus punishment: influences on managerial responses\",\"authors\":\"Kenneth D. Butterfield, Nathan R. Neale, E. Shin, Mengjiao (Rebecca) He\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/omj-11-2021-1398\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThe current management literature suggests that when employees engage in wrongdoing, managers typically respond with punishment. The emerging moral repair literature suggests an alternative to punishment: a reparative response that focuses on repairing harm and restoring damaged relationships. However, little is currently known about restorative managerial responses, including why managers respond to employee wrongdoing in a reparative versus punitive manner. The purpose of this paper is to examine a variety of cognitive and emotional influences on this managerial decision.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThis study used a scenario-based survey methodology. The authors gathered data from 894 managers in sales and financial services contexts to test a set of hypotheses regarding individual-level influences on managers’ punitive versus restorative responses.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThis study found that managers’ restorative justice orientation, retributive justice orientation, social considerations (e.g. when employees are relatively interdependent versus independent), instrumental considerations (e.g. when the offender is highly valuable to the organization) and feelings of anger influenced their reparative versus punitive responses.\\n\\n\\nResearch limitations/implications\\nData are cross-sectional, so causality inferences should be approached with caution. Another potential limitation is common method bias due to single-source and single-wave data.\\n\\n\\nPractical implications\\nThe findings of this study show that managers often opt for a restorative response to workplace transgressions, and this study surfaces a variety of reasons why managers choose a restorative response instead of a punitive response.\\n\\n\\nSocial implications\\nThis study focuses on social order and expectations within the workplace. This is important to victims, offenders, observers, managers and other stakeholders. This study seeks to emphasize the importance of social factors, a shared social identity, social bonds and other relationships within this manuscript. This is an important component of organizational-focused restorative justice research.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThis is the first study, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, to explicitly test individual-level influences on managers’ reparative versus punitive responses to employee wrongdoing.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":39393,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Organization Management Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Organization Management Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/omj-11-2021-1398\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organization Management Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/omj-11-2021-1398","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当前的管理文献表明,当员工从事不法行为时,管理者通常以惩罚作为回应。新兴的道德修复文献提出了惩罚的另一种选择:修复性反应,侧重于修复伤害和恢复受损的关系。然而,目前对恢复性管理反应所知甚少,包括为什么管理者对员工的不法行为采取补救与惩罚的方式。本文的目的是研究对这种管理决策的各种认知和情感影响。设计/方法/方法本研究采用基于场景的调查方法。作者收集了来自销售和金融服务领域的894名经理的数据,以测试一组关于个人层面对经理的惩罚性反应和恢复性反应的影响的假设。本研究发现,管理者的恢复性正义取向、报复性正义取向、社会考虑(例如,当员工相对依赖与独立时)、工具考虑(例如,当冒犯者对组织非常有价值时)和愤怒情绪影响了他们的修复与惩罚反应。研究局限性/意义数据是横断面的,因此因果关系推断应谨慎处理。另一个潜在的限制是由于单源和单波数据造成的常见方法偏差。实际意义本研究的发现表明,管理者通常会选择恢复性的回应来应对工作场所的违规行为,并且本研究揭示了管理者选择恢复性回应而不是惩罚性回应的各种原因。社会影响本研究的重点是工作场所的社会秩序和期望。这对受害者、罪犯、观察员、管理人员和其他利益攸关方都很重要。这项研究旨在强调社会因素的重要性,一个共同的社会身份,社会纽带和其他关系在这个手稿。这是以组织为中心的恢复性司法研究的一个重要组成部分。原创性/价值据作者所知,这是第一个明确测试个人层面对管理者对员工不当行为的补救和惩罚反应的影响的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Moral repair versus punishment: influences on managerial responses
Purpose The current management literature suggests that when employees engage in wrongdoing, managers typically respond with punishment. The emerging moral repair literature suggests an alternative to punishment: a reparative response that focuses on repairing harm and restoring damaged relationships. However, little is currently known about restorative managerial responses, including why managers respond to employee wrongdoing in a reparative versus punitive manner. The purpose of this paper is to examine a variety of cognitive and emotional influences on this managerial decision. Design/methodology/approach This study used a scenario-based survey methodology. The authors gathered data from 894 managers in sales and financial services contexts to test a set of hypotheses regarding individual-level influences on managers’ punitive versus restorative responses. Findings This study found that managers’ restorative justice orientation, retributive justice orientation, social considerations (e.g. when employees are relatively interdependent versus independent), instrumental considerations (e.g. when the offender is highly valuable to the organization) and feelings of anger influenced their reparative versus punitive responses. Research limitations/implications Data are cross-sectional, so causality inferences should be approached with caution. Another potential limitation is common method bias due to single-source and single-wave data. Practical implications The findings of this study show that managers often opt for a restorative response to workplace transgressions, and this study surfaces a variety of reasons why managers choose a restorative response instead of a punitive response. Social implications This study focuses on social order and expectations within the workplace. This is important to victims, offenders, observers, managers and other stakeholders. This study seeks to emphasize the importance of social factors, a shared social identity, social bonds and other relationships within this manuscript. This is an important component of organizational-focused restorative justice research. Originality/value This is the first study, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, to explicitly test individual-level influences on managers’ reparative versus punitive responses to employee wrongdoing.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Organization Management Journal
Organization Management Journal Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Organization Management Journal is a blind peer-reviewed online publication sponsored by the Eastern Academy of Management. OMJ is designed as a forum for broad philosophical, social, and practical thought about management and organizing. We are interested in papers that address the interface between theoretical insight and practical application and enhance the teaching of management. OMJ publishes scholarly empirical and theoretical papers, review articles, essays and resources for management educators. Appropriate domains include: -Organizational behavior- Business strategy and policy- Organizational theory- Human resource management- Management education, particularly experiential education
×
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