Suchergebnisse

This exercise explores how organizations affect individuals' feelings and expressions of emotion. Although recent attention by management theorists suggests that emotions are an important aspect of organizational life, people's actual experience of emotions at work often do not reflect this emphasis: Work-place emotions remain, in large part, undiscussable. The purpose of this experiential exercise is to emphasize emotions as a central, rather than hidden, part of work life. In the exercise, students explore and discuss emotional "episodes" from their work lives to learn about how organizations generate display rules for emotional expression and what this means for individual and organizational effectiveness.

While previous literature tends to focus on role models as significant other people, particularly in one's early life, this study finds that individuals tend to construe their role models as a selection process of attributes from others throughout their career. I discovered that individuals primarily construe their role models along positive/negative, global/specific, close/distant, and hierarchically superior/peer-subordinate dimensions, and that across the career span, the tendency to observe role models did not change. Rather, the emphasis placed on different dimensions of role models changes. Early-stage respondents who are working on creating a viable self-concept were more likely to construe their role models as positive, close, and sources of a range of attributes. Middle- and late-stage respondents were more likely to see their role models as sources of specific, and often negative, attributes. The study suggests that these observed patterns are related to individuals' increasing confidence in their professional self-concept. In early stages, individuals pay attention to role models to create a viable self-concept; in middle stages, they seek to refine their self-concept, and in late stages, they seek to enhance and affirm their self-concept.

This study examines how women's and men's career referents—the people they see as having similar careers—affect career expectations. We raise two questions. First, what is the relative effect of the gender composition and comparison level of career referents on such expectations? Second, what happens to career expectations when women and men identify career referents at the same comparison level? Current research suggests that women have lower career expectations than men because they compare themselves with women who hold lower-level positions than the career referents identified by men. Thus, if women and men identify with career referents at a similar level, their career expectations should be equal. However, this chain of reasoning has not been tested. Using data collected from a large organization, we identify both the specific individuals that women and men perceive as having similar careers and these referents' career levels, defined as their hierarchical level in the firm. The results show that the level of career referents is more important than their gender composition in explaining individuals' career expectations. In contrast to extant explanations, the results show that even when women identify career referents at the same levels as men do, they still exhibit significantly lower career expectations. Drawing on social comparison theory, we speculate that this occurs because men's expectations are bolstered by extreme upward comparisons, whereas women's expectations are dampened, perhaps because they see high-achieving others as representing a less probable goal.

Attributing blame for performance failure and credit for success is ubiquitous in organizations. These responsibility attributions can play an important role in aligning individual and organizational performance expectations, but may also exacerbate conflict in groups and organizations. Theory suggests that an actor's organizational role will affect blame and credit attributions, yet empirical work on this prediction is lacking. This article tests an organizational role approach by assessing the effect of the responsible actor's hierarchical position and whether he or she acted as an individual or as part of a group on blame and credit attributions. The study finds that in response to organizational failures and successes leadership roles attract more blame than other positions, but in contrast to previous predictions, these roles do not attract more credit than lower level roles. In addition, upper level positions tend to be assigned greater blame than credit, while lower level positions show a reversed pattern: they attract more credit than blame. Groups are less likely to be assigned blame and more likely to be credited than are individuals, and occupants in flat organizational structures are assigned higher levels of blame and credit than are occupants in taller organizational structures.