Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T23:38:39.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identifying New Organizational Practices by Considering Different Perspectives: An Ethics Management Example

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2016

Johnathan K. Nelson  and
Sydney M. Gebka
Johnathan K. Nelson*
Affiliation:
School of Business Administration, Morehead State University
Sydney M. Gebka
Affiliation:
School of Business Administration, Morehead State University
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Johnathan K. Nelson, 313B Combs Building, School of Business Administration, Morehead State University, Morehead, KY 40351. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Scientific knowledge is driven by the research questions we ask. As Bergman and Jean (2016) argue, if wage earners, contract workers, and other workers are underrepresented in our research samples, we're likely to fail to investigate phenomena of importance to these populations. By focusing primarily on salaried and managerial workers, we limit the research questions we ask and fail to consider important caveats to industrial-organizational theories. As Bergman and Jean note, we cannot assume that the experiences observed in any group will generalize to other groups. We elaborate on this argument to discuss how failing to take into account the diverse perspectives and needs of the full labor market leads us to fail to ask relevant research questions. Specifically, we discuss how considering unexplored labor market perspectives opens new questions in the area of ethics management.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 152 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ashford, S. J., George, E., & Blatt, R. (2007). Old assumptions, new work: The opportunities and challenges of research on nonstandard employment. The Academy of Management Annals, 1 (1), 65–117. http://doi.org/10.1080/078559807 Google Scholar
Bergman, M. E. & Jean, V. A. (2016). Where have all the “workers” gone? A critical analysis of the unrepresentativeness of our samples relative to the labor market in the industrial-organizational psychology literature. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9, 84–113.Google Scholar
Dickey, H., Watson, V., & Zangelidis, A. (2011). Is it all about money? An examination of the motives behind moonlighting. Applied Economics, 43 (26), 3767–3774. doi:10.1080/00036841003724403 Google Scholar
George, E., & Ng, C. K. (2011). Nonstandard workers: Work arrangements and outcomes. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Vol 1. Building and developing the organization (pp. 573–596). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Horowitz, S. (2015, September 6). Help for the way we work now. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/opinion/help-for-the-way-we-work-now.html?emc=edit_th_20150907&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=40046608&_r=1 Google Scholar
Hulin, C. L., & Glomb, T. M. (1999). Contingent employees: Individual and organizational considerations. In Ilgen, D. R. & Pulakos, E. D. (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 86–118). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31 (2), 386–408. http://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.20208687 Google Scholar
Kossek, E. E., & Michel, J. S. (2011). Flexible work schedules. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Vol 1. Building and developing the organization (pp. 535–572). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
London, M., & Smither, J. W. (1999). Career-related continuous learning: Defining the construct and mapping the process. In Ferris, G. R. (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 17, pp. 81–121). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Muhl, C. (2002). What is an employee? The answer depends on federal law. Monthly Labor Review, 125, 3–11.Google Scholar
Schwartz, M. S. (2013). Developing and sustaining an ethical corporate culture: The core elements. Business Horizons, 56, 39–50. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2012.09.002 Google Scholar
Tenbrunsel, A. E., Diekmann, K. A., Wade-Benzoni, K. A., & Bazerman, M. H. (2010). The ethical mirage: A temporal explanation as to why we are not as ethical as we think we are. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 153–173. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2010.08.004 Google Scholar
Tenbrunsel, A. E., Smith-Crowe, K., & Umphress, E. E. (2003). Building houses on rocks: The role of the ethical infrastructure in organizations. Social Justice Research, 16 (3), 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treviño, L. K., den Nieuwenboer, N. A., & Kish-Gephart, J. J. (2014). (Un)ethical behavior in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 65 (1), 635–660. doi: doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143745 Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016). Multiple jobholders by selected characteristics. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat36.htm Google Scholar
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26 (2), 179–201.Google Scholar