Journal of Managerial Issues 

About: Journal of Managerial Issues is an academic journal. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Organizational commitment & Job satisfaction. It has an ISSN identifier of 1045-3695. Over the lifetime, 606 publications have been published receiving 23830 citations.

Managing emotions in the workplace.

Abstract: Over the past ten years, increasing attention has been given to how workers express emotions in a variety of work settings (Ashforth and Humphrey, 1995; Rafaeli and Sutton, 1987, 1989; Sutton, 1991; Wharton and Erickson, 1993). An underresearched, yet critical, aspect of the literature on emotions in organizational life concerns employers' attempts to control and direct how employees display emotions to customers. Emotional labor, generally defined as the act of expressing organizationally-desired emotions during service transactions (Ashforth and Humphrey, 1993; Hochschild, 1983), is the central focus of this study. This article seeks to extend previous theoretical and empirical research on emotional labor in four ways. First, a more rigorous conceptualization of emotional labor is presented. By drawing on previous emotional labor studies, psychological and anthropological research on emotions, and impression management studies, a three-component conceptualization of emotional labor will be advanced. The framework presented here suggests that emotional labor can best be described in terms of frequency of emotional labor, duration of emotional labor, and emotional dissonance experienced as a result of having to express emotions one may not actually feel. The second objective is to identify the organizational and job characteristics which might predict emotional labor. Previous researchers (Adelmann, 1989; Ashforth and Humphrey, 1993; Hochschild, 1983; Wharton, 1993) have suggested, but rarely tested, variables which may help to predict which work roles will require regulation of emotional expression and what conditions might influence employees' willingness and ability to express sanctioned emotions. The third objective is to explore the consequences of performing emotional labor on employees' well-being. Previous research has implicitly or explicitly concluded that emotional labor has negative and dysfunctional consequences for workers (Adelmann, 1989; Erickson, 1991; Hochschild, 1983). This study suggests the possibility that under certain conditions, performing emotional labor actually leads to favorable attitudinal and role behavior outcomes. Finally, the article examines the implications of this research for more effective management of emotions during service transactions. The rapid and significant increase in the number of jobs which require regulated displays of emotion, as well as the potential impact of emotional displays on service quality and customer satisfaction, certainly makes this issue one worthy of additional attention. THEORY Conceptualization of Emotional Labor According to Hochschild (1983), jobs involving regulated displays of emotion possess three characteristics: (1) they entail voice or facial contact with the public; (2) they require the worker to produce an emotional state or reaction in the customer; and (3) they provide the employer an opportunity to control the emotional activities of the employee. Displaying organizationally-sanctioned emotions to customers or clients has been argued to be a form of "labor" since it requires effort, planning, anticipation, and adjustment to situational factors in order to publicly display emotions that employees may not necessarily privately feel (James, 1989). Frequency of Interaction. A categorization of jobs requiring emotional labor provided by Hochschild (1983) established the foundation from which virtually every existing empirical study of emotional labor has since proceeded. The premise here is that external stakeholders (customers or clients) are more likely to comply with organizational goals when the affective bonds of liking, trust, and respect have been established through appropriate employee behavior. Thus, the more a work role requires contact with other people, the greater the organization's need to rely upon regulated displays of emotion to ensure compliance with organizational goals. …

Human Resource Configurations, Intellectual Capital, and Organizational Performance.

Abstract: Throughout the past fifteen years researchers have examined the link between human resource (HR) activities and organizational-level performance. Many of the early studies in this area simply looked at the performance impacts of individual HR practices such as staffing, training, and compensation in isolation. More recent HR studies have tended to take a more holistic approach to HR by focusing on the performance impacts of systems or configurations of multiple HR activities (e.g., Huselid, 1995; MacDuffie, 1995; Youndt et al., 1996). While both of these lines of research have demonstrated that HR activities can have a positive influence on organizational value creation and performance, neither approach has given us a very clear understanding as to how this value-creating process actually occurs. As Becker and his colleagues noted, "To date there is very little research that ... describes the processes through which HRM systems influence the principal intermediate variables that ultimately affect firm performance" (1997: 40-41). In short, we know very little about the black box between a firm's HR activities and its bottom line. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to introduce intellectual capital as a mediating construct between HR configurations and organizational performance, thereby combining research streams in HR and strategic management. Although, academic and business strategists have acknowledged that HR plays a role in developing and managing strategic resources and core competencies, theoretical development and empirical research have been slow to follow. By introducing intellectual capital as a mediating construct, we hope to better frame how HR systems drive organizational performance. In essence, this article suggests HR activities do not directly increase organizational-level performance; rather they help increase employees' knowledge and skills (i.e., human capital), facilitate group interaction and knowledge sharing (i.e., social capital), and enable organizations to store knowledge in systems, routines, processes, and cultures (i.e., organizational capital), which, in turn, drive organizational performance. In what follows, we begin by outlining a conceptualization of the various aspects on intellectual capital. Next, we examine how different FIR configurations might facilitate the development of these various aspects of intellectual capital and how intellectual capital might enhance organizational performance. Then, we test the mediating role of intellectual capital between FIR configurations and organizational performance. To conclude, we discuss the implications of our findings and briefly outline several limitations of the present study as well as suggest potential future research directions. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES Spender and Grant noted in their introduction to Strategic Management Journal's special issue on knowledge and the firm that strategy researchers are facing a "growing realization that the variables which are most theoretically interesting are those which are least identifiable and measurable" (1997: 8). Intellectual capital is one such variable. Several writers have presented frameworks, however, to help us conceptualize the construct and make it easier to operationalize for research. Edvinsson and Malone (1997), for example, view intellectual capital as being comprised of two primary components: human capital (i.e., the knowledge skills and experience of employees) and structural capital (i.e., the embodiment, empowerment, and supportive infrastructure of human capital). The authors then sub-divide structural capital into two smaller components: organizational capital (i.e., the systems, tools, and operating philosophy that speed the flow of knowledge through the organization) and customer capital (i.e., relationships a company has with its customers). Stewart (1997) similarly conceives of intellectual capital as composed of human capital and structural capital. …

