The Social Psychology of Organizations.

The morality of transformational leadership has been sharply questioned, particularly by libertarians, “grass roots” theorists, and organizational development consultants. This paper argues that to be truly transformational, leadership must be grounded in moral foundations. The four components of authentic transformational leadership (idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration) are contrasted with their counterfeits in dissembling pseudo -transformational leadership on the basis of (1) the moral character of the leaders and their concerns for self and others; (2) the ethical values embedded in the leaders' vision, articulation, and program, which followers can embrace or reject; and (3) the morality of the processes of social ethical choices and action in which the leaders and followers engage and collectively pursue. The literature on transformational leadership is linked to the long-standing literature on virtue and moral character, as exemplified by Socratic and Confucian typologies. It is related as well to the major themes of the modern Western ethical agenda: liberty, utility, and distributive justice Deception, sophistry, and pretense are examined alongside issues of transcendence, agency, trust, striving for congruence in values, cooperative action, power, persuasion, and corporate governance to establish the strategic and moral foundations of authentic transformational leadership.

/pdf/ethics-character-and-authentic-transformational-leadership-1jcc07fyjv.pdf

Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior

Self-Directed Learning, A Guide for Learners and Teachers

The role of personality traits in the decision to start a business and to maintain it successfully is discussed controversially in entrepreneurship research. Our meta-analysis builds upon and extends earlier meta-analyses by doing a full analysis of personality traits that includes a comparison of different traits from a theoretical perspective and by analysing a full set of personality predictors for both start-up activities as well as success. Theoretically, our article adds to the literature by matching traits to the tasks of entrepreneurs. The results indicate that traits matched to the task of running a business produced higher effect sizes with business creation than traits that were not matched to the task of running an enterprise, corrected r = .247, K = 47, N = 13,280, and corrected r = .124, K = 20, N = 3975, respectively. Moreover, traits matched to the task produced higher correlations with success, corrected r = .250, K = 42, N = 5607, than traits not matched to the task of running a business...

/pdf/let-s-put-the-person-back-into-entrepreneurship-research-a-2flx5zqiro.pdf

Let's put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners' personality traits, business creation, and success

In this study, the authors used meta-analytical techniques to examine the relationship between personality and entrepreneurial status. Personality variables used in previous studies were categorized according to the five-factor model of personality. Results indicate significant differences between entrepreneurs and managers on 4 personality dimensions such that entrepreneurs scored higher on Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience and lower on Neuroticism and Agreeableness. No difference was found for Extraversion. Effect sizes for each personality dimension were small, although the multivariate relationship for the full set of personality variables was moderate (R = .37). Considerable heterogeneity existed for all of the personality variables except Agreeableness, suggesting that future research should explore possible moderators of the personality-entrepreneurial status relationship.

/pdf/the-big-five-personality-dimensions-and-entrepreneurial-30ucbn0nl0.pdf

The big five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: a meta-analytical review.

