Journal of Managerial Psychology

Dysfunctionality in “citizenship” behaviour in decentralized organizations: A research

note
Nada Korac‐Kakabadse, Andrew Korac‐Kakabadse, Alexander Kouzmin,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Nada Korac‐Kakabadse, Andrew Korac‐Kakabadse, Alexander Kouzmin, (1999) "Dysfunctionality in
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Management Rohtak At 22:09 12 November 2018 (PT)

“citizenship” behaviour in decentralized organizations: A research note", Journal of Managerial Psychology,

Vol. 14 Issue: 7/8, pp.526-544, https://doi.org/10.1108/02683949910292132
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683949910292132
Downloaded on: 12 November 2018, At: 22:09 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 97 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 997 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(1996),"Organization citizenship behaviour: an examination of the influence of the workplace",
Leadership &amp; Organization Development Journal, Vol. 17 Iss 2 pp. 42-47 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/01437739610111222">https://doi.org/10.1108/01437739610111222</a>
(2015),"Relationship between organizational commitments and organizational citizenship behaviour
in a sample of private banking employees", International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol.
35 Iss 1/2 pp. 91-106 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-02-2014-0010">https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJSSP-02-2014-0010</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:568864 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Management Rohtak At 22:09 12 November 2018 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com

Journal of
Managerial Dysfunctionality in
Psychology
14,7/8
``citizenship'' behaviour in
decentralized organizations
526
A research note
Nada Korac-Kakabadse and Andrew Korac-Kakabadse
Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield, UK, and
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Management Rohtak At 22:09 12 November 2018 (PT)

Alexander Kouzmin
University of Western Sydney-Nepean, Kingswood, New South Wales,
Australia
Keywords Individual behaviour, Leadership, Corporate culture, Interaction,
Self-managing teams
Abstract Emerging in the literature on organizational design is the question of the efficacy of
self-managed work groups. From task-forces and matrix prescriptions of the 1970s, imperatives
towards de-centralization, networked capabilities and self-managed teams seem to be part of the
IT-driven prescriptions emanating from contemporary re-structuring and social re-engineering of
workplaces. This article explores some interesting dysfunctionality dynamics of corporate
``citizenship'' behaviour in de-centralized contexts and suggests the necessity to study, in some
further depth, the unquestioned virtues of self-regulated and de-centralized teams. As the article
implies, cultural engineering, leadership dynamics and complex motivation/citizenship behaviour
within such organized settings also require critical re-examination.

Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Vol. 14 No. 7/8, 1999, pp. 526-544.
# MCB University Press, 0268-3946
Introduction
Work life involves more than just doing one's job. Employees bring to the
workplace aspirations and visions as to what their futures hold; providing the
basis for career interests that may be independent of the job being performed.
They also bring personalities; attitudes; values; preferences and beliefs and sets
of commitment from outside work, allowing these external interests to shape
the way they act in relation to the job, career and the organization (Organ,
1990). The tensions existing between different interests one wishes to pursue
makes the individual relationship to work inherently ``political'' (Morgan, 1986,
p. 150), even before one takes into account the existence and actions of other
organizational members.
The orientation of different people towards these tensions varies from
context to context, producing great variety in styles of behaviour. While some
individuals are committed to doing their job as an end in itself, others are more
careerist, and yet others spend their energy attempting to make work life less
onerous or as comfortable and consistent with their personal preferences as
possible. Many individuals manage to achieve their aims and aspirations,
shaping their mission in a way that allows them to achieve their aims at once,
while others have to content themselves with compromising positions (Organ,
1990). Motivating factors that underpin the varied styles of extra role
 behaviours of careerism; gamesmanship; task commitment; rigidity; ``turf Dysfunctionality
protection''; zealousness; detachment and free wheeling lend the politics of in ``citizenship''
organizational life its detailed character (Morgan, 1986, p. 151). behaviour
Employees' extra role behaviour may be perceived as ingratiation or as
organizational ``citizenship'' behaviour, depending on motive, others' perception
of their behaviour or both (Schanke, 1991; Eastman, 1994). Ingratiation is
usually defined as a political tactic employees use to further their personal 527
interest, often at the expense of their employing organizations (Wortman and
Linsenmeier, 1977). Organizational citizenship behaviour is defined as
``individual behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Management Rohtak At 22:09 12 November 2018 (PT)

by the formal reward system which, in the aggregate, promotes the effective
functioning of the organization'' (Organ, 1988, p. 4).
Fandt and Ferris (1990) postulated that some self-interested behaviours on
the part of employees may be beneficial to organizations and that some pro-
social behaviours may also benefit individuals. Thus, without knowing the
motive of an employee, it is difficult to differentiate between ingratiation and
citizenship behaviour, provided that political tactics used are settled (Schanke,
1991). Eastman (1994, p. 1390) found that group leaders respond positively to
extra role behaviour when employees' motives are perceived as good
citizenship and negatively when perceived as ingratiation. This implies that
some employees, with strong influencing tactics, may behave covertly and
project their motive on others as citizenship behaviour.
However, individuals' and groups' behaviour and standards of right and
wrong are not the sole determinant of their decisions (Trevino, 1986). Instead,
beliefs interact with other individual characteristics, such as locus of control,
and contextual factors, such as an organization's rewards, punishment and
culture. Perceived organizational support, ``a general perception concerning the
extent to which the organization values employees'' (Eisenberger et al., 1990,
p. 51), is also a mediating factor in citizenship behaviour. Trevino (1986)
explicates how individuals can choose to engage in acts they consider unethical
when the culture of an organization and its prevailing reward structure
overwhelm personal belief systems.
The presence or absence of ethical behaviour in organizational members'
actions both is influenced by prevailing culture (ethical climate) and, in turn,
partially determines the culture's view of ethical issues. Eisenberger et al.
(1990) argue that an employee's perception of how an organization values him/
her may be vital for determining whether any attitudes or behaviours
benefiting the organization emerge from the social exchange relationship.
Organizational culture may promote assumptions of responsibility for factors
taken by individuals and groups, thereby increasing the probability that both
will behave in an ethical manner (Wayne et al., 1997). Alternatively, culture
may diffuse responsibility for the consequences of unethical behaviour, thereby
making such behaviour more likely.
In addition, there is the increased potential for ``group-think'' (Janis, 1972) ± a
mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in
 Journal of cohesive in-groups; when members striving for unanimity over-ride their
Managerial motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action (Janis, 1972,
Psychology p. 46). Group-think, even ``cult-like'' behaviour, can occur in almost any
organization (Sims, 1992). Alternatively, individuals can seize control of
14,7/8 organizational cultures, through spanning leadership and social leadership
tactics, and single-handedly rule the group in an ethical or unethical manner,
528 but almost always at a cost to group members.

