PL EN


Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
2018 | vol. 16, nr 6 (80), cz. 2 Management, Philosophy, Reflective Practices | 85--103
Tytuł artykułu

Triggers and Damages of Organizational Defensive Routines

Warianty tytułu
Przyczyny i negatywne skutki stosowania praktyk obronnych w organizacjach
Języki publikacji
EN
Abstrakty
Dotychczas w badaniach nad praktykami obronnymi w organizacjach wskazywano na ich wyraźne i wzajemnie powiązane elementy indywidualne i organizacyjne. Nie wyodrębniono jednak i nie przeanalizowano czynników wywołujących praktyki obronne na obu tych poziomach. Charakteryzując praktyki obronne, autorzy artykułu odwołują się do teorii praktyk organizacyjnych. Następnie identyfikują czynniki wyzwalające je na poziomie indywidualnym i organizacyjnym. Do tych zidentyfikowanych na poziomie indywidualnym należą ogólne poczucie własnej skuteczności, poczucie umiejscowienia kontroli i neurotyczność, natomiast na poziomie organizacyjnym wskazano politykę organizacyjną, biurokracją i strukturę organizacyjną. Autorzy artykułu analizują potencjalne szkody, jakie praktyki obronne mogą powodować u osób i organizacji, związane z satysfakcją z pracy, zaangażowaniem w pracę, "oburęcznością" (ambidexterity) organizacji i procesami uczenia się organizacji. Zaproponowany przez autorów model teoretyczny stanowi fundament dla przyszłych badań empirycznych i poszerza na poziomie teoretycznym sieć nomologiczną praktyk obronnych w organizacjach. (abstrakt oryginalny)
EN
According to research, organizational defensive routines (ODRs) have strong and intertwined individual and organizational components. However, the literature has yet to systematically isolate and analyse ODR-triggering factors at both levels. In this paper, we shall first refer to organizational routine theory to expound the characteristics of ODRs. Next, it identifies their individual and organization-level triggers. At the individual level factors generating ODRs are general self-efficacy, locus of control, and neuroticism, while those operating at the organizational level are organizational politics, red tape, and organizational structure. Finally, the chapter explores potential damage ODRs could cause to individuals and organizations related to individuals' job satisfaction, work engagement, organizational ambidexterity, and organizational learning. The theoretical model presented in this paper forms a foundation for a future empirical study and theoretically extends the nomological network of ODRs. (original abstract)
Twórcy
autor
  • Bournemouth University
  • University of Southern Denmark
  • University of Southampton
Bibliografia
  • Alvesson, M. & Spicer, A. (2012). A stupidity-based theory of organizations. Journal of Management, 49(7), 1194-1220.
  • Argyris, C. (1986). Reinforcing Organizational Defensive Routines: An Unintended Human Resources Activity. Human Resource Management, 25(4), 541-555.
  • Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defences: facilitating organizational learning / Chris Argyris. Boston, London: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action: a guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. The United States: Jossey-Bass Inc.
  • Argyris, C. (2001). On Organisational Learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
  • Aroles, J. & Mclean, C. (2016). Rethinking Stability and Change in the Study of Organizational Routines: Difference and Repetition in a Newspaper-Printing Factory. Organizational Science, 27(3), 535-550.
  • Ashforth, B.E., & Lee, R.T. (1990). Defensive Behavior in Organizations: A Preliminary Model. Human Relations, 43(7), 621-648.
  • Bandura, A. (2012). On the Functional Properties of Perceived Self-Efficacy Revisited. Journal of Management, 38(1), 9-44.
  • Becker, M.C. (2004). Organizational routines: a review of the literature. Industrial & Corporate Change, 13(4), 643-677.
  • Borges, R. (2013). Tacit knowledge sharing between IT workers: The role of organizational culture, personality, and social environment. Management Research Review, 36(1), 89-108.
  • Bozeman, B. & Feeney, K. (2011). Rules and red tape: a prism for public administration theory and research. NR: ME Sharpe.
  • Brinsfield, C. (2013). Employee silence motives: Investigation of dimensionality and development of measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(5), 671-697.