INTRODUCTION Because organizational change involves changes in policies, procedures, and resource allocations, issues of fairness are inherent in change programs.(1) Certainly organizational development (OD) has long shown an ethical concern about issues of fairness in its core values (e.g., Friedlander, 1976; Margulies and Raia, 1978) and basic assumptions as a field (e.g., Conner, 1977). Recent and emerging work in distributive, procedural, and interactional justice indicates that OD's orientation to fairness is well-placed for functional as well as ethical reasons. Justice research has shown that organizations and leaders perceived as fair command loyalty, commitment, and trust (Cobb and Frey, 1991; Folger and Konovsky, 1989; Lind and Tyler, 1988). Individuals in "fair" organizations are also more likely to engage in prosocial or "organizational citizenship" behaviors (e.g., Moorman, 1991) and are better able to adjust to the kind of adversities often found in change efforts--even layoffs (Brockner, 1988; Konovsky and Folger, 1991; Martin and Bies, 1991). Group cohesion, cooperation, and the productive resolution of disputes within and between groups have also been tied closely to perceptions of fairness (Deutsch, 1985; Lind and Tyler, 1988; Thibaut and Walker, 1975). Deutsch (1985) argues, too, that the organization as a whole is more effective when its needs are fairly addressed instead of the narrow self-interests of any one individual or group. Recently Cobb (1992) has advanced the position that the broad social reconstruction process of organizational change can be better achieved by using distributive, procedural, and interactional technologies developed specifically for the needs of organizational transformation. Although OD's value base and technology show that it has evolved to address fairness issues, the functional roles they play in organizational change remain an arena for inquiry and action (cf., Woodman, 1989). On the other hand, because most of the work done in organizational justice has been conducted within, or assumed a relatively stable organizational context, the context of organizational change has much to offer the expansion of justice theory and research. The authors propose, then, to explore the contributions that OD and organizational justice can make to each other. To do so, they explore in turn each of the three major areas that compose the current study of organizational justice: distributive justice because of its relevance to resource allocation, procedural justice because of its relevance to the process of change, and interactional justice because of its relevance to the importance of leadership in change. Distributive Justice Fundamental to change is a redistribution of resources as the organization shifts its missions, its priorities, and the means to achieve its goals. The kinds of resource reallocated are as wide ranging as are the people affected by those reallocations. They include power, prestige, authority, responsibilities, technology, and plant as well as financial resources. Small wonder, then, that such resource distributions will fundamentally affect perceptions of how fair is the change effort and, as a consequence, the outcomes that result from these perceptions such as organizational commitment, trust, and the willingness to accept change. Although there are any number of distributive criteria that may be applicable to change efforts (Reis, 1986), three criteria have commanded most of the theoretical and research attention in the justice literature: allocations based on equity, equality, and individual needs. Of the three, equity has commanded the most attention but we see the other two criteria as requiring more attention in the context of change. Equity. Compensation based on "merit" has become almost synonymous with the idea of fairness. In times of organizational stability (when goals, objectives, and the means to reach them are relatively well-known), the traditional application of the equity principle seems to play an effective role in the mobilization of human resources. …

The Role Justice Plays in Organizational Change

The Use of Personality and the Five-Factor Model to Predict New Business Ventures: From Outplacement to Start-up☆☆☆

Ethical dilemmas in human resource management: an application of a multidimensional framework, a unifying taxonomy, and applicable codes

The purpose of this article is twofold; first, to demonstrate a linkage between the tenets of justice theory and OD core values, assumptions and ethical beliefs and, second, to show the role of this linkage as it applies to postmodern organizations in terms of the evolution of OD technology. Distributive, procedural and interactional justice is discussed and juxtaposed with the humanistic and organizational effectiveness orientations that compise the core values of OD. Finally, ways are suggested that the linkage between justice theory and OD core values can be used for the development of OD science and its application to the postmodern organizational paradigm of equality, empowerment and horizontal relationships.

Linking OD’s philosophy with justice theory: postmodern implications

Translational science requires that scientists from multiple disciplines work together to improve the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of human disease. Although a literature exists on the design and management of multidisciplinary teams, little has been written on multidisciplinary translational teams (MTTs). MTTs are distinct hybrid entities, with goals taken from both industry and academic models. We identified 30 design factors in 10 domains from a literature survey relevant to our MTT model: specific goals, structures, and processes. These dimensions were adapted to our own institutional environment in the selection and management of 11 MTTs that exploited resources of University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) Clinical and Translational Sciences Awards (CTSA). Case illustrations of two specific MTTs illustrate some of the challenges encountered and opportunities realized in terms of education and scientific advances. Network depiction of disciplinarity indicated that CTSA KRs and CTSA leadership contributed to discipline diversity especially in small (or nascent) MTTs. A separate depiction of MTT-KR utilization indicated that data analysis, translational technologies, and novel methods were heavily utilized by MTTs, whereas other KRs contributed significant effort to infrastructure development. We conclude that the CTSA can provide a rich infrastructural framework and scientific environment for the development of successful MTTs.

Kevin C. Wooten

Papers

The Role Justice Plays in Organizational Change

The Use of Personality and the Five-Factor Model to Predict New Business Ventures: From Outplacement to Start-up☆☆☆

Ethical dilemmas in human resource management: an application of a multidimensional framework, a unifying taxonomy, and applicable codes

Linking OD’s philosophy with justice theory: postmodern implications

The CTSA as an exemplar framework for developing multidisciplinary translational teams.