From bureaucratic to cultural control

Control has been a central and problematic variable in organization theory
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Management Rohtak At 22:09 12 November 2018 (PT)

(Kouzmin, 1980a; 1980b; 1983) and organized life; the basic tension being that in
subordinating action to the managerialized will of the organization, actors
surrender some autonomy in organizational participation (Barnard, 1938,
p. 17). The ability of culture to control has to do with the social structure of the
organization concerned, represented as a combination of the degree of formal
structuring of the organization and the degree of social pressure to conform ±
itself a product of social bonding and a sense of community. The anthropologist
Douglas (1973, p. 77) described these dimensions, psychologically, in terms of a
society's ``grid'' and ``group''.
Two cases are briefly outlined to explore the dynamics of enhanced cultural
control. In the case of the multinational management consultancy corporation,
with its informal structure, sense of professional community and social
pressure to conform, one of the groups experienced concerted control in a ``cult-
like'' fashion. In the case of a large telecommunication corporation, with its
bureaucratic culture and in the process of change to a flatter structure, a
division experienced cultural and coercive control by a manipulative individual
who took control of the culture.
Politically, the first example corresponds to a post-bureaucratic organization
or organization with a flatter hierarchy and peer management; exemplified by
self-managed or self-directing teams in which control emerges not from rational
rules and hierarchy but from the concertive, value-based actions (Satow, 1975)
of organizational members (Soeters, 1986; Ogilvy, 1990; Parker, 1992) ± an
organizational culture that has much greater prospects for innovation and
entrepreneurial ventures but much less prospect for central control. However,
concertive structure often results in a form of control more powerful, less
apparent and more difficult to resist than that of the former ``bureaucracy''
(Tompkins and Cheney, 1985; Barker, 1993), ``technological control'' (Davis and
Lawrence, 1977; Galbraith, 1973; 1977) or ``simple control'' (Edwards, 1981).
Tompkins and Cheney (1985) argue that the numerous variations of the de-
bureaucratized organization (matrix, ad hoc, self-managed teams) represent a
new type of control: ``concertive'' control where the locus of control shifts from
management by authority and rules to the value-based system where
employees negotiate consensus on how to shape behaviour according to a set of
core values (Rothschild-Whitt, 1979). In the concertive organization, the locus of
authority (Whitley, 1977) transfers from the bureaucratic system and its
 rational-legal constitutive rules to the value consensus of the members and its Dysfunctionality
socially-created generative rules system. Employees in a concertive in ``citizenship''
organization create the meanings that, in turn, structure the system of their behaviour
own control. Rule generation moves from the traditional manager-subordinate
relationship to the actors' negotiated consensus about values. Concertive
control works by blurring substantive and formal rationality into a
``communal-rationality'' system (Barker, 1993). Concertive employees create a 529
communal values system that eventually controls their action through rules.
Thus, team members are socially constructed by the system they have created
(Mumby and Sthol, 1991).
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Management Rohtak At 22:09 12 November 2018 (PT)

Concertive control does not free employees from Weber's (1978, pp. 180-81)
``iron cage'' or rational rules, as culturalist and practitioner-oriented writers on
contemporary organizations often argue (Drucker, 1988; Peters, 1988; Kanter,
1989). Instead, an ironic paradox occurs: the ``iron cage'' becomes stronger. Peer
management increases the total amount of control in a concertive system
through two important dynamics. First, concertive employees have created this
system through their own shared value consensus, enforced on each other.
Second, the reason for the increased power of concertive control is that the way
it becomes manifested is less apparent than bureaucratic control (Barker, 1993,
pp. 433-4). The powerful influence of ``peer pressure and rational rules in the
concertive systems creates a new `iron cage' whose bars are almost invisible to
the employees it incarcerates'' (Barker, 1993, p. 435). Concertive employees
must invest a part of themselves in the team. They must identify strongly with
their team's values and goals, its norms and rules. If they want to resist their
team's control, they must be willing to risk their human dignity, being made to
feel unworthy as a ``team-mate'' (Barker, 1993, p. 436). Entrapment in the ``iron
cage'' is the cost of concertive control (Barker, 1993, p. 435). In Weber's (1978,
pp. 987-8) words, the individual in a modern organization ``cannot squirm out of
the apparatus into which he has been harnessed''.
Perhaps the concertive control experienced by the multinational
management consultancy corporation exemplifies two theoretical predictions
about the future of organizational activity. First, it asserts that organizational
life will become increasingly rationalized and controlled (Foucault, 1976, 1980;
Weber, 1978) and, second, that organizational control will become less apparent
and more powerful (Tannenbaum, 1968; Edwards, 1981; Tompkins and
Cheney, 1985). On the other hand, the telecommunication corporation example
reflects adversely on traditional bureaucratic use of cultural champions in
effecting organizational change.

A multinational management consultancy case

Being a consultancy organization, the multinational management consultancy
corporation provided large scope for flexibility for consulting staff and thus
allowed for grass-root, ``bottom-up'' or ``molecular'' innovation and cultural
change. In organizations, behavioural change can take place in a ``top-down'',
``bottom-up'' fashion or in combination. In a top-down or ``molar'' approach,
 Journal of change policies are set at the executive level of organization and implemented
Managerial downwards ± exemplified by most policy implementation, mergers or take-
Psychology overs (Korac-Kakabadse and Kouzmin, 1996). In a bottom-up or ``molecular''
approach of ``task alignment'' (Beer et al., 1990), behavioural change takes place
14,7/8 at the grass-roots. Cultural change begins when staff are put into new contexts,
with new roles, responsibilities and relationships (Korac-Kakabadse and
530 Kouzmin, 1996). In these settings people develop new patterns of behaviour and
from this experience comes new attitudes, values and beliefs. This process is
not initially organization-wide. Instead, like ``grass-roots'' strategy making
(Mintzberg, 1994), it begins thorough ad hoc initiatives on the periphery of the
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Management Rohtak At 22:09 12 November 2018 (PT)