  • Bucher, S. & Langley, A. (2016). The Interplay of Reflective and Experimental Spaces in Interrupting and Reorienting Routine Dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 594-613.
  • Guérard, S. & Seidl, D. (2016). Talking About Routines: The Role of Reflective Talk in Routine Change. Organization Science, 27(3), 678-697.
  • Chen, G., Gully, S.M., Whiteman, J.A. & Kilcullen, R.N. (2000). Examination of relationships among trait-like individual differences, state-like individual differences, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 835-847.
  • Cohen, M.D. (2012). Perceiving and Remembering Routine Action: Fundamental Micro- Level Origins. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1383-1388.
  • Cropanzano, R., Howes, J.C., Grandey, A.A. & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(2), 159-180.
  • Cyert, R., & March, J. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, 1963. Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational Innovation - A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Determinants and Moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555-590.
  • De Hoogh, A.H.B., & Den Hartog, D.N. (2009). Neuroticism and Locus of Control as Moderators of the Relationships of Charismatic and Autocratic Leadership with Burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 1058-1067.
  • Dittrich, K., Guérard, S. & Seidl, D. (2016). Talking About Routines: The Role of Reflective Talk in Routine Change. Organization Science, 27(3), 678-697.
  • Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational Innovation- A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Determinants and Moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555-590.
  • Davis, R.S., & Pink-Harper, S.A. (2016). Connecting Knowledge of Rule-breaking and Perceived Red Tape: How Behavioral Attribution Influences Red Tape Perceptions. Public Performance and Management Review, 40(1), 181-200.
  • Detert, J.R., & Burris, E.R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869-884.
  • Feldman, M.S. (2000). Organizational Routines as a Source of Continuous Change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611-629.
  • Feldman, M.S. & Pentland, B.T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94-118.
  • Felin, T., Foss, N.J., Heimeriks, K.H., & Madsen, T.L. (2012). Microfoundations of Routines and Capabilities: Individuals, Processes, and Structure. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1351-1374.
  • Fiske, S. & Taylor, S. (2013). Social Cognition from Brains to Culture (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
  • Gersick, G. & Hackman, R. (1990). Habitual Routines in Task-Performing Groups. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 47(1), 65-97.
  • Gilbert, C. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia: resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 741-763.
  • Herath, D., Secchi, D. & Homberg, F. (2016). Simulating the Effects of Disorganisation on Employee Goal Setting and Task Performance. In: D. Secchi, M. Neumann, Agent-Based Simulation of Organizational Behavior. New Frontiers of Social Science Research (pp. 63-84). New York: Springer.
  • Herath, D., Costello, J. & Homberg, F. (2017). Team Problem Solving and Motivation under Disorganization. An agent-based modeling approach. Team Performance Management, 23(1/2), 46-65.
  • Holmer, L.L. (2013). Understanding and Reducing the Impact of Defensiveness on Management Learning: Some Lessons From Neuroscience. Journal of Management Education, 38(5), 618-641.
  • Howard-Grenville, J.A. (2005). The Persistence of Flexible Organizational Routines: The Role of Agency and Organizational Context. Organization Science, 16(6), 618-636.
  • Judge, T.A., Erez, A. & Bono, J. (1998). The power of being positive: the relation between positve self-concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11(2/3), 167-187.
  • Judge, T.A., & Bono, J.E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits-self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability-with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of applied Psychology, 86(1), 80.
  • Kahn, W. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.
  • Kim, H.J., Shin, K.H. & Swanger, N. (2009). Burnout and engagement: A comparative analysis using the Big Five personality dimensions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(1), 96-104.
  • Kim, W., Kim, J., Woo, H., Park, J., Jo, J., et al. (2017). The Relationship Between Work Engagement and Organizational Commitment: Proposing Research Agendas Through a Review of Empirical Literature. Human Resource Development Review, 16(4), 350-376.
  • Knoll, M. & van Dick, R. (2013). Do I Hear the Whistle...? A First Attempt to Measure Four Forms of Employee Silence and Their Correlates. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(2), 349-362.
