Sociology
Permanent URI for this communityhttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/2273
Browse
2 results
Search Results
Item Factors in the Reporting of Unethical Conduct: The Importance of Trust in Leaders(2017) Norton, Michael Andrew; Lucas, Jeffey W; Sociology; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)My research investigates factors related to the reporting of unethical conduct. While accounting for known individual, organizational and situational correlates, I focus particularly on leaders and especially on trust in leaders as whistle-blowing research to date has neglected the well-developed sociological literature of trust. Leveraging the benefits of multiple methods, I analyze recent secondary data on federal civilian employees, collect and analyze interview data at four civilian and military sites, and conduct a factorial vignette study to test factors and themes identified in the first two sections of my research. My secondary data analyses support previous whistle-blowing research in relating supervisor status, greater importance placed on anonymity, greater organizational support for anonymous reporting, greater organizational protection for whistle-blowers and greater severity of observed misconduct to increased reporting. Contrary to what previous literature theorizes, I find more observed leader misconduct and in-group location of misconduct relate to increased reporting. With the exception of an expressed in-group preference, my qualitative analyses reinforce these findings and identify a peer-oriented culture and self-preservation as reasons why unethical conduct may go unreported. My interview data also reveal that participants prefer to report unethical conduct to a trusted leader, although the severity of such misconduct may moderate this preference. My vignette analyses find greater trust in leaders is related to increased reporting only for non-supervisors, highlighting the additional importance trust plays for lower-status individuals. Also, good behavior by the leader accepting a report is related to increased reporting for all participants. My vignette data bolster previous findings, including relating a lesser orientation towards Machiavellianism to increased reporting, and find the severity of observed misconduct has the largest relative effect on the reporting outcome. Counter to my prediction, vignette participants are less likely to report unethical conduct perpetrated by a supervisor supporting the notion that fear of retaliation may factor into the reporting decision. By highlighting obstacles to reporting, I assist leaders in addressing such barriers possibly contributing to the identification and correction of unethical conduct. I conclude with implications for federal employees and all leaders seeking to increase the reporting of unethical conduct in their organizations.Item Innovation as Group Process: Hierarchy, Status, and the Dilemma of Participative Leadership(2010) Huey, Wesley Scott; Lucas, Jeffrey W.; Sociology; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)Organizations that are characterized by vertical authority structures, where decisions are made and implemented through a clear chain-of-command, are commonly seen as less responsive, less innovative, and less dynamic than organizations that have authority distributed more horizontally. This study takes aim at this presumption by miniaturizing authority structures to the level of the group, where group process theory can be marshaled to predict, measure, and assess outcomes for group innovation in an experimental setting. Using status theory, I propose that hierarchical groups will be more rather than less innovative than egalitarian groups. I conduct an experimental test by manipulating hierarchy in groups instructed to complete a common task, with outcomes mapped to innovative performance. Findings show that hierarchical groups are actually no more, and no less, innovative than egalitarian groups. Irrespective of authority structure, innovation appears to be most likely in groups in which a clear leader emerges who makes others in the group feel like her equal during group interaction. Other findings are presented to explain the apparent no-effect of authority structure on innovation. I will show that status processes advantage each type of group differently with respect to innovation. Hierarchical groups are advantaged by the presence of a clear leader; egalitarian groups are advantaged by the participative interaction that comes naturally to status peers. But the two conditions must occur together to maximize the likelihood for innovation, and this poses a problem for groups who seek to innovate, because status dynamics that promote one of the conditions undercut the status dynamics that promote the other. In egalitarian groups, when authority seekers try to take charge and lead, participative interaction is endangered because members resent the status move. In hierarchical groups, when higher ranking members act participatively, group leadership is contested because others feel empowered to take charge. Each group type therefore faces a dilemma of participative leadership, and because the dilemma is reversed across group types, the net effect of authority structure on innovation is no apparent effect. Implications of the findings for theory and practice are discussed.