organization and grows and moves gradually towards the core. This is the
process of natural, organic change that proceeds through the development of a
shared vision of how the group should operate; grows through the
reinforcement of successful experience and spreads through imitation by other
units. It is slow to mature and is unpredictable in its consequences. There is a
question as to whether that is what the organization is seeking in the pursuit of
development and cultural change (Hendry and Hope, 1994).
The influence of the manipulative individual at the grass-roots cultural
exchange level can be quite forming. In the case of the multinational
management consultancy corporation, an ``ex-cult'' member and external
consultant, hired regularly over the years, seized the opportunity provided by
the context of grass-roots cultural change and self-directed teams to grow a
successful operation, in a cult-like manner, over a period of 15 years. In 1981,
the leader of the personal development group recruited the training services of
the external consultant, Maundy, on a contractual basis, for self-development
programmes specializing in ``personal development skills''. Although she did
not have a traditional education in psychology and psychotherapy, she had a
general degree and her personal strengths and ``influencing skills'' got her the
job. As the programme was expanding, there was a need for additional trainers
and Maundy's husband at the time, Jonathan, joined the group as a consultant
trainer.
Shortly after, Victoria, one of the group's tenured consultant members,
approached the group leader, an established psychotherapist, with a complaint
that Maundy was un-cooperative and difficult to work with and, furthermore,
that Maundy ``ran the show her own way''. The group leader listened
sympathetically and promised to talk to Maundy, but with no visible outcomes.
Months later, when Maundy accused Victoria publicly of stealing her work and
undermining her programme, Victoria found the situation at first embarrassing
and then unbearable. She gracefully made a lateral move to a different group.
Within a year, the group's other tenured consultant made a similar lateral move
with the excuse that she wanted to develop different skills. This consultant
later made it known that she could not work in a group where the senior
partner, and a designated group leader, served merely as a figure-head, whilst
the external consultant, Maundy, led the group without any consultation with
other group members.
 In the meantime, Maundy re-married and business had been growing. New Dysfunctionality
positions were filled on a regular basis by two new external consultants ± in ``citizenship''
Maundy's new husband and ex-husband's new wife. With time, the programme behaviour
expanded, creating room for new staff. These positions were filled, over time,
by Maundy's personal live-in friends ± a husband and wife who also shared the
same household with Maundy and her second husband. Maundy also brought
to the group her two friends and proteÂgeÂs who had been ``trained'' by her as 531
``self-development trainers''. Of course, during this time, a number of other
consultants applied to join the group. However, they seldom passed Maundy's
scrutiny. The few outsiders who managed to pass Maundy's initial scrutiny left
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Management Rohtak At 22:09 12 November 2018 (PT)

the group after a brief stay of four weeks while others had their contracts
terminated by the group leader after an initial contract period of one year.
In 1993, the multinational management consultancy corporation assessed
individual group performance and recommended, amongst other things, that
due to growing programme expansion in the Management Development Group,
there was a need for additional staff. Considering that June, the designated
group leader, was the only tenured consultant in the group, it was
recommended that help of at least one tenured consultant was needed to help
run ``self-development'' programmes. This solution was also seen to be more
economical than paying for services of external consultants. Unable to delay
the hiring process any longer, in 1994, June recruited John, whose role, besides
delivering training programmes, was to re-vitalize existing programmes and
develop new ones according to market demand. John, a qualified and
experienced psychotherapist and a highly sensitive person, attempted to
integrate into the group but, at the same time, sought to establish work-plans
and timetables for each consulting trainer. When, after months, he failed to
obtain relevant information regarding tasks and responsibilities of individual
members within the group, he realized that Maundy was in charge of the group
and June was leader in name only.
The second thing John observed was that Maundy and all the female
trainers in the group had one thing in common: little heart-shaped gold
earrings. For months, John tried very hard to lobby June to take control of the
group, only to realize that June had little emotional robustness to confront her
personal friend and professional guru, Maundy, who was also her inner
strength and guide in a rather unhappy personal life. Although Maundy's
extra-role behaviour operated in a ``modal'' or ``exchangeable'' (Burns, 1978)
way with June, her motivation was based on the need to control the group and
gain rewards of additional honorary and other special benefits. June received
higher order, non-concrete rewards such as moral support and guidance for her
unhappy personal life. John tolerated Maundy's favourite accusation that he
was trying to ``undermine'' her programme. When Maundy tried to come
between John and his wife, Victoria, by projecting him as ``bad guy'' and
Victoria as ``good guy'', John recognized the cult tactics at work. With little
investigation he found that Maundy and her first husband, Jonathan, had spent
ten years in a cult commune led by Nadine Scott, an American who, in the late
 Journal of 1970s, started the group known as the ``family'' in a small village of Stoke
Managerial Hammond in the UK and, later, moved, with her mostly British and Dutch
Psychology followers, to the hilltop village of Areia in Portugal (Hooper and Bunting, 1997).
During the ten years spent in the family, Maundy and Jonathan learned ``self-
14,7/8 development skills'' from charismatic Nadine who, according to a British judge
in 1984, had scant and meagre schooling and a total lack of substantial
532 qualifications but had managed to latch on to the vogue concept of group
therapy in the 1960s (Hooper and Bunting, 1997; Nash, 1997). What particularly
concerned the judge was that Nadine had ``not been subjected to any of the
disciplines required by any professional training . . . allowing her to assess the
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Management Rohtak At 22:09 12 November 2018 (PT)

risks and limits of therapy or group pressure or its effect on weaker group
members, their marriage and family'' (Hooper and Bunting, 1997, p. 2).
Although Maundy and Jonathan officially left Nadine's ``family'' when she
moved to Portugal, they established their own cult group in the middle of the
large multinational management consultancy corporation with operations in
five continents. Like Nadine, Maundy did not possess formal psychotherapy
qualifications, was training other members of her group and provided services
to numerous clients who were unaware of these issues.
John recognized that Maundy's eloquence, command of facts, passionate
commitment and sheer tenacity and endurance could win the day, adding to her
personal power to inflict decisions with which she was involved (Morgan,
1986). Realizing that he could not make any progress, John approached the
executive director with a request for a lateral move to another group, giving
reasons for the request. Talking to other colleagues, John discovered that a
majority of his colleagues had knowledge that the group operated in an
unorthodox way, that June was a group leader in name only and that no
tenured consultant member could integrate into the group. However, as the
group operated successfully and profitably, and no formal complaint had ever
been lodged, management never got involved.
Individuals in cult or ``group-think'' cultures use a variety of ``collective
patterns of defensive avoidance'' (Janis and Mann, 1977, p. 129). The symptoms
of this behaviour are high esprit de corps and amiability among members (often
leading members to believe that those who question their approach or
intentions are acting irrationally); over-commitment; excessive or blind loyalty
to the group; a strong desire of members to continue as group members; an
arrogance and over-confidence; insulation from ethical opinion and control; and
leader's promotion of unethical decisions (Janis and Man, 1977; Cosier and
Schwenk, 1990; Sims, 1992).
In the case of the multinational management consultancy corporation, a
number of those symptoms were operational ± the strong esprit de corps in the
group and amiability among the members (couples living together in the same
household); excessive or blind loyalty to the group by members ± such as
sharing the same symbols of heart-shaped earrings; consuming certain types of
food before executing training courses; a strong desire of members to continue
as a group; arrogance and over-confidence ± exemplified by Maundy's
 arrogance in running the programme her way; insulation from ethical control ± Dysfunctionality
such as using unethical tactics to eliminate opponents and interfering in in ``citizenship''
personal likes; and the leader's promotion of unethical decisions ± as exhibited behaviour
by June's support of Maundy's actions in order to secure group wins.

