DOCSLIB.ORG

Upsides to Dark and Downsides to Bright Personality: a Multidomain Review and Future Research Agenda

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Upsides to Dark and Downsides to Bright Personality: a Multidomain Review and Future Research Agenda JOMXXX10.1177/0149206317733511Journal of ManagementSmith et al. / Upsides to Dark and Downsides to Bright 733511research-article2017 Journal of Management Vol. 44 No. 1, January 2018 191 –217 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/014920631773351110.1177/0149206317733511 © The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Upsides to Dark and Downsides to Bright Personality: A Multidomain Review and Future Research Agenda Mickey B. Smith University of South Alabama Aaron D. Hill Oklahoma State University J. Craig Wallace University of Denver Tessa Recendes Oklahoma State University Timothy A. Judge Ohio State University It has become common practice to refer to personality traits as being either bright or dark, and a wealth of research has provided support for the effects of both bright traits and dark traits in organizations. This research has largely focused on explaining the downside of dark traits and the upside of bright traits. However, a recent trend has emerged in which scholars are challenging the long-standing convention that bright traits are always beneficial and dark traits are always detrimental. Instead, novel research has begun to explore the potential upside of dark traits and downside of bright traits. In this review, we adopt a multidomain perspec- tive—integrating work from organizational behavior, human resources, strategic management, and entrepreneurship—to highlight this growing body of research. Specifically, we focus on the work advancing our understanding of the complexity of personality, such as identifying situa- tions in which dark traits may be advantageous or beneficial and detecting curvilinear effects that suggest too much of a bright trait may be disadvantageous. Furthermore, we provide a Acknowledgments: This article was accepted under the editorship of Patrick M. Wright. We would like to thank the editorial team, our action editors David G. Allen and Ernest H. O’Boyle, and two anonymous reviewers for their guidance throughout the revision process. Corresponding author: Mickey B. Smith, Department of Management, Mitchell College of Business, University of South Alabama, 5811 USA Drive South, Mobile, AL 36688-0002, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 191 192 Journal of Management / January 2018 brief discussion on special considerations for the measurement of both bright and dark traits and close with a series of avenues for future research. Keywords: personality; top management teams/upper echelon; entrepreneurship Personality is ubiquitous in organizations—affecting individual actions, group/team behavior, and organizational-level outcomes (e.g., Finkelstein, Hambrick, & Canella, 2009; J. Hogan, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2010; Spain, Harms, & LeBreton, 2014)—and has a rich history of study within management research. The evolution of this research in management, as well as related disciplines (e.g., social psychology, finance), has yielded various models of per- sonality composed of two “shades” of traits: bright traits, defined as those typically seen as socially desirable, and dark traits, defined as those typically seen as socially undesirable (for a thorough discussion, see Judge & LePine, 2007). This bright-dark dichotomy of traits is not meant to imply a moral or ethical connotation to specific traits but rather follows a traditional view among scholars that some traits, those viewed as bright, are beneficial for individuals and organizations (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002), whereas other traits, those seen as dark, are detrimental (e.g., O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel, 2012; Spain et al., 2014). Despite a wealth of research consistent with the notions that “bright traits are beneficial” and “dark traits are detrimental,” emerging evidence suggests that the effects of personality in organizations are far more complex than previously observed. For example, extreme levels of bright traits, such as being too conscientious, may lead to deleterious outcomes to the degree they are maladaptive to certain situations (e.g., Carter, Guan, Maples, Williamson, & Miller, 2015; Judge & LePine, 2007), and higher levels of certain dark traits, like narcissism, may be beneficial in certain situations to the degree they facilitate benefits via means such as higher levels of adaptive or agentic behaviors (e.g., Castille, Buckner, & Thoroughgood, in press; Petrenko, Aime, Ridge, & Hill, 2016). In this review, we examine the burgeoning lit- erature on the bright side of dark traits and the dark side of bright traits across all manage- ment domains (i.e., organizational behavior, human resources, strategy, entrepreneurship, groups and teams, research methods). We close with a discussion of current limitations in the literature and offer an agenda for future research. Literature Review Our distinction of bright and dark traits follows prior patterns (e.g., Judge & LePine, 2007). Traits composing traditional models of personality, such as the five-factor model (FFM, or Big 5; Costa & McCrae, 1992) and the six-factor HEXACO—for Honesty-Humility (H), Emotionality (E), Extraversion (X), Agreeableness (A), Conscientiousness (C), and Openness to Experience (O) (Ashton, Lee, & Goldberg, 2004)—are normally seen as bright traits in that they are desirable and relate to positive outcomes (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002). In contrast, traits such as those in the Dark Triad (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), the Dark Tetrad (Paulhus, 2014; Plouffe, Saklofske, & Smith, 2017), and the multifactor model of aberrant personality (Wille, De Fruyt, & De Clercq, Smith et al. / Upsides to Dark and Downsides to Bright 193 2013) are commonly