Search

A study analyzing the theories pertaining to virtue and the concept of moral identity as developed in social cognitive identity theory, is presented. Various factors including both organizational and extraorganizational, macro-cultural one, and which can foster of inhibit moral agency in organizations, are also analyzed.

Organizations sometimes present their members with facades of choice: situations that appear to promise a choice but that, in fact, do not do so. Our study examines how facades of choice, relative to genuine choice, influence justice perceptions and negative and compensatory behavioral reactions. We then consider how the adequacy and timing of explanations for facades of choice affect justice perceptions and negative and compensatory reactions following facades of choice. Results indicate that the impact of explanations is influenced by their adequacy and timing (before or after one actually suffers the broken promise inherent in a facade of choice), suggesting that the experience of an injustice may frame a person's understanding of the explanation given for that injustice.

Jones and Wicks' assertion that their convergent approach can be used to integrate divergences in stakeholder theory is fairly questionable. Jones and Wick, after all, have failed to prove that there exists a plausible empirical stakeholder theory that can be integrated with normative theory. Furthermore, their attempt to create a convergent theory has done little to advance stakeholder research beyond its current limitations.

Weaver and Gioia (1994) made a constructive contribution to the debate regarding the incommensurability of social science paradigms. We find considerable value in their insistence that incommensurability is ultimately a self-stultifying thesis. However, we believe there is a vagueness in Weaver and Gioia's interpretation of structuration theory which leads them to make assertions which do not altogether fit within the ontological framework with which Giddens provides us. In what follows will explain why both metatheoretical pluralism and traditional forms of paradigmatic social enquiry are incompatible with a structurationist approach. In several instances we will use the structural-functionalist paradigm as an example. This does not mean that we are indirectly advocating the superiority of the interpretive paradigm. Giddens is just as critical of the interpretive paradigm (see e.g. Hekman 1990). We just want to illustrate our argument as briefly and consistently as possible. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.), Descriptors: metatheory, structuration theory, social paradigms Weaver and Gioia (1994) made a constructive contribution to the debate regarding the incommensurability of social science paradigms. We find considerable value in their [...]

Although some organizational scholars invoke the alleged incommensurability of metatheoretical paradigms in order to legitimize a plurity of approaches to the field, others have called for cross- or multi-paradigm inquiry into organizations while yet maintaining the essential incommensurability of paradigms. As long as the incommensurability thesis itself is maintained, however, calls for cross- or multi-paradigm inquiry are compromised, and legitimate goals of theoretical and metatheoretical diversity are poorly served. The problem is not with such calls for broader but still diverse perspectives, but with the incommensurability thesis to which they infelicitously are tied. Giddens' structurationist metatheory provides a means to honour both calls for a broader, more unified perspective and demands for metatheoretical and theoretical pluralism, without resorting to the self-stultifying incommensurability thesis. A structurational analysis enables us to give up the idea of impermeable and imperialistic paradigms, while yet maintaining distinctive perspectives within organizational inquiry. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.), Neurath, Otto, Charles A. Morris, and Rudolf Carnap, editors 1955/1970 Foundations of the unity of science: toward an international encyclopedia of unified science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Newton-Smith, W. [...]

Discussed is the value of integrating the study of technology and society. Topics include political theory of spontaneous social orders, paradoxical nature of the theory in historical and in contemporary contexts, uses of spontaneous order theory with feedback technologies, and the comparison of feedback technology with two different spontaneous order principles. (YP)

The article discusses the 2002 article "Religiosity and Ethical Behavior in Organizations: A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective," by G.R. Weaver and B.R. Agle, and offers a rebuttal to the commentary by the authors Weaver and Agle. The commentary criticizes the suggestion of Weaver and Agle that employees should be more public in communicating their religious affiliation to colleagues. Weaver and Agle respond that the author did not consider the complexity of the relationship between religion and management thoroughly enough before asserting his opinion.