A telecommunication corporation case

Some have argued that humour can help in corporate renewal that induces 533
discontinuity and requires divergent rather than convergent thinking. Humour
is the very essence of divergent thinking because it is a low-risk (for the joker)
and unthreatening (for others) way of introducing radical ideas (Barsoucs,
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Management Rohtak At 22:09 12 November 2018 (PT)

1996). Humour provides a sense of detachment and enables individuals to take

a new perspective and to play with situations. Like creativity, it requires free-
wheeling associations, the discovery of hidden similarities and re-assembling
known elements into new patterns. Often, two separate domains of thought are
linked by a common thread which is normally over-looked but which seems
obvious once expressed. Humour also lowers the threshold of resistance
between people and diminishes isolation and defensiveness (Fry, 1994).
Individuals in an organization often do not behave with the openness and
spontaneity of social life because they have a particular rank, responsibility
and work-persona to uphold. This is where humour intervenes ± providing a
short-cut to establishing a rapport and helping to nurture a culture of trust in
which discussion can move forward (Fry, 1994; Barscoucs, 1996). Humour may
open the door to more fanciness and less ritualized recitations (Valeriani, 1979).
Humour plays a vital role as an alternative channel of communication ± as a
means of living with disorder and as a key to corporate renewal (Thurston and
Lundberg, 1992). Fully appreciated, the various functions of spontaneous
humour, therefore, help executives to communicate and manage change more
effectively (Yarwood, 1995). However, spontaneous humour is very much
context-specific. If the context is mis-read by the initiator, humour may have
adverse effects (Levy, 1996). Furthermore, humour which is threatening to
others also has an adverse effect ± as exemplified by the telecommunication
corporation case.
A newly appointed North American executive, Allen, took the position of the
director of the product development department in a large European
telecommunication corporation. Allen was selected from an internationally
competitive pool of applicants. On appointment, he understood that one of his
tasks was to re-vitalize his department and improve its performance. Within
the second month of his appointment he approached the company president
with the idea of contracting services to outside consultants with innovative
development skills to assist in the re-vitalization programme. His idea was
welcomed. Within a month, Allen awarded a one-year consultancy contract to
his personal friend and countryman, Ken, who set a new ``re-invention''
programme under the banner of ``happy working''.
At the first divisional meeting, when Allen introduced Ken and his
programme, and after Ken delivered a few rather inappropriate jokes, a number
 Journal of of people perceived Ken as an arrogant and over-confident person who was
Managerial insensitive to the situation and other people. Arrogance is the illegitimate
Psychology product of confidence and promotes the idea that one never makes a mistake
and that no one else can ever be right (Janis and Mann, 1977). Ken, on the other
14,7/8 hand, thought that the group consisted of rather boring and tense people. Ken
held the idea that a timely dash of humour quickly puts people at ease and that
534 humour can serve as a tool for disrupting the normally well-choreographed
patterns of exchange between individuals of different rank or those meeting for
the first time.
In his inaugural address to the division, Ken proclaimed that he intended to
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Management Rohtak At 22:09 12 November 2018 (PT)

introduce humour into the division and the organization as a whole in the
manner that Henry Kissinger introduced humour to diplomacy. Thus, besides a
standard team-building exercise incorporated in the ``happy working''
programme, Ken introduced a weekly coming together ± ``bonding'' time. These
times consisted of extended lunches, afternoons together through entertainment
activities of game playing, and eating or outings together. However, during this
bonding time, Ken also offered open feedback to individual members in front of
the group. Furthermore, feedback was given in what Ken called a humourous
manner, but recipients perceived this feedback as being very crude and
involving unacceptable language in the workplace. During bonding time Ken
would call many people by derogative names, such as ``you're a lazy so and so'',
stating that if he were his or her boss he would fire them. Those comments were
always delivered with laughter. Ken also encouraged others to talk through
humour frankly and openly to others, regardless of their position in the
workplace. He would urge them to identify what they did, and did not, like about
them. He proclaimed that he wanted to establish a sort of ``time-out'' where
anyone was free to say anything, an arena where it was possible to ridicule
existing rituals, practices and values. However, he also ridiculed members
without ``safe distance'' (Srivastava et al., 1988) and, thus, with great offence.
Knowing that Ken was on a one-year contract and a personal friend of the
departmental director, section managers complained to each other about Ken's
behaviour and methods, but decided to give him some time to settle in before
doing anything. Some had tried to resist the new culture in which Ken
encouraged everyone to be brutally honest with each other during bonding
time. However, those were made to feel traitors of the group. A kind of
``concertive control'' (Tompkins and Cheney, 1985) grew out of a substantial
consensus about group values ± a concertive structure that resulted in a form of
control more powerful, less apparent and more difficult to resist than that of the
formal bureaucracy. The irony of the change in the department was that
instead of building a ``happy working'' climate, by loosening the ``iron cage'' of
rule-based, rational control (Weber, 1978, p. 180), control actually became
tighter, by the group and by Ken.
Those who resisted acceptance of the new culture contemplated by-passing
the director and approaching the company president for help. Unfortunately, at
the same time, the president had become ill and was absent from work for most
 of the time. Others pretended acceptance of Ken's new culture but, underneath, Dysfunctionality
turned to friends and therapists for help. Responding to the question as to why in ``citizenship''
nobody reported dissatisfaction to the president, one section manager replied,
``No one likes to be the skunk at the garden party. One does not make friends
behaviour
and influence people in the boardroom or elsewhere by raising unpopular
issues that create embarrassment or discomfort for top management''. Other
section managers replied that they had hoped that the year would end soon and 535
that ``there was no need to rock the boat''. At year's end, members of the design
department realized that their hardship was far from being over as Allen had
renewed Ken's contract for an additional year.
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Management Rohtak At 22:09 12 November 2018 (PT)

Now, panic set in as everyone in the department realized that this process
might continue for years to come. Desperate for help, many section managers
started to look for help elsewhere ± outside the organization. A number of
section managers hired local consultants to help them with coping strategies
for combating Ken's behaviour and the institutionalization of his values and his
culture. In some cases, these consultants provided moral support and survival
skills for what many saw as an uncomfortably difficult situation. In total, seven
consultants were hired to help combat the power of the single change
consultant. The action taken by section managers was in line with theories of
action that stress a free and informal choice of limits; a choice of negative-
feedback ``noxiants'' one wishes to avoid rather than just a choice of ends with
minimally defensive interpersonal relations (Argyris and Schon, 1982; Morgan,
1986; Schott, 1991) ± a strategy which could be encouraged by ``bottom-up''
innovation or defence processes that question the limits placed on innovation
(Morgan, 1986). However, expenditure on consultants (Ken and others) was
difficult to justify.
The theory of transitional phenomena suggests that in situations of
voluntary change, the person doing the changing must be in control of the
process (Winnicott, 1958), for change ultimately hinges on questions of identity
which, in this case, had been threatened (Vheney, 1991). In order to create an
innovative situation, a change agent must help create an environment where
actors can explore their situation and options they face with minimal threat.
Being a large and structured organization and, as such, subject to a number of
changes in a top-down or ``molar'' fashion, members of the department were
inexperienced with, and unskilled for, coping with change at the grass-roots
level ± especially controlled by one individual.