Women in Management and Firm Financial Performance: An Exploratory Study

Abstract: Modern business is clearly conducted in uncertain contexts. Today's firms are faced with ever increasing international competitive pressures, unstable capricious markets, new and complex technologies, and with dramatic changes in society in general. Paramount among these changing contexts is the change in the management composition of firms due to women assuming management positions. The American work force is one of the most ethnically and gender diverse in the world (Cox and Smolinski, 1994). For firms, this diversity affords new opportunities and challenges. According to Nichols (1993), in this decade, women managers will redefine managerial work and will provide firms with opportunities to capitalize on the challenging contexts they face. Zellner (1994) further notes that women are starting new businesses at a rate nearly twice that of men, and are "bringing to the table" skills such as team building and employee development that are very much in tune with today's competitive realities. Our goal in this study is to provide conceptual arguments and empirically explore the firm-level relationships of women in management with financial performance outcomes. To this date, few studies have been directly concerned with firm-level financial performance issues. We will justify and build on the assumption that firms employing more women managers have probably done a better job of recruiting capable managers from the total available talent pool, and consequently will be in a better position to link with customers, employees, and other constituencies. Firms employing higher percentages of women are likely to perform better inasmuch as they are more progressive and more competitive because their management contingents more closely mirror the composition of existing markets. EXPLANATORY FRAMEWORK Rationale for these arguments is found in the "resource-based" theory of competitive advantage and strategy analysis (e.g., Barney, 1991, 1997; Grant, 1991). Basically, according to Barney (1997), resource-based theory argues that it is not industry structure that leads to competitive advantage and better performance. Rather, it is the ability to capitalize on and apply the firm's internal resources in uncertain and dynamic industry contexts. The theory proposes that firms are defined as sets or "bundles" of resources. Firms can develop strong competitive advantages by accumulating unique or difficult to duplicate bundles of resources, and these resources can allow firms to take advantage of environmental opportunities or counterbalance threats. Supportive of the theory, research by Robins and Wiersema (1995) indicated that the ability to build these advantages paid off in terms of return on investment. Barney goes on to say that human capital resources are key to competitive advantage. Employee and management capabilities are firm-level resources that are among the most sustainable and difficult for competitors to imitate. The notion of human resources being the key to competitive advantage is prominent in the current popular management literature. For example, writing of their collective experience with numerous company change efforts, Katzenbach et al. (1995) concluded that many firms have underutilized human resources in this modern era of international competition and organization change. The underutilized resources tend to include females and those of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds who might otherwise bring different perspectives to the firm. By better utilizing the contributions of women and minorities, firms can become more creative and accepting of change. Katzenbach et al. contend that if fully tapped, it is this cadre of middle-level, diverse, change-oriented managers that sets the high performing firms apart from the others. Iles and Auluck (1993) found that diverse work forces were beneficial to firms because they facilitated team problem solving and synergy. The ability to manage diversity fostered the incorporation of various perspectives into organizational decision making, and firms that united a wider range of participants performed well. …

The role of affect- and cognition-based trust in complex knowledge sharing.

