Search

It is a common assumption that organizations should avoid "bad" behaviors, as such behaviors have very few positive outcomes or they are likely motivated by undesirable antecedents. In this symposium, we question this prevailing wisdom, in several ways. We suggest that bad behaviors may both inspire positive outcomes (task performance) and be motivated by seemingly "positive" or innocuous antecedents (gratitude, psychological distance). Additionally, we find that engaging in "bad" behaviors (expressing anger) may have positive relational consequences. Together this symposium explores a series of counterintuitive findings that help explain why bad may be good, and good bad in ways that helps illuminate unexpected behavioral mechanism in workplace relationships. Responses to Observing Others Caught Cheating: The Role of Schadenfreude Author: Daphna Motro; Hofstra U. Author: Benjamin G. Perkins; U. of Arizona Author: Aleksander P.J. Ellis; U. of Arizona Building Swift Trust via Emotional Small Talk Prior to a Virtual Exchange Author: Laura Rees; Oregon State U. Author: Dejun Kong; U. of Colorado, Boulder Author: Liuba Belkin; Lehigh U. Be Cautious when you say 'Thank You': Leaders' Gratitude Expression Leads to Unethical Behavior Author: Hamed Ghahremani; U. of New Orleans Author: Ning Xu; Stockholm School of Economics Author: Dinah Payne; U. of New Orleans Who Finds Abusive Supervision Acceptable and Why?: The Role of Social Distance as a Mechanism Author: Jake Gale; Indiana U. - Kelley School of Business Author: Amir Erez; U. of Florida Author: Debra L. Shapiro; U. of Maryland Author: Eean Crawford; U. of Iowa Author: Richard Kuerston; - [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Though past research suggests that individuals grapple with negative emotions when dealing with their own and others' bad (dishonest) behaviors, this symposium explores a different proposition, one where actors feel good for bad deeds in ways that explain why actors and their dishonest collaborators might find extensive support in organizational context. Across a series of studies, the papers in our symposium show that individuals feel pride and gratitude for dishonesty, explaining their motivation to engage in and support dishonesty. Additionally, we find that they are able to reconcile such feelings if they embrace the paradox of feeling bad and good at the same time. Together this research explores the emotional antecedents, consequences, and moderators of positive reactions to dishonesty, providing a more nuanced view as to why dishonesty persists in many organizational contexts. Proud to be Guilty - Emotional Implications of Egoistic vs. Altruistic Dishonesty Author: Shaked Shuster; Ben Gurion U. of the Negev Author: Tal Eyal; Ben Gurion U. of the Negev Author: Shahar Ayal; Reichman U. (IDC) Author: Simone Moran; Ben Gurion U. of the Negev I am Dishonest and I Know it! Paradox Mindset and Self-Concept Author: Eriselda Danaj; IESE Business School Partners in Crime: Gratitude Increases Corrupt Collaboration Author: Ke Wang; Harvard Kennedy School Author: Molly Moore; Harvard Kennedy School Author: Jennifer Lerner; Harvard Kennedy School Being Good and Doing Bad: How Occupational Stereotypes Influence Gratitude for Prosocial Dishonesty Author: S Wiley Wakeman; Stockholm School of Economics Author: Megan Chan; Stockholm School of Economics Author: Nora Hansson Bittar; Stockholm School of Economics Author: Ning Xu; Stockholm School of Economics [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Though extensive work documents the inferior outcomes faced by women relative to those of men in salary negotiations, few solutions have emerged. Exploring remedies that might reduce this gap, we examine how female (and male) negotiators respond when they learn that women are closing the gap in intended salary requests. In a preregistered study (n=1015), we randomly assign business school students to three treatment conditions where we manipulate information on previous students' intended salary requests for their first job interviews expressed in surveys over the previous five years, showing (a) a closing gender gap in salary requests from 11% to 4%, (b) a stable gender gap of 11%, or (c) a no-information control condition. For women, any information motivates an increase in their intended salary request. For men, information interestingly motivates a slight reduction in salary requests, an effect which is attenuated when it appears women are making progress in reducing the salary gap. We situate these findings within the literature on the psychological effects of position in status hierarchies, showing a basic aversion to being at the bottom (i.e., last-place aversion) and a magnifying effect of a perceived change in relative rank (i.e., status momentum). These results suggest that information on existing gaps helps to motivate women and men in ways that reduce the salary gap. Interestingly, highlighting the progress that women are making in reducing the salary gap--an outcome that is objectively true in many contexts--leads men to demand more than when presented with a static gap, manifesting the dynamic strategies that arise as we approach the tipping point in gender equality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Building on importance that peripheral niches play in the process of innovation, and incorporating the proposition that audiences perceive stigma as an aversive social condition, this paper suggests that understanding, maintaining, and developing stigma can help innovators effectively develop space for radical innovation. Three interdependent mechanisms explain this emergent process. First, innovators benefit from the dissociation inherent to stigma, allowing safe distance from homogenizing audiences, norms, and institutions that might undermine their radical ideas. Second, actors use diversity in stigma impressions to signal to supportive stakeholders who see past naïve interpretations of "bad" behaviors and recognize the value underlying second-order interpretations. Finally, underpinning the push and pull of relevant audiences is a process of engaging with moral emotions, using their ability to motivate behavioral change in support of radical innovation. An