referred to as dark traits and are seen as undesirable. The bright and dark distinction is not meant to imply a moral or ethical divide. The categorizations corre- spond to the evolution of a larger bright and dark dichotomy in psychology and management research; thus, consistent with previous researchers, we employ these terms here for both parsimony and uniformity while remaining agnostic to any moral or ethical considerations (Judge & LePine, 2007). Indeed, many of the traits in early models of personality (e.g., the Big 5) focus on morally and ethically neutral characteristics but note their general benefits to people and organizations. Subsequently, the tradition has been to approach bright traits as generally desirable while reprobating dark traits as generally undesirable. A wealth of research exists showing the benefits of bright traits and the drawbacks of dark traits, so it would appear relatively easy to assume that bright traits lead only to desirable outcomes and dark traits are universally bad. However, a growing body of research suggests this to be an oversimplification. Rather, all personality traits—bright or dark—are likely to have upsides and downsides. Traits typically seen as bright traits may incorporate maladap- tive qualities that are detrimental in some instances, such as prosocial orientation being asso- ciated with oversensitivity to aggression (e.g., Schwenzer, 2008). Conversely, traits typically seen as dark may beget benefits in certain situations, such as the agentic social style associ- ated with the Dark Triad, which helps individuals to extract key resources from their environ- ment (e.g., Jonason, Li, & Teicher, 2010; see also Carter et al., 2015; Judge & LePine, 2007; Judge, Piccolo, & Kosalka, 2009). This research—focusing on the downsides of bright traits and the upsides of dark traits—is the focus of our review. The domain of personality is broad and includes many traits, and so reviewing each and every bright or dark trait would be unwieldy. Thus, we had to both narrow our focus on some traits to the exclusion of others while also attempting to be representative and comprehensive (cf. Short, 2009). Since our focus was the upside of traits typically seen as dark and vice versa, we used various methods to systematically identify research to be included in the review. Specifically, we took the following approaches: (1) we conducted a general database search (e.g., Web of Science) for the term personality coupled with various descriptors, such as bright, dark, upside, downside, and curvilinear, among others; (2) we focused on research, as much as possible, specifically appearing in management and applied psychology journals (e.g., Journal of Management, Journal of Applied Psychology) along with relevant literature from personality journals (e.g., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology); (3) we used recent reviews, meta-analyses, and feedback from the editor and reviewers as sources for identifying additional relevant traits and literature; and (4) we made sure to highlight literature in the context of each of the primary domains in management research. As a result of this search process, we offer Table 1 as a summary of the bright and dark traits we include in the review, and we also point to other sources that extend beyond what we offer here (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Finkelstein et al., 2009; J. Hogan et al., 2010; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002; Judge & LePine, 2007; O’Boyle et al., 2012; Spain et al., 2014). We provide the trait, the source of the trait, and a sum- mary of the components or facets composing the trait. Organizational Behavior Dark traits. Several meta-analyses and literature reviews highlight how dark traits posi- tively relate to undesirable workplace outcomes, such as counterproductive work behav- iors (CWBs), abusive supervision, unethical behavior, and job
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Constructing, Programming, and Branding Celebrity on Reality Television
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Producing Reality Stardom: Constructing, Programming, and Branding Celebrity on Reality Television A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the Requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Film and Television by Lindsay Nicole Giggey 2017 © Copyright by Lindsay Nicole Giggey 2017 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Producing Reality Stardom: Constructing, Programming, and Branding Celebrity on Reality Television by Lindsay Nicole Giggey Doctor of Philosophy in Film and Television University of California, Los Angeles, 2017 Professor John T. Caldwell, Chair The popular preoccupation with celebrity in American culture in the past decade has been bolstered by a corresponding increase in the amount of reality programming across cable and broadcast networks that centers either on established celebrities or on celebrities in the making. This dissertation examines the questions: How is celebrity constructed, scheduled, and branded by networks, production companies, and individual participants, and how do the constructions and mechanisms of celebrity in reality programming change over time and because of time? I focus on the vocational and cultural work entailed in celebrity, the temporality of its production, and the notion of branding celebrity in reality television. Dissertation chapters will each focus on the kinds of work that characterize reality television production cultures at the network, production company, and individual level, with specific attention paid to programming focused ii on celebrity making and/or remaking. Celebrity is a cultural construct that tends to hide the complex labor processes that make it possible. This dissertation unpacks how celebrity status is the product of a great deal of seldom recognized work and calls attention to the hidden infrastructures that support the production, maintenance, and promotion of celebrity on reality television.