Some insight and learning

Bottom-up and top-down cultural change dilemmas stem from a basic question
of cognitive psychology concerned with relating the distinction between top-
down and bottom-up cognitive processing. Bottom-up molecular processing
emphasizes the input and encoding of stimuli and the reception of information
through the senses, whereas top-down or molar processing refers to how the
mind frames and interprets sensory experience, with special attention to what
the individual brings to the interpretation of a situation and the context in
which it occurs (Schott, 1991). Contemporary research (Eysenck, 1984;
 Journal of Goleman, 1985; Gardner, 1987) suggests that the process of cognition is
Managerial somewhat more molar then previously thought and that both processes are
Psychology necessary for cognition. It could be argued that a combination of the bottom-up
and top-down strategy is necessary for changing organizational culture.
14,7/8 Furthermore, strategies need to be congruent and sensitive to formative context
(Korac-Kakabadse and Kouzmin, 1996).
536 Reverting to the analogy of an individual personality, approaches to
changing character can be defined as rational reflection, emotional conversion
or behaviour changes through becoming what one acts. In organizational
terms, change needs to be explicit in the policy at the top and to be aligned with
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Management Rohtak At 22:09 12 November 2018 (PT)

grass-roots cultural change. Leadership substitute theory implies that self-

managed or self-directed teams require less task leadership since team
members are trained and multi-skilled. In fact, self-managed teams need other
types of leadership, such as boundary-spanning leadership and social
leadership in order to keep teams functioning effectively (Yang and Shao,
1996). Because in self-managed cultures groups interpret rules and values, it is
necessary that the organization periodically conducts cultural audits.
The topic of ethics has been dominated by the perspective that assumes that
actors are constantly faced with an explicit trade-off between ethics and profit/
self-interest. The other perspective is that ingratiating or unethical behaviour
in organizations (Giacalone and Greenberg, 1997) is more commonly affected
by psychological tendencies that create undesirable behaviour from both
cultural and rational perspectives. Identifying and confronting those
tendencies, through cultural audits, increases the potential efficacy of
individuals and the effectiveness of the organization.

Towards some strategies of ameliorating dysfunctionality

Although self-management teams are not a new phenomenon, they received
scant attention for many years (Sennett, 1979; Ramsay, 1980; Kouzmin, 1983;
Orsburn et al., 1990; Barry, 1991; Wellins et al., 1991). Trist and Bamforth (1951)
studied self-regulating teams in English coal mines in the 1950s (see also Trist
et al., 1963; Trist, 1981) and Scandinavians experimented with semi-
autonomous teams (Bolweg, 1976; Katz and Khan, 1978) which can be
contrasted with the political dimensions of self-directed teams (collaborative
worker management) in the former Yugoslavia (Strauss and Rosenstein, 1970;
Adizes and Borgese, 1975). However, self-managed organizations have their
``dark side'' (Korac-Boisvert and Kouzmin, 1994). Group literature suggests that
groups with a moderate amount of cohesion produce better decisions than low-
or high-cohesive groups, irrelevant of their structure (Callaway and Esster,
1984; Lean, 1985). However, the effect of these groups is dependent on the
organizational context. Highly cohesive groups, characterized by ``group-
think'', make the poorest decisions, despite high confidence in those decisions
or the flexibility or rigidity of their structure (Callaway and Esster, 1984; Lean,
1985).
 Unobtrusive control is built into vocabulary; structure of communication; Dysfunctionality
attitudes; beliefs; rules and procedures which, unquestioned, none the less exert in ``citizenship''
a decisive influence on group outcomes (Perrow, 1967). These factors shape behaviour
decision premisses. These premisses often act as mental ``strait-jackets'' that
prevent individuals from seeing other ways of formulating basic concerns and
alternative courses of action that are valuable (Morgan, 1986). Many of those
constraints are built into group and organizational assumptions, beliefs and 537
practices about individuals and other groups. Control of decision-making
processes is usually more visible than the control of decision premisses
(Morgan, 1986, p. 166). The following strategies are proposed in the
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Management Rohtak At 22:09 12 November 2018 (PT)

minimization of the ``dark side'' of organizational sub-cultures and group

decision making.

Promoting quality in organization

Individuals who practise quality decisions tend to avoid ethical mistakes.
Improving the quality of decision making ensures that most consequences of
action are considered. It implies having accurate assessment of the risks
associated with possible strategies and being attuned to the pitfalls of
egocentric biases. One approach is to make decision processes as open as
possible and to invite input from interested parties. This draws out all group
members and prevents domination by one person. Openness is often a signal to
potential opponents that nothing is being hidden and nothing is feared.

Promoting breadth in decision making

Breadth refers to assessment of the full range of consequences that decisions
may entail. An ethical audit of a group must take into account the outcomes for
all stakeholders. The first task is to identify stakeholders. The second is to
evaluate a decision's likely impact from the stakeholder's perspective. A full
account for decision making must include a community-impact assessment. If
there is community opposition to a decision, it is better to address it early than
risk being ambushed later. Directions taken by self-directed groups affect not
only the present but also the future of the group.

Promoting honesty
In discussing quality and breadth, there is need for openness but also for
honesty. A good litmus test for a decision's openness is the scrutiny of public
opinion. A variation of this is the ``sunshine test''; that is, to imagine how one
would feel if one's ideas were to be seen on the front page of the press. With
hierarchies collapsing (Abrahamsson, 1977) and less power derived from
formal rank (Mechanic, 1962; Laurent, 1978), there will be added emphasis on
negotiation and persuasion. Team members will increasingly have to elicit the
co-operation of employees over whom they have no formal authority and will
increasingly need to utilize persuasion skills (Bass, 1975). The issue of honesty
will become of paramount importance as well as citizen motivation in extra-role
behaviour.
 Journal of Rotation and training
Managerial Periodically, it is necessary to rotate new members into groups and old
Psychology members out (Cosier and Schwenk, 1990). Groups can become prisons of set
ways of doing things and set patterns of seeing the outside world, of gathering
14,7/8 information, of defending customers and markets. What were once core
competencies, if cultivated too long and too tightly, are liable to become core
538 rigidities likely to breed incompetence in responding to new circumstances.
Self-managed teams are formal and ``permanent'' organizational units that
typically consist of five to 20 members working together on an ongoing, day-to-
day basis. Because members have responsibility for their former supervisors,
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Management Rohtak At 22:09 12 November 2018 (PT)

