Search results

Annotation

It is argued that theoretical constructs referring to the phenomenon of alienation may help to understand current problems within industrial and organizational psychology, social psychology, and organizational sociology. We focus on structures and processes of social alienation that can be traced back to the radicalization of economic concepts (i. e. efficiency fixation) dealing with controlling and business management. By means of some exemplary cases from science and practice it is shown that the application of radicalized economic concepts results in a change of perspectives within economy and society. More and more, preservation and dignity of human life are endangered by loosing their independent end and are transformed into a means (human capital) that is urged to justify itsself continously with regard to criteria of capital rentability.

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to contribute to the theoretical groundwork for socio-psychological investigations into the management of socially sustainable supply chains. It proposes an analytical framework for the study of the psychological conflict potential between the fulfillment of core labor standards and cost efficiency requirements.Design/methodology/approachTheoretical considerations are illustrated using an explorative qualitative-empirical case study.FindingsAn activity-theoretical approach makes it possible to combine the subjective experience of tensions between conflicting requirements on sustainability management and the practical imperatives of the capitalist-market economic system in a coherent socio-psychological analytical framework.Research limitations/implicationsThe proposed analytical framework serves as a starting point for theoretical considerations on socio-psychological determinants of the sustainability performance of the management of transnational supply chains.Originality/valueThis paper addresses the novel topic of how supply chain sustainability managers give sense to difficulties concerning the fulfillment of core labor standards while being constrained by cost efficiency requirements. To this end, in a hitherto unique way, concepts from activity theory, social cognitive theory of self-regulation and the theory of communicative action are combined into an analytical framework.

This paper deals with the three waves of the discourse on group work in social science and industrial practice that have helped pave the way for the current boom in the introduction of group work in companies. These waves are represented by the human relations approach, the sociotechnical systems approach, and the lean management debate. They are reviewed in two perspectives. The first relates to their concepts of work design and group work, following four questions: (a) What emphasis is put on work factors or on subjective orientations, on the design of working conditions or symbolic strategies? (b) How do the various approaches address the relationship between efficiency and control? (c) Which concepts of participation or democracy are involved? (d) How is the role of the social scientist in the process of industrial modernization conceptualized, explicitly or implicitly? The second perspective from a sociology of science relates to the context of production and utilization of social scientific knowledge. In general, two theses are put forward. The first states that a gap exists between the aspirations and reality of group work because the basic conflict of efficiency and control has been overlooked for ideological reasons. The second postulates that there is no linear progress in the theory and practice of group work. It seems that the socioeconomical context determines reasonably which group concept and ideology dominates certain historical phases of industrial modernization.

In this paper we discuss assumptions that are taken for granted in discourses on solidarity economy and organizational participation. One is that organizational participation contributes to the democratization of society-independently from the context. Based on our own empirical results, we argue in contrast that the relation is better conceptualized as a tension instead of a determination. Our studies also support arguments against the opposing causal assumption that 'real' participation can only serve employees' interests 'after capitalism'. Our conclusion is that we should dispense with causal thinking in terms of 'participation effects'. It's all about 'coevolution in context'. And the institutional context is not only shaped by capitalism. As our results furthermore indicate, whether organizational participation contributes to social democratization or not depends on how stakeholders deal with the (unintended) side-effects of good intentions in instances of solidarity economy. Adapted from the source document.

Our metaanalytic review investigates how employee participation in democratic enterprises is related to psychological outcomes. We gathered 60 studies through a systematic literature search of quantitative field studies (published between January 1970 and May 2017) and extracted 138 effect sizes related to three indicators of organisational democracy (OD) and 15 psychological outcomes. The overall findings suggest that employees individually perceived participation in organisational decision making (IPD) had a stronger relation to job satisfaction ([rho] = .25), job involvement/work motivation ([rho] = .36), prosocial work behaviours ([rho] = .24), civic and democratic behaviours ([rho] = .21) and perceived supportive climate ([rho] = .44) than the other two OD indicators: structurally anchored employee participation (SAEP) and employee participation in collective ownership (EO). This was not the case for valuebased commitment: the relations of SAEP ([rho] = .40), EO ([rho] = .34), and IPD ([rho] = .46) with commitment were nearly equal. Mediation analyses indicated that IPD partially mediated most of the effects of SAEP and EO on the outcomes mentioned. The crosssectional database and a small number of studies for some of the outcomes are the main limitations of this study. ; (VLID)5570517 ; Version of record

Theoretischer Hintergrund und Fragestellung Bei der Erforschung der individuellen moralischen Urteilskompetenz wurde zunehmend die Frage verfolgt, more about welche organisationalen Merkmale, buy Interaktionspraktiken und Interventionen in Institutionen sich fördernd bzw. hemmend auf die Genese von Kompetenzen und Handlungsorientierungen, die ethisch angemessenem Handeln zugrunde liegen, auswirken (z.B. Lempert, 2009; Oser & Althof, 2001; Power, Higgins, & Kohlberg, 1989)

This study examines effects of structurally anchored organisational democracy on perceived sociomoral atmosphere and on employees' prosocial, democratic behavioural orientations. Data result from the ODEM research project. Beside a description of the concept of sociomoral atmosphere, within this project, 30 small and medium sized enterprises from Austria, North Italy, South Germany, and Liechtenstein (542 participants) were surveyed with questionnaires, interviews, and document analyses. Based on organisational science criteria, several types of enterprises were derived and pooled into three groups of structurally anchored organisational democracy (no, medium, and high democracy). Multivariate group analyses show significant differences between those groups in parts of their prosocial and democratic behavioural orientations and in their sociomoral atmosphere. ; Die vorliegende Arbeit fokussiert die Effekte strukturell verankerter organisationaler Demokratie auf die wahrgenommene soziomoralische Atmosphäre der Beschäftigten und auf deren soziale und demokratieförderliche Handlungsbereitschaften. Vorgestellt werden neben einem Konzeptvorschlag zur soziomoralischen Atmosphäre empirische Ergebnisse aus dem Forschungsprojekt ODEM, in welchem 30 KMUs aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum (542 Probanden) mittels standardisiertem Fragebogen, Experteninterviews und Dokumentenanalysen untersucht wurden. Zur Auswertung wurden - nach organisationswissenschaftlichen Kriterien gebildete - Unternehmenstypen theoriegeleitet zu drei Gruppen struktureller organisationaler Demokratie (keine, mittlere und hohe Demokratieausprägung) zusammengefasst. Multivariate Gruppenvergleiche zeigen signifikante Unterschiede zwischen diesen Gruppen hinsichtlich der soziomoralischen Atmosphäre sowie in Teilen der prosozialen und demokratischen Handlungsbereitschaften.