Abstract: Since the late eighties, the field of strategic management has seen a paradigm shift towards the resource-based view of the firm (Barney, 1986, 1991; Rumelt, 1987; Wernerfelt, 1984). At the fundamental level, the resource-based view focuses on firm differences based on resource endowment. According to this view, resource heterogeneity exists among firms. Also, the superior firm performance based on valuable and rare resources may sustain over time if firms can protect themselves from imitation and diffusion. Resources that are abstract, complex, ambiguous, and indigenous to a firm provide sustainability as they are not easily imitated or diffused (Barney, 1991). Building on the resource-based view of the firm, scholars have suggested that complex knowledge that is tacit and dependent can be protected from imitation and diffusion (Berman et al., 2002; McEvily et al., 2000). This is because highly complex knowledge that is hard to codify and dependent on a specific context or a system of knowledge is difficult to transfer (Teece, 1977). Accordingly, valuable and rare complex knowledge can be an important source of superior performance and sustainable competitive advantage (Spender and Grant, 1996). Valuable complex knowledge often originates in individual experiences and perceptions (Polanyi, 1966). Such individualized knowledge must be shared throughout the organization for it to become a source of competitive advantage. Hence, the process of sharing complex knowledge within an organization becomes important. Consequently, the question that begs an answer is, "what makes individuals share complex knowledge effectively with others within an organization?" The overall contribution of this study is to address the above question. Although the underlying process in complex knowledge sharing is multifaceted, trustworthiness is suggested in the literature as a positive factor. However, organizational literature lacks an adequate empirical evidence of the influence of trust on complex knowledge sharing. This study provides a much needed empirical examination of the influence of interpersonal trust on complex knowledge sharing. To do so, this article starts with a brief discussion of knowledge and trust from the organizational point of view. Next, hypotheses are developed proposing specific relationships between interpersonal trust and complex knowledge sharing. Then, research methodology and data analysis results are presented. Finally, the conclusion is presented with a discussion of implications and the need for future research. KNOWLEDGE AS AN ORGANIZATIONAL RESOURCE Prahalad and Hamel (1990) suggested that, it is often the quality of people that personifies the core competency of an organization. This is because the knowledge and capabilities of people within an organization are important indicators of organizational competitiveness (Pfeffer, 1994). Accordingly, organizational knowledge and its sharing has become a topic of great interest and produced a vast and diverse body of research (Argyris, 1999; Berman et al., 2002; McEvily and Chakravarthy, 2002; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Tsang, 2002). Management literature suggests that the concept of knowledge is far broader and richer than the concept of data or information. Following Davenport and Prusak (1998), organizational knowledge can be defined as a dynamic mix of experiences, expert insights, unique know-how, important values, and situational information that provide a framework for analyzing and incorporating new knowledge regarding organizational processes and various relationships with its stakeholders. For further understanding, theorists have variously conceptualized the concept of knowledge in terms of its tacitness, complexity, and systemic nature (Garud and Nayyar, 1994). Tacit knowledge deals with the abstract and implicit versus concrete and explicit characters of knowledge. Tacit knowledge resides in the form of subjective insights, intuitions, hunches, and know-how. …

A Multi-Dimensional Study of Trust in Organizations

Abstract: The essential ingredient of collaborative effort is trust. High performance teams are characterized by high mutual trust among members. Leaders succeed in bringing about change because they are trusted by constituents to reflect their values and aspirations. An organizational climate of trust enables employees to surface their ideas and feelings, use each other as resources, and learn together. Without trust people assume self-protective, defensive postures that inhibit learning. Handy (1996) notes that "distributed leadership," where the leadership role shifts from person to person depending on the stage of the task and nature of the skill set required, has replaced the "follow-me" type of leadership typical of the past. Similarly, De Pree (1989) refers to "roving leadership" and "abandoning oneself to the strengths of others" as strategies for successfully completing work assignments and accomplishing organizational objectives. Underlying these practices is faith in the integrity and belief in the ability of others whom an individual deems trustworthy. The practice of empowerment evidenced by organizations' reliance on self-managed teams requires management to entrust the work force with responsibility and authority. Conversely, employees express trust in managers and in coworkers by accepting these additional elements of their work roles. Team- based organizations are anticipated to outperform traditional bureaucratic structures when it comes to producing quantity and quality, making adaptive changes, and developing employees. In a longitudinal study, Banker et al. (1996) found support for the effectiveness of team-based work settings. More specifically, they reported that a company's shift from a traditional work environment to a team-based work environment (i.e., quality circles with some decision-making authority) resulted in substantial quality and productivity improvements. Trust has historically been viewed by scholars as a fundamental lubricant of social interaction but not really worthy of investigation (Gambetta, 1988). With the recent emergence of collaborative problem-solving teams in organizations, empirical evidence showing the importance of trust is needed. The present study looks at work place trust from a horizontal perspective (i.e., co-worker trust) as well as from a vertical perspective (i.e., trust of both the supervisor and top management). Thus, a multi-dimensional approach to the study of trust in organizations is presented (please see [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 1 OMITTED] for a description of the various components of this study). The scope of this study is limited primarily to the psychological processes of the trustor (see Wekselberg, 1996). However, the broader social context in which a relationship between a trustor and a trustee exists is given some attention as well. Two dimensions of interpersonal trust (i.e., cognitive-based trust and affect-based trust) and their relationship to key work place behaviors (e.g., risk taking) are examined. Trust of top management and its relationship to key variables, such as desire-to-leave the organization, is looked at as well. Using a sample of 35 full-time employees, we test five hypotheses about trust between focal employees and their co-workers, supervisors, and top management. Reciprocal measures of cognitive-based and affect-based trust were gathered for each focal employee- supervisor dyad as well as focal employee-co-worker dyad. Due to the size of the sample, we consider our research a preliminary investigation of organizational trust. Literature Review McCauley and Kuhnert (1992) pointed out that trust in the work place is a multi-dimensional construct consisting of lateral and vertical elements. Lateral trust refers to "trusting" relationships between the focal employee and co-workers while vertical trust concerns employee trust of his or her immediate supervisor, subordinates, and top management. Both usually reflect an interpersonal or dyadic form of trust, with one exception being trust of top management. …