    [Show full text]
  • School Managers' Perceptions of the Occurrence of Upward Bullying In
    SCHOOL MANAGERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE OCCURRENCE OF UPWARD BULLYING IN PUBLIC AND INDEPENDENT GAUTENG SECONDARY SCHOOLS – IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL MANAGEMENT by CIDALIA MARIA DOS SANTOS OLIVIER MINOR–DISSERTATION submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MAGISTER EDUCATIONIS in EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP in the FACULTY OF EDUCATION at the UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG SUPERVISOR : Prof BR Grobler May 2012 DEDICATION This mini-dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Rynardt Gideon Olivier, for all his support, encouragement and all the moral support that he gave me in studying for and working towards this degree. 2 | P a g e ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My children, Jason, Lauren and Micaela. My mother, Maria Amelia Jordao. My sister, Dr Anabela Nascimento and her husband José Nascimento. My supervisor, Professor BR. Grobler for all of his guidance, patience and uncanny ability to recognise my eternal optimism whilst attempting to dodge all the bullets by suggesting that sentences would be more appropriate. 3 | P a g e TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, AIMS OF STUDY AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 1.1 INTRODUCTION 9 1.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 11 1.3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 13 1.4 RESEARCH STRATEGY AND METHOD 13 1.4.1 Research design 13 1.4.2 Research method 14 1.4.3 Data collection and analysis 15 1.4.4 Demarcation of research 16 1.5 CONCEPT CLARIFICATION 16 1.6 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS 16 1.7 BENEFITS OF THE RESEARCH 17 1.8 CONCLUSION 18 CHAPTER TWO - A LITERATURE STUDY TO ELUCIDATE THE COMPONENTS
    [Show full text]
  • Employment Law Outlook Winter 2012
    Employment Law Outlook Winter 2012 Can’t YOU HEAR THAT WHISTLE BLOW? EXTENDING BENEFITS TO FORMER EMPLOYEES - A LESSON LEARNED Samuel J. Webster Cher E. Wynkoop and Corina V. San-Marina Recently, employee whistleblowing has taken on a new and enhanced life. Statutes growing out of the 9/11 terrorist attacks It is common in severance or retirement situations to promise and the economic meltdown have led to an alphabet soup of extended group health or life insurance benefits to separating federal and state whistleblower legislation. Common examples or retiring executives. In fully insured health plans (and plans of whistleblowing statutes include OSHA (workplace safety), utilizing a stop-loss carrier), employers must consult their insurers SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley securities violations), the Title VII’s anti- before committing to such a promise. In a recent court case, retaliation provisions (employment discrimination), and the anti- Bekaert Corporation learned a difficult lesson. retaliation provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In Bekaert Corp. v. Standard Security Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., the While many of these statutes have the laudatory purposes of court agreed with the stop-loss insurance carrier’s decision to protecting the public from corporate cover-ups and conspiracies deny coverage under its policy to a former employee whose and protecting employees from retaliation, typically whistleblower coverage: (1) was based on a Separation Agreement with the claims arise from employees who have some ax to grind with the employer that was never disclosed to the insurer, and (2) was employer – performance issue, personality clash, general dislike not included in the terms of the health plan sponsored by the of the work, “unfair” treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • Conflict Resolution Strategies Used by Civilian Small Business Managers on Military Bases Tavarus James Dunbar Walden University
    Walden University ScholarWorks Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection 2018 Conflict Resolution Strategies Used by Civilian Small Business Managers on Military Bases Tavarus James Dunbar Walden University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons, Management Sciences and Quantitative Methods Commons, and the Organizational Behavior and Theory Commons This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection at ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Walden University College of Management and Technology This is to certify that the doctoral study by Tavarus Dunbar has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the review committee have been made. Review Committee Dr. Kelly Chermack, Committee Chairperson, Doctor of Business Administration Faculty Dr. Patsy Kasen, Committee Member, Doctor of Business Administration Faculty Dr. Julia East, University Reviewer, Doctor of Business Administration Faculty Chief Academic Officer Eric Riedel, Ph.D. Walden University 2018 Abstract Conflict Resolution Strategies Used by Civilian Small Business Managers on Military Bases by Tavarus James Dunbar MBA, University of Phoenix, 2007 BS, University of Phoenix, 2005 Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Business Administration Walden University April 2018 Abstract Unresolved conflict is responsible for at least 50% of resignations in the workplace, which negatively affects an organization’s reputation and profitability.
