Final Pdf File Access Restricted to UT
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 Copyright by Brian Keith Richardson 2001 i The Dissertation Committee for Brian Keith Richardson certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Talk about Organizational Wrongdoing: An Investigation of Dimensions and Predictors Committee: ___________________________________________ Laurie Lewis, Supervisor ___________________________________________ Larry Browning ___________________________________________ John Daly ___________________________________________ Alison Davis-Blake ___________________________________________ Craig Scott ii Talk about Organizational Wrongdoing: An Investigation of Dimensions and Predictors by Brian Keith Richardson, B.S., M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Texas at Austin in Partial Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin December, 2001 iii Talk about Organizational Wrongdoing: An Investigation of Dimensions and Predictors Publication No. ______________ Brian Keith Richardson, Ph.D. The University of Texas at Austin, 2001 Supervisor: Laurie K. Lewis While organizational and societal costs of organizational wrongdoing are steadily increasing there is little research into understanding the underlying factors contributing to the creation, continuance, or cessation of such activity. This study investigated the dimensionality of witness’s talk about organizational wrongdoing, and examined the influence of several predictors on respondent’s position on these dimensions. Because there is a paucity of research aimed at understanding how organizational members communicatively respond to unethical activity in the workplace, this study attempted to characterize and test predictors of such talk. A study using a sample of 95 organizational members who had witnessed real or alleged organizational wrongdoing was utilized for understanding how respondents “talked about” the activity and their rating on individual and situational factors. These individual and situational factors were considered potential predictors of particular types of witness talk about organizational wrongdoing. Factor analysis results suggest there are five types of witness talk about organizational wrongdoing based upon frequency of use. These types are (a) Sensemaking, (b) Confronting, (c) Joking, (d) Rationalizing/Distorting, (e) and iv Excusing. This study proceeds to analyze several individual and situational factors’ relationships with these dimensions. Results indicate that none of the individual or situational variables predicted use of Sensemaking. However, it was found that use of Sensemaking talk and respondent’s age were predictors of Confronting. Organizational identification ratings inversely predicted use of Joking. None of the hypothesized individual or situational factors predicted Rationalizing/Distorting or Excusing. Based upon the results, theoretical contributions of the study and directions for future research are discussed. v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . .ix LIST OF FIGURES . xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW . 1 Conceptualization of Key Predictors . 4 Theory of Talk about Organizational Wrongdoing . 10 Dissertation Overview . 18 CHAPTER 2: ORGANIZATIONAL WRONGDOING AND THEORIES OF RESPONSE . 20 Conceptualizations of Organizational Wrongdoing . 21 Organizational Wrongdoing and Communication . 23 EVLN, Dissent, Whistle-blowing, and Accounts . .25 What Causes Someone to Respond to Wrongdoing? . 26 Types of Responses to Dissatisfactory Conditions . .36 Research Question One . .49 Factors predicting Talk about Organizational Wrongdoing . .50 Situational Variables Hypothesized to Influence Witness Talk about Wrongdoing . 52 Perceived Level of Awareness about Wrongdoing . 52 Perceived Justification for the Wrongdoing . 55 Manager and Co-worker talk as Social Influence . 57 Characteristics of the Wrongdoing . .62 Perceived Cost-Benefit Analysis . 64 Individual Variables Hypothesized to Influence Witness Talk about Wrongdoing . 69 Professional, Organizational, and Group Identification . .69 Locus of Control . .75 Tenure . .76 Age . 78 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS. .82 Generating list of types of “witness talk about wrongdoing” . .83 Review of Case Studies . 85 Interviews . .86 Operationalization of statements for card sort. .88 Multi-Dimensional Scaling . 91 Procedures for Pilot Card Sort . 92 Data Organization for Dimensional Analysis. 94 Procedures for Final Card Sort . .97 vi Factor Analysis Sample . 98 Procedures for Data Collection . 98 Sample Demographics . 102 Pre-Test of Scales . .104 Wrongdoing Example . .109 Frequency of Use of Talk Behaviors. .110 Independent Variables . 110 Perceived Level of Awareness . 112 Manager Talk Against Wrongdoing . .112 Severity of the Wrongdoing . 113 Cost-Benefit Analysis . .113 Organizational Identification . 114 Professional Identification . 115 Work Group Identification . .115 Locus of Control . 116 Tenure . 117 Age . 117 Determining Talk Types . 118 Analysis of Remaining RQs . 119 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS . 121 Results of Case Study Review and Interviews . 121 Factor Analysis Results . 122 Further Theorizing about Factors Predicting Specific Types of Talk about Organizational Wrongdoing . .128 DV 1: Sensemaking . 128 DV 2: Confronting . 129 DV 3: Joking . .135 DV4 and DV5: Rationalizing/Distorting and Excusing . 137 Results: Research Questions and Hypotheses . 141 Results of Research Questions 2a – 2i . 143 Results of Regression Analysis Testing H 1, H 2, H 3, and H4 . .145 Results of Regression Analysis Testing H 6a, H 7a, H 8a, and H 9a . .148 Results of Regression Analysis Testing H 6b, H 7b, H 8b, and H 9b . .149 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION . .152 Interpretation of Results and Conclusions . 153 Research Question One Findings . 154 Predicting Use of Sensemaking Behaviors . .166 Predicting Use of Confronting Behaviors . 168 vii Predicting Use of Joking Behaviors . 171 Predicting Use of Rationalizing/Distorting Behaviors . .173 Predicting Use of Excusing Behaviors . 174 Contributions of the Study . 175 Strengths and Limitations of the Study . .181 Directions for Future Research . .188 REFERENCES: . 193 APPENDIX A: List and Description of Case Studies used to Generate List of Interactive Behaviors . .215 APPENDIX B: Interview Schedule for Respondents who have Encountered Wrongdoing in the Workplace . .216 APPENDIX C: Description of Respondents Interviewed for Development of the List of Witness Talk about Wrongdoing . 217 APPENDIX D: Final Survey used for Data Collection . 220 APPENDIX E: Master List of 112 Items Describing Witness Talk about Wrongdoing . 230 APPENDIX F: Cards Used for Pilot and Final Sort Attempts . 233 ENDNOTES: . ..