Revisiting Behavioral Integrity: Progress and New Directions After 20 Years

T. Simons, H. Leroy, L. Nishii
{"title":"Revisiting Behavioral Integrity: Progress and New Directions After 20 Years","authors":"T. Simons, H. Leroy, L. Nishii","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-062016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Behavioral integrity (BI) describes the extent to which an observer believes that an actor's words tend to align with their actions. It considers whether the actor is seen as keeping promises and enacting the same values they espouse. Although the construct of BI was introduced in 1999 and developed more fully in 2002, it builds on the work of earlier scholars that discussed related notions of hypocrisy, credibility, and gaps between espousal and enactment. Since the 2002 paper, a growing literature has established the BI construct, largely but not exclusively in the leadership realm, as a critical antecedent to positive attitudes such as trust and commitment, positive behaviors such as turnover and performance, and as a moderator of the effectiveness of leadership initiatives. BI is by definition subjectively assessed, and perceptions of BI are susceptible to various forms of perceptual biases. A variety of factors appear to affect whether observers interpret a particular word-action alignment or gap as an indication of the actor's high or low BI. In this article, we examine and synthesize this literature and suggest directions for future research. We discuss the early history of BI research and then examine contemporary research at the individual, group, and organizational levels of analysis. We assess what we have learned and what methodological challenges and theoretical questions remain to be addressed. We hope in this way to stimulate further research on this consequential construct. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 9 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":14.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-062016","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Behavioral integrity (BI) describes the extent to which an observer believes that an actor's words tend to align with their actions. It considers whether the actor is seen as keeping promises and enacting the same values they espouse. Although the construct of BI was introduced in 1999 and developed more fully in 2002, it builds on the work of earlier scholars that discussed related notions of hypocrisy, credibility, and gaps between espousal and enactment. Since the 2002 paper, a growing literature has established the BI construct, largely but not exclusively in the leadership realm, as a critical antecedent to positive attitudes such as trust and commitment, positive behaviors such as turnover and performance, and as a moderator of the effectiveness of leadership initiatives. BI is by definition subjectively assessed, and perceptions of BI are susceptible to various forms of perceptual biases. A variety of factors appear to affect whether observers interpret a particular word-action alignment or gap as an indication of the actor's high or low BI. In this article, we examine and synthesize this literature and suggest directions for future research. We discuss the early history of BI research and then examine contemporary research at the individual, group, and organizational levels of analysis. We assess what we have learned and what methodological challenges and theoretical questions remain to be addressed. We hope in this way to stimulate further research on this consequential construct. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 9 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
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
重新审视行为完整性:20年后的进展与新方向
行为完整性(BI)描述了观察者认为演员的言语往往与他们的行为一致的程度。它考虑的是演员是否被视为信守承诺并制定与他们所信奉的价值观相同的价值观。尽管BI的结构于1999年引入,并于2002年得到了更全面的发展,但它建立在早期学者的工作基础上,这些学者讨论了虚伪、可信度以及拥护和颁布之间的差距等相关概念。自2002年的论文发表以来,越来越多的文献将BI构建确立,主要但不限于领导力领域,作为信任和承诺等积极态度、离职和绩效等积极行为的关键前提,以及领导力举措有效性的调节因素。根据定义,BI是主观评估的,对BI的感知容易受到各种形式的感知偏见的影响。多种因素似乎会影响观察者是否将特定的单词-动作对齐或间隙解释为演员BI高或低的指标。在本文中,我们对这些文献进行了审查和综合,并为未来的研究提出了方向。我们讨论了BI研究的早期历史,然后从个人、团体和组织层面分析了当代研究。我们评估我们学到了什么,还有哪些方法上的挑战和理论问题有待解决。我们希望通过这种方式促进对这一重要结构的进一步研究。《组织心理学与组织行为年度评论》第9卷预计最终在线出版日期为2022年1月。请参阅http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates用于修订估算。
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
CiteScore
24.20
自引率
2.20%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Launched in March 2014, the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior is a publication dedicated to reviewing the literature on I/O Psychology and HRM/OB. In the latest edition of the Journal Citation Report (JCR) in 2023, this journal achieved significant recognition. It ranked among the top 5 journals in two categories and boasted an impressive Impact Factor of 13.7.
期刊最新文献
How Effective Are Work-Life Balance Policies? The Importance of Inclusion Positive Identity Construction in Diverse Organizations Interpersonal Relationships in Organizations: Building Better Pipes and Looking Through Prisms Elevating Health Significance Post-Pandemic: Is the Employee-Organization Relationship in a Period of Change? Machine Replacement: A Mind-Role Fit Perspective
×
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