Journal of Business Ethics最新文献

Previous research has shown that leaders’ narcissistic rivalry is positively associated with abusive supervision. However, it remains unclear when and how leaders high in narcissistic rivalry show abusive supervision. Building on trait activation theory and the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Concept (NARC), we assumed that leaders high in narcissistic rivalry particularly show abusive supervision in reaction to follower workplace deviance due to their tendency to devaluate others. We argued that leaders’ injury initiation motives explain why leaders high in narcissistic rivalry react with abusive supervision when experiencing organization-directed or supervisor-directed deviance. However, this should not be the case for coworker-directed deviance, as leaders high in narcissistic rivalry are less likely to find such behavior violates their internal norms. We conducted two studies. In the first study, we provided participants with experimental vignettes of follower workplace deviance. In the second study, we used a mixed-methods approach and investigated leaders’ autobiographical recollections of follower workplace deviance. We found a positive direct effect of leaders’ narcissistic rivalry across both studies. Leaders high in narcissistic rivalry showed abusive supervision (intentions) in response to organization-directed deviance (Studies 1 and 2) or supervisor-directed deviance (Study 1), but not in response to coworker-directed deviance (Studies 1 and 2). Leaders’ injury initiation motives could in part explain this effect. We discuss findings in light of the NARC and devaluation of others and derive implications for theory and practice.

Concerns over the organising of food are widespread, stemming from unsustainable production practices that focus on extractive ‘use’ of resources that privilege wealth creation over planetary flourishing, care and well-being. We propose a conceptual framework based on ecologies of care to assist in the re-entanglement of food systems. The concept of ecologies of care brings together theoretical understandings of relationality, ecology and care, along with an Aotearoa New Zealand indigenous Māori perspective. We examine how food production can be underpinned by interdependent webs of relationships (whanaungatanga), stewardship (kaitiakitanga), and care and support (manaakitanga) with healthy land and healthy people at the core of organising.

Today, it is becoming increasingly common for companies to harness the spirit of play in order to increase worker engagement and improve organizational performance. This paper examines the ethics of play in a business context, focusing specifically on the phenomenon of workplace gamification. While critics highlight ethical problems with gamification, they also advocate for more positive, transformative, and life-affirming modes of organizational play. Gamification is ethical, on this view, when it allows users to reach a state of authentic happiness or eudaimonia. The underlying assumption, here, is that the ‘magic circle’ of play—a sphere that exists entirely for its own sake—should be protected in order to secure meaningfulness at work. However, we argue that this faith in play is misguided because play, even at its most autotelic, is ethically ambivalent; it does not lead inexorably to virtuous work environments, but may in fact have an undesirable impact on those who are playing. Our study thus contributes to research on the ‘dark side’ of organizational play, a strand of scholarship that questions the idea that play always points toward the good life.

This study examines the role of foreign institutional ownership in corporate social responsibility (CSR). Using the Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect as a quasi-natural experiment, our difference-in-differences estimation shows that foreign institutional ownership drives firms’ CSR corporate social responsibility. Further, the positive effect of foreign institutional ownership on CSR is motivated by foreign institutional investors shifting the stakeholders’ logics about social responsibility, not by profit maximization. We also provide evidence that this effect of foreign institutional ownership on CSR is more pronounced among firms with fewer political connections and with non-overconfident CEOs. Overall, our results indicate that foreign institutional investors transmit social norms and shift stakeholders’ logics regarding social responsibility and, in turn, propel firms to improve CSR to satisfy their stakeholders’ expectations.

Extant literature has documented mixed findings concerning the relationship between abusive supervision and employee performance. While most studies show a negative relationship, others reveal that abusive supervision can be motivating and performance-enhancing, and still others find no effect. To advance our understanding of this relationship, the present study examines employees’ objective and quantifiable key performance indicators (KPIs) as an outcome, while investigating employment contract type as a critical boundary condition. This study also explores an alternative outcome of abusive supervision by examining whether its effects extend to employees’ behavior towards customers, specifically in the form of customer-directed sabotage. A two-wave multi-source field study was conducted with 1,331 customer service representatives from 139 call-center teams. Findings suggest an alarming phenomenon: for probationary employees, an inverted U-shaped relationship exists between abusive supervision and employees’ KPIs, such that low to moderate levels of abusive supervision increase, but moderate to high levels of abusive supervision decrease, their job performance. For permanent employees, KPIs are less affected by abusive supervision. However, abusive supervision is positively related to employees’ customer-directed sabotage behavior, and this effect is stronger for permanent (vs. probationary) employees. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings for leadership and business ethics are discussed.

In response to the growing criticisms to shareholder primacy, Oliver Hart, a Nobel Economics Prize recipient, and Luigi Zingales, a very well-known finance professor, have offered a revision to Milton Friedman’s dominant account. Seeking to incorporate social and moral concerns into the objective function of the firm, they have proposed that managers should maximize shareholder welfare instead of shareholder value. Their account has been highly influential and reflects many of the substantive and methodological assumptions of corporate governance scholars within the law and economics literature. In this paper, we engage closely with their account from a normative perspective, unearthing and criticizing the implications of many of these assumptions. In doing so, we also formulate a set of principles necessary to ensure the ethical legitimacy of any proposal that puts shareholders at the center of the firm’s objective function.

This paper explores the effects of incidental guilt on Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) decisions of retail investors. Do investors who feel guilty invest more in SRIs to clear their conscience? Are guilty investors willing to sacrifice returns to restore their moral selves? Using survey data from an online quasi-experiment among a sample of US retail investors, we find that individuals who experience incidental guilt are willing to invest more in SRI funds than those in a neutral state. We show that this effect, albeit moderate in magnitude, cannot be explained solely by differences in retail investors’ moral reasoning, attitudes towards social responsibility, risk tolerance and demographic factors. When presented with a trade-off between sustainability, risk and return characteristics of the funds, guilty investors are more willing to sacrifice returns for greater sustainability than non-guilty participants. Our research provides new evidence of the effect that incidental guilt has on the sustainable investing decisions of retail investors.