The confronter’s quandary: Mapping out strategies for managers to address offensive remarks at work

IF 3.1 Q2 MANAGEMENT Research in Organizational Behavior Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.1016/j.riob.2022.100166
Naomi M. Fa-Kaji , Benoît Monin
{"title":"The confronter’s quandary: Mapping out strategies for managers to address offensive remarks at work","authors":"Naomi M. Fa-Kaji ,&nbsp;Benoît Monin","doi":"10.1016/j.riob.2022.100166","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>When tasked with responding to an employee’s offensive remarks, managers face the Confronter’s Quandary: They must decide on an appropriate course of action to balance addressing the employee’s problematic behavior and suspected attitudes (Correction goals) while preserving their working relationship and the offender’s sense of belonging to the organization (Connection goals). This paper proposes a conceptual framework to organize strategies that fall at different levels of this Correction/Connection trade-off: YOU-Strategies focus on the offender and prioritize correction; ME-Strategies focus on the confronter and leverage an existing connection; THEY-Strategies highlight third parties to deemphasize the confronter-offender relationship; and WE-Strategies highlight shared organizational values and norms to affirm group connection in the service of correction. We describe four classes of strategies within each type (sixteen total), we include examples of uses excerpted from a hypothetical online survey, and we illustrate how existing literature can be organized within our framework. At a theoretical level, this YOU-ME-THEY-WE framework should help organize past literature and suggest areas in need of further investigation. At a practical level, it should help would-be confronters gain insight into additional strategies available to them, and orient field researchers designing interventions and testing best practices for confrontation in organizations.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56178,"journal":{"name":"Research in Organizational Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Organizational Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191308522000120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When tasked with responding to an employee’s offensive remarks, managers face the Confronter’s Quandary: They must decide on an appropriate course of action to balance addressing the employee’s problematic behavior and suspected attitudes (Correction goals) while preserving their working relationship and the offender’s sense of belonging to the organization (Connection goals). This paper proposes a conceptual framework to organize strategies that fall at different levels of this Correction/Connection trade-off: YOU-Strategies focus on the offender and prioritize correction; ME-Strategies focus on the confronter and leverage an existing connection; THEY-Strategies highlight third parties to deemphasize the confronter-offender relationship; and WE-Strategies highlight shared organizational values and norms to affirm group connection in the service of correction. We describe four classes of strategies within each type (sixteen total), we include examples of uses excerpted from a hypothetical online survey, and we illustrate how existing literature can be organized within our framework. At a theoretical level, this YOU-ME-THEY-WE framework should help organize past literature and suggest areas in need of further investigation. At a practical level, it should help would-be confronters gain insight into additional strategies available to them, and orient field researchers designing interventions and testing best practices for confrontation in organizations.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
面对者的困境:为管理者制定应对工作中冒犯性言论的策略
当被要求回应员工的冒犯性言论时,管理者面临着对抗者的困境:他们必须决定一个适当的行动方案,以平衡解决员工的问题行为和可疑的态度(纠正目标),同时保持他们的工作关系和冒犯者对组织的归属感(联系目标)。本文提出了一个概念性框架来组织在纠正/连接权衡的不同层次上的策略:u -策略关注违法者,优先考虑纠正;自我管理策略侧重于对抗者,并利用现有的联系;他们-策略强调第三方,淡化对抗-冒犯关系;we战略强调共同的组织价值观和规范,以确认在纠正服务中的群体联系。我们在每种类型中描述了四类策略(总共16种),我们包括了从假设的在线调查中摘录的使用示例,并且我们说明了如何在我们的框架内组织现有文献。在理论层面上,这个“你-我-他们-我们”框架应该有助于整理过去的文献,并提出需要进一步调查的领域。在实际层面上,它应该帮助潜在的对抗者获得对他们可用的额外策略的洞察力,并指导现场研究人员设计干预措施和测试组织中对抗的最佳实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Research in Organizational Behavior
Research in Organizational Behavior Psychology-Social Psychology
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
期刊介绍: Research in Organizational Behavior publishes commissioned papers only, spanning several levels of analysis, and ranging from studies of individuals to groups to organizations and their environments. The topics encompassed are likewise diverse, covering issues from individual emotion and cognition to social movements and networks. Cutting across this diversity, however, is a rather consistent quality of presentation. Being both thorough and thoughtful, Research in Organizational Behavior is commissioned pieces provide substantial contributions to research on organizations. Many have received rewards for their level of scholarship and many have become classics in the field of organizational research.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Creativity as privilege Does diversity influence innovation and economic growth? It depends on spatial scale Leading for human sustainability: An extension of Restricted Employee Sustainability Theory Are experts overconfident?: An interdisciplinary review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1