  • Kunda, Z. (1999). Social cognition. Making sense of people (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Levitt, R.E., Thomsen, J., Christiansen, T.R., Kunz, J.C., Jin, Y. et al. (1999). Simulating Project Work Processes and Organizations: Toward a Micro-Contingency Theory of Organizational Design. Management Science, 45(11), 1479-1495.
  • Lipshitz, R. (2000). Chic, mystique, and misconception: Argyris and Schon and the rhetoric of organizational learning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36(4), 456-473.
  • March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
  • Meglio, O., King. D. & Risberg, A. (2015). Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment. Human Resoure Management, 54(S1.), S29-S43.
  • Meneghel, I., Borgogni, L., Miraglia, M., Salanova, M. & Martínez, I.M. (2016). From social context and resilience to performance through job satisfaction: A multilevel study over time. Human Relations, 69(11), 2047-2067.
  • Morrison, E. & Milliken, F. (2000). Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a Pluralistic world. Academy of Management, 25(4), 706-725.
  • Nelson, R. & Winter, S. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge MA: Belknap Press.
  • Noonan, W. (2007). Discussing the undiscussable. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Noonan, W. (2011). Discussing the Undiscussable Overcoming Defensive Routines in Workplace. Rotman Magazine, 16-21.
  • Rayton, B.A. & Yalabik, Z.Y. (2014). Work engagement, psychological contract breach and job satisfaction. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(17), 2382-2400.
  • Rosen, C.C., Harris, K.J. & Kacmar, K.M. (2009). The emotional implications of organizational politics: A process model. Human Relations, 62(1), 27-57.
  • Ruck, K., Welch, M. & Menara, B. (2016). Employee voice: An antecedent to organizational engagement? Public Relations Review, 43(April), 904-914.
  • Sales, M., Vogt, J.W., Singer, S.J. & Cooper, J.B. (2013). From Automatic Defensive Routines to Automatic Learning Routines. Reflections, 13(1), 31-42.
  • Secchi, D. (2011). Extendable Rationality. Understanding Decision Making in Organizations. New York: Springer.
  • Simon, (1979). Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations. American Economic Review, 69(4), 493-513.
  • Sonenshein, S. (2016). Routines and Creativity: From Dualism to Duality. Organization Science, 27(3), 739-758.
  • Spee, P., Jarzabkowski, P. & Smets, M. (2016). The Influence of Routine Interdependence and Skillful Accomplishment on the Coordination of Standardizing and Customizing. Organization Science, 27(3), 759-781
  • Thoms, P., Moore, K.S., & Scott, K.S. (1996). The relationship between self-efficacy for participating in self-managed work groups and the big five personality dimensions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(4), 349-362.
  • Tranfield, D., Duberley, J., Smith, S., Musson, G. & Stokes, P. (2000). Organizational learning - It's just routine! Management Decision-London Then Bradford, 38(4), 253-266.
  • Walsh, J. & Ungson, G. (1991). Organizational Memory. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 57-91.
  • Wilson, J.A. (2001). Defensive routines and theories-in-use of hotel managers: An action science study. Unpublished PhD thesis. The University of Georgia.
  • Yalabik, Z.Y., Popaitoon, P., Chowne, J.A., & Rayton, B.A. (2013). Work engagement as a mediator between employee attitudes and outcomes. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(14), 2799-2823.
  • Yang, Y. Secchi, D. & Homberg, F. (2017). Developing a scale measuring organizational defensive routines: camouflage in organizations. Academy of Management Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA.
  • Yang, Y., Secchi, D. & Homberg, F. (2018). Are organisational defensive routines harmful to the relationship between personality and organisational learning? Journal of Business Research, 85(2018), 155-164.
  • Yi, S., Knudsen, T. & Becker, M.C. (2016). Inertia in Routines: A Hidden Source of Organizational Variation. Organization Science, 27(3), 782-800.
Typ dokumentu
Bibliografia
Identyfikatory
Identyfikator YADDA
bwmeta1.element.ekon-element-000171564123

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Musisz być zalogowany aby pisać komentarze.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.