they are empowered to produce an entire product or service, with little or no

supervision, and need to be multi-skilled (Selznick, 1957). Management must
provide a value-based corporate vision that team members use to infer
parameters and premisses that guide their day-to-day actions (Barker, 1993,
p. 413). Guided by the organization's vision, team members direct their own
work and co-ordinate with other areas of the organization.
In addition to technical competencies (Galbraith, 1973), employees need
development of capabilities in decision making, responsibility and ethics
(Drake and Drake, 1988). Team members need to manage themselves and,
although they work without supervision, the demand for leadership does not
disappear (Alvesson, 1982). Since responsibilities have shifted from upper
management to the members themselves, leadership needs to be shared in the
group. Since self-managed teams are responsible not only for accomplishment
of the task but also for team management, they require even more leadership
than traditional work units (Barry, 1991). Thus, in addition to a traditional
leadership role of planning, controlling and scheduling work processes, self-
managed teams also need someone to take a social role in order to reduce
conflicts, increase morale as well as undertake boundary-spanning roles to
communicate with other units and acquire resources (Selznick, 1957;
Thompson, 1967; Barry, 1991; Yang and Shao, 1996).

Promoting dialectical debate

Dialectical discussion, devil's advocate roles or outside experts can challenge
groups. The dialectic method can program conflict into a group's decisions
(Rosenthal et al., 1991; 't Hart et al., 1993) while offsetting potentially unethical
behaviour. The dialectic method calls for structuring a debate between
conflicting views regardless of members' personal feelings (Cosier and
Schwenk, 1990). The benefits of the dialectic method are in the presentation and
debate of the assumptions underlying proposed courses of action (Benson,
1977; Brown, 1978). False or misleading summations become apparent and can
head off unethical decisions that are based on poor assumptions (Sims, 1992).

Cultural audits
Periodically, it is also necessary to conduct cultural audits (Korac-Kakabadse
and Kouzmin, 1997). The purpose of cultural audit is to determine whether
 changes are needed in the organizational climate, codes and the enforcement of Dysfunctionality
cultural and ethics policies. Such audits require careful analysis of the existing in ``citizenship''
practices in the organization, including the validation of current practices, behaviour
determining questionable external issues (relations with clients) and internal
issues (whether the organization's own reward system hinders the performance
of certain quality procedures). Furthermore, implementing a new cultural
policy requires support in the form of change and ethics training programmes 539
for all employees. These programmes need to interpret the underlying cultural,
ethical and legal principles and present practical aspects of carrying out
procedural guidelines (Drake and Drake, 1988; Korac-Kakabadse and Knyght,
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Management Rohtak At 22:09 12 November 2018 (PT)

1996).
Most actors develop heuristics for dealing with organizational issues and
dilemmas (Ferrell and Gresham, 1985). Newstorm and Ruch (1975, p. 32) found
top executives to be a ``key reference group in providing an important source of
managers' behavioural standards''. A survey, by Weaver and Ferrell (1977), of
marketing practitioners reached a similar conclusion, finding that the existence
of an enforceable corporate behaviour policy influences beliefs towards various
ethical behaviours. A cross-cultural study of Irish, UK and US managers
(Alderson and Kakabadse, 1994, p. 439) highlights that the impact of top
management influence on the behaviour and attitudes of personnel lower down
the organization varies according to national culture and identity.
The study emphasized that UK and Irish top management need to behave
according to the ethical standards they have set. The whole of the executive
team needs to constantly display a behaviour pattern that accentuates
commitment to the organization's code of behaviour (Alderson and Kakabadse,
1994). The study concluded that codes of ethical behaviour, in whatever form
(lengthy documents to a brief section in the mission statement), require the
clear communication of organizational values which are being espoused and
that this ``responsibility falls inexorably on top management'' (Selznick, 1957;
Alderson and Kakabadse, 1994, p. 439). Thus, although socialization and
cultural differences shape one's ethical beliefs (Preble and Miesing, 1984),
learning and re-inforcement processes are instrumental in re-learning and
substituting newly desired behaviour for existing, inappropriate ones
(Mathews, 1988). Managers apparently need courage, as well as an ethical
infrastructure, to lead de-centralizing networked organizations forward.

Conclusion
Self-managed work groups have been a relatively ignored phenomenon in
managerialist circles for some time. It is now conventional wisdom that
decentralization, networks and IT-driven re-structuring of organizations have
axiomatic connotations with dimensions of self-management teams/self-
regulating work groups. This paper has sought, via two cameo cases, to
highlight the ``dark side'' of enhanced control, brought about by cultural
manipulation and an overly optimistic faith in the efficacy of self-regulating
groups. In the professional arena, self-regulated work groups have been, in the
 Journal of limited literature identified in this paper, presented positively (Satow, 1975;
Managerial Rothschild-Whitt, 1979). Whether the positive virtues of such self-managed
Psychology capacity can be extended to wider employment situations, especially driven by
so-called IT imperatives, is certainly problematic and requires more detailed
14,7/8 investigation. As this paper has implied, cultural engineering, leadership
dynamics and complex motivation/citizenship behaviour (Giacalone and
540 Greenberg, 1997) within such organized settings also require critical re-
examination.
References
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Management Rohtak At 22:09 12 November 2018 (PT)

Abrahamsson, B. (1977), Bureaucracy or Participation: The Logic of Organization, Sage, London.