    [Show full text]
  • National Training Survey 2014: Bullying and Undermining
    National training survey 2014 bullying and undermining Each year, our national training survey asks doctors in training if they have experienced bullying or undermining in their workplace. This report describes how these issues are investigated and reported on, but also how these issues are dealt with locally by local education providers. n Our data suggest that the majority of training n Our challenge, and the challenge of deaneries, environments are supportive, but that bullying local education and training boards (LETBs) and undermining does happen. 8.0% of and local education providers (LEPs), is to respondents reported experiencing bullying demonstrate that we do take these issues (n=49,994) and 13.6% reported witnessing seriously and we do take action. This report is bullying (n=49,883). part of this. n However, evidence suggests there is a reluctance n Doctors in training report bullying and to speak out about bullying and undermining undermining to us in the survey, either by – both from fear of reprisals and from lack of answering multiple choice questions or writing a faith that anything will be done. Only 1.0% of free text comment. respondents made a free text comment to us about bullying and undermining (n=53,077).* n Case studies in this report give examples of how bullying and undermining issues have n Bullying and undermining has a serious impact been investigated and resolved. The report also on the quality of training and on patient describes how we make sure that issues reported safety. It should not be accepted as part of the to us are followed up.
    [Show full text]
  • Personality Effects
    10.1177/1046496404268538SMALLHalfhill et GROUP al. / GROUP RESEARCH PERSON / FebruaryALITY COMPOSITION 2005 GROUP PERSONALITY COMPOSITION AND GROUP EFFECTIVENESS An Integrative Review of Empirical Research TERRY HALFHILL Pennsylvania State University ERIC SUNDSTROM University of Tennessee JESSICA LAHNER WILMA CALDERONE University of North Texas TJAI M. NIELSEN The George Washington University This review examines relationships between group personality composition (GPC) and group effectiveness, focusing on four questions: (a) How have researchers operationalized GPC? (b) What criteria have been used as measures of group effectiveness? (c) Is GPC related to group effectiveness? (d) Under what conditions is GPC associated with group effectiveness? A review of 31 studies yielding 334 unique relationships distinguished task and relationship predictors and criteria. Findings indicate operational definitions of GPC are varied, variance scores correlate negatively with group effectiveness, and minimum scores predict as well as mean scores. GPC is related to group effectiveness, and the effect is stronger in field studies than lab studies. Implications are discussed. Keywords: group personality composition; personality; work teams; work groups Several events in the past 20 years have led to a resurgence of interest in the personality composition of work teams. First, per- sonality has increasingly been found to be a valid predictor of per- formance (Hogan, Hogan, & Roberts, 1996), in part, because of the SMALL GROUP RESEARCH, Vol. 36 No. 1, February 2005 83-105 DOI: 10.1177/1046496404268538 © 2005 Sage Publications 83 84 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / February 2005 influence of the Big Five model of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1988; Digman, 1990). Second, research on groups has increased (Moreland, Hogg, & Haines, 1994; Neilsen, Sundstrom, & Halfhill, in press; Sanna & Parks, 1997; Sundstrom, McIntyre, Halfhill, & Richards, 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Institutional Betrayal and Gaslighting Why Whistle-Blowers Are So Traumatized
    DOI: 10.1097/JPN.0000000000000306 Continuing Education r r J Perinat Neonat Nurs Volume 32 Number 1, 59–65 Copyright C 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. Institutional Betrayal and Gaslighting Why Whistle-Blowers Are So Traumatized Kathy Ahern, PhD, RN ABSTRACT marginalization. As a result of these reprisals, whistle- Despite whistle-blower protection legislation and blowers often experience severe emotional trauma that healthcare codes of conduct, retaliation against nurses seems out of proportion to “normal” reactions to work- who report misconduct is common, as are outcomes place bullying. The purpose of this article is to ap- of sadness, anxiety, and a pervasive loss of sense ply the research literature to explain the psychological of worth in the whistle-blower. Literature in the field processes involved in whistle-blower reprisals, which of institutional betrayal and intimate partner violence result in severe emotional trauma to whistle-blowers. describes processes of abuse strikingly similar to those “Whistle-blower gaslighting” is the term that most ac- experienced by whistle-blowers. The literature supports the curately describes the processes mirroring the psycho- argument that although whistle-blowers suffer reprisals, logical abuse that commonly occurs in intimate partner they are traumatized by the emotional manipulation many violence. employers routinely use to discredit and punish employees who report misconduct. “Whistle-blower gaslighting” creates a situation where the whistle-blower doubts BACKGROUND her perceptions, competence, and mental state. These On a YouTube clip,1 a game is described in which a outcomes are accomplished when the institution enables woman is given a map of house to memorize.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Download