in-depth case study examining the rise of Punk music in the 1970s helps illustrate a process model where marginalized actors come to understand and profit from stigma's divergent influence over both detractors and supporters. Together this research outlines the social functional benefits of stigma in oppressive contexts, suggesting disadvantaged actors can usurp control over pernicious evaluations to fashion a supportive niche for radical innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A burgeoning literature examines a fairly recent area of research-unethical pro-social behavior (UPB), that is, unethical behavior motivated by the desire to benefit other individuals or entities (e.g., group, organization) (Chen, Chen, & Sheldon, 2016; Umpress & Bingham, 2011; Umpress, Bingham & Mitchell, 2010)-has drawn the attention of scholars to a number of important antecedents, such as organizational culture, organizational norms, and leader behavior. This symposium is designed to further the field's knowledge in this realm by examining UPB from various relational perspectives. The four papers included in the symposium shed novel light on UPB as a relational phenomenon by using a variety of research designs, study populations, and methods. Taken together, our symposium highlights relational contexts, intermediary mechanisms, and outcomes of UPB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This symposium highlights empirical and theoretical work examining the ethical implications of focusing on self-interest and/or group-interest in organizations. Behavioral ethics research has documented that ethically questionable behaviors can be driven by different goals and interests in mind. For example, unethical behaviors can be conducted either out of self-interest (e.g., TreviÃ'o & Youngblood, 1990) or the intention to benefit others and/or one's organizations (e.g., Umphress & Bingham, 2011; Wiltermuth, 2011). Both the self-interested intention and the intention to benefit one's in-group matter a great deal, as a wide array of societal and organizational influences increasingly lead people to focus on themselves and their in-group. Drawing upon multiple theoretical perspectives and methodologies, the five papers in this symposium investigate a wide range of organizational contexts where the self and group interest supersedes other organizational needs and moral values. Taken together, these papers advance our understanding of the unintended consequences of prioritizing some interest and concerns over others. Furthermore, this symposium closely fits with the conference theme of inclusiveness, by offering insights into the downstream consequences of not being inclusive and focusing on self-interest and the interest of one's in-group. Our Kind of Liar: The Honesty-Loyalty Tradeoff in Ethical Leadership Presenter: S Wiley Wakeman; Stockholm School of Economics Evaluation of Morality in Selection and Hiring Processes Presenter: Jihyeon Kim; U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Does Moral Disengagement Influence Career Success? Evidence from the Financial Sector Presenter: Lily Morse; Boston College Presenter: Ann Tenbrunsel; U. of Notre Dame Presenter: Jordan Thomas; Labaton Sucharow LLP Meaning at Work and Ethical Decision-Making Presenter: Elizabeth Luckman; U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Fair-Weather Liberals and Loyal Conservatives Presenter: Andrew Soderberg; U. of Wisconsin, Oshkosh Presenter: Teng Zhang; Penn State Harrisburg Presenter: Brad Lytle; Google Inc [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Though name dropping - mentioning one's high status connections to others - is a ubiquitous self-presentation tactic, here we show why it may be a hazardous method of promoting oneself. We argue that name dropping backfires because beyond simply indicating one's position in a social hierarchy; it highlights one's role controlling access to valuable resources (the contacts mentioned). Across four studies, we show that audiences hold various expectations of name droppers. First, we show that audiences expect the third parties mentioned by name droppers to be relevant. When name droppers instead mention irrelevant third parties, audiences not only confer less status on name droppers (Study 1), but are less willing to establish advice ties with them in MBA teams (Study 2). Additionally, we show that audiences hold an expectation that name droppers will connect them to the third parties they mention (Study 3), and that audiences penalize name droppers who are unwilling to meet this expectation when compared to name droppers that are (Study 4). Together, our results suggest that when name dropping backfires, these attempts to indicate one's connection to others ironically isolate name droppers from others in their social network. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Narcissists are seen in groups as a mixed blessing. Their ambition, drive, and vision are often seen as assets, but they are also selfish and hostile when receiving critical feedback, often emerging as a source of conflict in workgroups. Here, we show that not all narcissists derail group processes and performance. We test and find support for the notion that communal (vs agentic) narcissists support their unrealistic self-perceptions in ways that temper most negative responses to narcissists in groups. Using a longitudinal study of 74 MBA teams, we show that agentic narcissism leads to greater status conflict and lower team performance, but communal narcissism does not (Study 1). Examining the mechanisms behind this effect, we find that while both communal and agentic narcissism is associated with beliefs condoning rule breaking in organizational settings (Study 2), communal narcissism is associated with more prosocial (communal) impression management tactics (Study 3). We also show that communal narcissists share more resources (Study 4), causing them to be rated more positively (Study 5) in dictator games. Together, these results suggest that the type of narcissism matters. Ultimately it is the content rather than having grandiose self-perceptions per se that causes dysfunctional status conflict in groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]