Adizes, I. and Borgese, E.M. (1975), Self-Management: New Dimensions to Democracy, ABC-Clio
Press, Santa Barbara, CA.
Alderson, A. and Kakabadse, A. (1994), ``Business ethics and Irish management: a cross-cultural
study'', European Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 432-41.
Alvesson, M. (1982), ``The limits and shortcomings of humanistic organization theory'', Acta
Sociologica, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 117-31.
Argyris, C. and Schon, D.A. (1982), Reasoning, Learning and Action, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
CA.
Barker, J.R. (1993), ``Tightening the iron cage: concertive control in self-managing teams'',
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 408-37.
Barnard, C.I. (1938), The Functions of the Executive, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Barry, D. (1991), ``Managing the bossless team: lessons in distributed leadership'', Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 31-47.
Barsoucs, J.L. (1996), ``Why organizations need humour'', European Management Journal, Vol. 14
No. 5, pp. 500-8.
Bass, L.W. (1975), Management by Task Forces, Lomond, Mt Airy.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R.A. and Spector, B. (1990), ``Why change programmes don't produce
change'', Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No. 5, pp. 158-66.
Benson, J.K. (1977), ``Organizations: a dialectical view'', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Bolweg, J.F. (1976), Job Design and Industrial Democracy, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden.
Brown, R.H. (1978), ``Bureaucracy as praxis: towards a political phenomenology of formal
organizations'', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 365-8.
Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Callaway, M.R. and Esster, J.K. (1984), ``Group-think: effects of cohesiveness and problem-solving
procedures on group decision making'', Social Behaviour and Personality, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 157-64.
Cosier, R.A. and Schwenk, C.R. (1990), ``Agreement and thinking alike: ingredients for poor
decisions'', Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 69-74.
Davis, S.M. and Lawrence, P.R. (1977), Matrix, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Douglas, M. (1973), Natural Symbols, Vintage, New York, NY.
Drake, B.H. and Drake, E. (1988), ``Ethical and legal aspects of managing corporate culture'',
California Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 120-1.
Drucker, P.E. (1988), ``The coming of the new organizations'', Harvard Business Review, Vol. 67
No. 1, pp. 45-53.
 Eastman, K.K. (1994), ``In the eyes of the beholder: an attribution approach to ingratiation and Dysfunctionality
organizational citizenship behaviour'', Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 5,
pp. 1379-91. in ``citizenship''
Edwards, R.C. (1981), ``The social relations of production at the point of production'', in behaviour
Zey-Farrell, M. and Aiken, M. (Eds), Complex Organizations: Critical Perspectives, Scott
Foresman, Glenview, IL.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990), ``Perceived organizational support and
employee diligence, commitment and innovation'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 541
No. 1, pp. 51-9.
Eysenck, M. (1984), A Handbook of Cognitive Psychology, Lawrence Erlbaum, London.
Fandt, P.M. and Ferris, G.R. (1990), ``The management of information and impressions: when
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Management Rohtak At 22:09 12 November 2018 (PT)

employees behave opportunistically'', Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision

Process, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 140-58.
Ferrell, O.C. and Gresham, L.G. (1985), ``A contingency framework for understanding ethical
decision making in marketing'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 87-96.
Foucault, M. (1976), Discipline and Punishment, Vintage, New York, NY.
Fry, W.F. Jr (1994), ``The biology of humour'', Humour, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 111-26.
Galbraith, J.R. (1973), Designing Complex Organizations, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Galbraith, J.R. (1977), Organizational Design, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Gardner, H. (1987), The Mind's New Science: The History of the Cognitive Revolution, Basic
Books, New York, NY.
Giacalone, R.A. and Greenberg, J. (1997), Anti-Social Behavior in Organizations, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Goleman, D. (1985), Vital Lies, Simple Truths: The Psychology of Self-Deception, Simon &
Schuster, New York, NY.
Hendry, J. and Hope, V. (1994), ``Cultural change and competitive performance'', European
Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 401-6.
Hooper, J. and Bunting, M. (1997), ``Into a shadowy world'', The Guardian, 23 January, pp. 2-3.
Janis, I.L. (1972), Victims of Groupthink, Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Janis, I.L. and Mann, L. (1977), Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice and
Commitment, Free Press, New York, NY.
Kanter, R.M. (1989), When Giants Learn to Dance, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1978), The Psychology of Organizations, Wiley, New York, NY.
Korac-Boisvert, N. and Kouzmin, A. (1994), ``The dark side of info-age social networks in public
organizations and creeping crisis'', Administrative Theory and Praxis, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 57-82.
Korac-Kakabadse, N. and Knyght, P. R. (1996), ``The impact of technological advancement on the
ethics and the morality of the public sector management in the third millennium'', paper
presented at the International Research Symposium on Public Services Management,
Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham, March.
Korac-Kakabadse, N. and Kouzmin, A. (1996), ``Innovation strategies for the adoption of new IT
in government: an Australian experience'', Public Administration and Development,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 317-30.
Korac-Kakabadse, N. and Kouzmin, A. (1997), ``Maintaining the rage: from glass and concrete
ceilings and metaphorical sex changes to psychological audits and re-negotiating
organizational scripts ± parts I and II'', Women in Management Review, Vol. 12 Nos 5
and 6, pp. 182-95; 207-21.
 Journal of Kouzmin, A. (1980a), ``Control in organizational analysis: the lost politics'', in Dunkerley, D. and
Salaman, G. (Eds), 1979 International Yearbook of Organizational Studies, Routledge &
Managerial Keegan Paul, London.
Psychology Kouzmin, A. (1980b), ``Control and organization: towards a reflexive analysis'', in Boreham, P.
14,7/8 and Dow, G. (Eds), Work and Inequality: Ideology and Control in the Capitalist Labour
Process ± Vol. 2, Macmillan, Melbourne.
Kouzmin, A. (1983), ``Centrifugal organizations: technology a `voice' in organization analysis'', in
542 Kouzmin, A. (Ed.), Public Sector Administration: New Perspectives, Longman Cheshire,
Melbourne.
Laurent, A. (1978), ``Managerial subordinancy: a neglected aspect of organizational hierarchies'',
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 220-30.
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Management Rohtak At 22:09 12 November 2018 (PT)

Lean, C.R. (1985), ``A partial test of Janis' groupthink model: effects of group cohesiveness and
leaders' behaviour on defective decision making'', Journal of Management, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 5-17.
Levy, S. (1996), ``Working in Dilbert's world'', Newsweek, 12 August, p. 57.
Mathews, M.C. (1988), Strategic Intervention in Organizations, Sage Library of Social Research,
Vol. 169, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Mechanic, D. (1962), ``Sources of power of lower participants in complex organizations'',
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 349-64.
Mintzberg, H. (1994), The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, Prentice-Hall, New York, NY.
Morgan, G. (1986), Images of Organization, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Mumby, D. and Sthol, C. (1991), ``Power and discourse in organizational studies: absence and the
dialectic of control'', Discourse and Society, Vol. 2 No. 2, April, pp. 313-32.
Nash, L. (1997), ``We're no cult, says British expats group'', The Independent, 26 January, p. 3.
Newstorm, J.W. and Ruch, W.A. (1975), ``The ethics of management and the management of
ethics'', MSU Business Topics, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 229-37.
Ogilvy, J. (1990), ``This postmodern business'', Market and Research Today, February, pp. 4-20.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Lexington Books, Lexington, KY.
Organ, D.W. (1990), ``The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behaviour'', in Staw,
B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior: Volume 12, JAI
Press, Greenwich, CT.
Orsburn, J.D., Moran, L.D., Mullelwhite, E. and Zenger, J.H. (1990), Self-Directed Work Teams:
The New American Challenge, Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Parker, M. (1992), ``Postmodern organizations or postmodern organizational theory'',
Organization Studies, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Perrow, C. (1967), ``A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations'', American
Sociological Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 194-208.
Peters, T. (1988), Thriving on Chaos, Knopf, New York, NY.
Preble, J.F. and Miesing, P. (1984), ``Do MBA and undergraduate business students have different
business philosophies?'', Proceedings of the National Meeting of the American Institute of
Decision Science, pp. 346-8.
Ramsay, H. (1980), ``Cycles of control: workers' participation in sociological and historical
perspective'', in Boreham, P. and Dow, G. (Eds), Work and Inequality: Ideology and Control
in the Capitalist Labour Process ± Volume 2, Macmillan, Melbourne.
Rosenthal, U., 't Hart, P. and Kouzmin, A. (1991), ``The bureau-politics of crisis management'',
Public Administration, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 211-34.
Rothschild-Witt, J. (1979), ``The collectivist organization: an alternative to rational-bureaucratic
models'', American Sociological Review, Vol. 44, August, pp. 509-27.
 Satow, R.L. (1975), ``Value rational authority and professional organizations: Weber's missing Dysfunctionality
type?'', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 526-31.
in ``citizenship''
Schanke, M. (1991), ``Organizational citizenship: a review, proposed model and research agenda'',
Human Relations, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 735-59. behaviour
Schott, R. (1991), ``Administration and organization behaviour: some insights from cognitive
psychology'', Administration and Society, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 54-73.
Selznick, P. (1957), Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation, Harper and Row, 543
New York, NY.
Sennett, R. (1979), ``The boss's new clothes'', The New York Review of Books, Vol. 26 No. 2, 22
February, pp. 42-6.
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Management Rohtak At 22:09 12 November 2018 (PT)