    International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Review Volume: 01, Issue: 01 " September-October 2018" DYSFUNCTIONALITY OF PERSONALITY-BASED CONFLICTS IN ORGANIZATIONS CONTINUE ANDDISON EKETU, PHD Department of Management University of Port Harcourt ABSTRACT The distinctive nature of individuals in their behaviors is rooted in the difference in the psycho-structural dynamics of their makeup, which is identified as a major source of conflict between individuals in organizations. The purpose of this paper is to identify the dysfunctional ties of personality-based conflict, as a mean of managing destructive confrontations between individuals in the workplace. The paper adopted constructivism as a research paradigm to interpret the dysfunctional characteristic of personality-based conflict in the workplace. It identified the types, causes and implications of personality-triggered disagreement in work organizations. It concluded that the traditional view of personality based conflict does no good to the organization in the long run, as settlement is often clothed with pretence, and parties seldom comprise their ego. However, in the short run, it may help to expose the actors’ mind, aid collaboration, etc. the paper suggested that short run advantages should be use to magnify possible gains in workplace conflicts. Keywords: Personality Based Conflict, Dysfunctionality, Functional Conflict, Conflict Thought. 1. INTRODUCTION People are distinct in their individual nature and as they converge in organizations. Organizations tend to be very complex entities. The complexities embedded in organization most times manifest in conflict between individuals and between groups particularly between individuals, disagreements on the basis of personal factors in a relationship, factors in the task, and factors in the work process, may constitute the triggers for conflict (Turne & Weed, 1983; Bernard, 2014; and Robbins, 2005).
    [Show full text]
  • 3 on 3 Solutions for Negative Behavior Modification Three Components to All Negative Incidents: 1
    3 on 3 Solutions for Negative Behavior Modification Three Components to all Negative Incidents: 1. Offender 2. Target 3. Bystanders Three Components for Correcting negative Behavior 1. Best Practice Knowledge 2. A Safe Reporting System 3. Restorative Practices Negative Behavior Causes Anger Anger has two pathways: Internal – External Continued anger can result in: Depression or Violence Depression-----Bullycide • Every 18 minutes someone commits bullycide • 3 per hour die • 72 per Day • 26,280 kids and adults die each year due to harassment/bullying (stopbullying.com) ! A form of psychological violence ! Involves hostile and unethical communication ! Systematically directed toward an individual Three criteria differentiate bullying from normal conflict 1. Persistently and consistently repeated over time 2. Malicious intent 3. Target perceives a negative impact Einarsen, 1999 1. Threat to personal reputation ◦ Public humiliation ◦ Verbal threats ◦ Shunning ◦ Spreading gossip 2. Threat to professional standing ◦ Withholding vital information ◦ Taking credit for target’s work ◦ Denying access to necessary training ◦ Assigning impossible tasks or workloads 3. Threat to physical well-being ◦ Threatening job loss ◦ Isolating the target ◦ Boasting of owning a weapon ! 37% of all Americans have been targets of workplace bullying ! 54 million people have been bullied at work (Zogby, 2007) ! More devastating than all other work- related stresses combined (Einarsen, 1999) ! High levels of absenteeism ! Presenteeism ! High levels of turnover ! Lower
    [Show full text]
  • Employment Tribunals
    Case Number: 3202288/2018 mf EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr D McQueen Respondent: Goodwin Tyres Ltd Heard at: East London Hearing Centre On: 24 and 25 April 2019 Before: Employment Judge Jones (sitting alone) Representation Claimant: In person Respondent: Mr Goodwin, Mr Anthony and Ms Shearing JUDGMENT 1. The judgment of the Employment Tribunal was given in open court on 25 April. These written reasons are provided on both parties’ request. The judgement of the Tribunal is that: - (1) The Claimant was unfairly dismissed. (2) The Claimant contributed to his dismissal by 20%. (3) The percentage chance that the Claimant would have been dismissed had a proper procedure been followed was 15%. (4) The compensation is uplifted by 25% to reflect the Respondent’s failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice. (5) The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant the following compensation for his unfair dismissal; (6) Basic Award Claimant’s employment was from October 2014 – August 2018 – 3 years and 9 months Case Number: 3202288/2018 The Claimant was 36 at the time of his dismissal The Claimant is entitled to 1 weeks’ pay for each full year of employment = £482 x 3 = £1,446.00 Less 20% for the Claimant’s conduct before dismissal - £289.20 = £1,156.80 Total Basic Award of £1,156.80 (7) Compensatory award Loss of wages for 22 weeks Net wages - £382.56 x 22 = £8,416.32 Plus £7.32 x 22 = £161.04 (Respondent’s pension contribution) = £8,577.36 Less earnings in mitigation – November – to end of January – 8 days’ work at £80 per day = £640 + 1 day’s work
    [Show full text]
  • Bullying and Harassment: Building a Culture of Dignity and Respect
    Bullying and Harassment Building a Culture of Dignity and Respect Paul Suff Marie Strebler Published by: INSTITUTE FOR EMPLOYMENT STUDIES Mantell Building University of Sussex Falmer Brighton BN1 9RF UK Tel. + 44 (0) 1273 686751 Fax + 44 (0) 1273 690430 http://www.employment‐studies.co.uk Copyright © 2006 Institute for Employment Studies No part of this publication may be reproduced or used in any form by any means— graphic, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording, taping or information storage or retrieval systems—without prior permission in writing from the Institute for Employment Studies. The Institute for Employment Studies The Institute for Employment Studies is an independent, apolitical, international centre of research and consultancy in human resource issues. It works closely with employers in the manufacturing, service and public sectors, government departments, agencies, and professional and employee bodies. For over 35 years the Institute has been a focus of knowledge and practical experience in employment and training policy, the operation of labour markets and human resource planning and development. IES is a not‐for‐profit organisation which has over 60 multidisciplinary staff and international associates. IES expertise is available to all organisations through research, consultancy, publications and the Internet. IES aims to help bring about sustainable improvements in employment policy and human resource management. IES achieves this by increasing the understanding and improving the practice of key decision makers in policy bodies and employing organisations. The IES Research Networks This report is the product of a study supported by the IES Research Networks, through which Members finance, and often participate in, applied research on employment issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Name: Moses Briggs Department: Sociology SOC 109 Assignment
    Name: Moses Briggs Department: Sociology SOC 109 Assignment Whistleblowing is the act of drawing public attention, or the attention of an authority figure, to perceived wrongdoing, misconduct, unethical activity within public, private or third-sector organizations. Corruption, fraud, bullying, health and safety violation, cover-ups and discrimination are common activities highlighted by whistleblowers. Organization development (OD) is the study of successful organizational change and performance. OD emerged from human relations astudies in the 1930s, during which psychologists realized that organizational structures and processes influence worker behavior and motivation. More recently, work on OD has expanded to focus on aligning organizations with their rapidly changing and complex environments through organizational learning, knowledge management and transformation of organizational norms and values. Key concepts of OD theory include: organizational climate (the mood or unique “personality” of an organization, which includes attitudes and beliefs that influence members’ collective behavior), organizational culture (the deeply-seated norms, values and behaviors that members share) and organizational strategies (how an organization identifies problems, plans action, negotiates change and evaluates progress). A whistleblower (also written as whistle-blower or whistle blower) is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within an organization that is either private or public. The information of alleged wrongdoing can be classified in many ways: violation of company policy/rules, law, regulation, or threat to public interest/national security, as well as fraud, and corruption. Those who become whistleblowers can choose to bring information or allegations to surface either internally or externally. Internally, a whistleblower can bring his/her accusations to the attention of other people within the accused organization such as an immediate supervisor.
    [Show full text]