Sims, R.R. (1992), ``Linking groupthink to unethical behaviour in organizations'', Journal of

Business Ethics, Vol. 11 No. 9, pp. 651-62.
Soeters, J.L. (1986), ``Excellent companies as social movements'', Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 299-312.
Srivastava, S. (Ed.) (1988), Executive Integrity, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Strauss, G. and Rosenstein, E. (1970), ``Workers' participation: a critical review'', Industrial
Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 197-214.
Tannenbaum, A.S. (1968), Control in Organizations, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
't Hart, P., Rosenthal, U. and Kouzmin, A. (1993), ``Crisis decision making: the centralization
thesis revisited'', Administration and Society, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 12-45.
Thompson, J.D. (1967), Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Thurston, C. and Lundberg, E. (1992), If They're Laughing They're Not Killing Each Other,
Cottonwood Press, Fort Collins, CO.
Tompkins, P.K. and Cheney, G. (1985), ``Communication and unobtrusive control in
contemporary organizations'', in McPhee, R.D. and Tompkins, P.K. (Eds), Organizational
Communication: Traditional Themes and New Directions, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Trevino, L.K. (1986), ``Ethical decision making in organizations: a person-situation interactionist
model'', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 601-17.
Trist, E.L. (1981), ``The evaluation of socio-technical systems'', Occasional Paper No. 2, Quality of
Working Life Center, Toronto.
Trist, E.L. and Bamforth, K.W. (1951), ``Some social and psychological consequences of the long
wall method of coal getting'', Human Relations, Vol. 4, pp. 6-24; 37-38.
Trist, E.L., Higgin, G., Murry, H. and Pollock, A.B. (1963), Organizational Choice, Tavistock,
London.
Valeriani, R. (1979), Travels with Henry, Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Vheney, G. (1991), Rhetoric in an Organizational Society: Managing Multiple Identities,
University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC.
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M. and Liden, R.C., (1997), ``Perceived organizational support and leader-
member exchange: a social exchange perspective'', Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 82-111.
Weaver, K.M. and Ferrell, O.C. (1977), ``The impact of corporate policy on reported ethical beliefs
and behavior of marketing practitioners'', in Greenberg, B.A. and Bellenger, D.N. (Eds),
Contemporary Marketing Thought, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL.
Weber, M. (1978), Roth, G. and Wittich, K. (Eds), in Economy and Society University of California
Press, Berkeley, CA.
 Journal of Wellins, R.S., Byham, W.C. and Wilson, J.M. (1991), Empowered Teams: Creating Self-Directed
Work Groups That Improve Quality, Productivity and Participation, Jossey-Bass, San
Managerial Francisco, CA.
Psychology Whitley, R. (1977), ``Organizational control and the problem of order'', Social Science Information,
14,7/8 Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 169-89.
Winnicott, D.W. (1958), ``Transitional objects and transitional phenomena'', in Sutherland, J.D.
(Ed.), Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought: Collected Papers, Tavistock, London.
544 Wortman, C.B. and Linsenmeier, J.W. (1977), ``Interpersonal attraction and techniques of
ingratiation in organizational settings'', in Staw, B.M and Salancik, G.R. (Eds), New
Directions in Organizational Behavior, St Clair Press, Chicago, IL.
Yang, O. and Shao, E.Y. (1996), ``Shared leadership in self-managed teams: a competing values
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Management Rohtak At 22:09 12 November 2018 (PT)

approach'', Total Quality Management, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 521-34.

Yarwood, D. (1995), ``Humour and administration: a serious inquiry into unofficial organizational
communication'', Public Administration Review, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 81-90.

New for 2000

In 2000, subscribers to the Journal of Managerial Psychology will be
able to take advantage of these new journal enhancements:

Extra pagination
The total pagination of this journal will be increased in 2000 to allow
for print publication of even more high-quality articles, book
reviews, research reports and Internet news. All this new material
will also be published online via the Internet and will be browsable
and fully-searchable by keywords.

Abstracts of the wider literature

Each article published in this journal will be enhanced by a highly-
customised selection of abstracts from Anbar Electronic Intelligence,
the extensive management database of leading academic and
professional journals. The abstracts, which will be selected
personally by Anbar reviewers, will seek to extend the themes and
discussions presented in the full articles. This selection of the wider
literature will appear in the journal's print issues and online via the
Internet. By bringing information on other, key studies within
immediate reach, this new feature of the journal will be an
essential time saver for those researching and teaching in this field.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Kerry Brown, Susanne Royer, Jennifer Waterhouse, Stacy Ridge. 2005. Virtual workforces and the Shifting
Frontier of Control. Journal of Industrial Relations 47:3, 310-325. [Crossref]
2. Steven H. Applebaum, John Wunderlich, Elliot Greenstone, Danny Grenier, Barbara Shapiro, Donald
Leroux, Felix Troeger. 2003. Retention strategies in aerospace turnover: a case study. Career Development
International 8:6, 270-282. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Nada Korac-Kakabadse, Andrew Korac-Kakabadse, Alexander Kouzmin. 2001. Leadership Renewal:
Towards the Philosophy of Wisdom. International Review of Administrative Sciences 67:2, 207-227.
[Crossref]
4. Yochanan Altman. 2000. Work and careers in the new millennium: a landscape. Strategic Change 9:1,
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Management Rohtak At 22:09 12 November 2018 (PT)

67-74. [Crossref]