Sim B. Sitkin

Reconceptualizing the Determinants of Risk Behavior

Past research has resulted in contradictory findings concerning the effect of risk on decision-making behavior in organizations. This article proposes a model that reconciles these unresolved contradictions by examining the usefulness of placing risk propensity and risk perception in a more central role than has been previously recognized. Based on this analysis, it is posited that risk propensity dominates both the actual and perceived characteristics of the situation as a determinant of risk behavior. Propositions derived from the conceptual model provide an agenda for future research on individual risk behavior in organizational settings.

A Critical Assessment of Charismatic—Transformational Leadership Research: Back to the Drawing Board?

There is a widely shared consensus that charismatic–transformational leadership is a particularly effective form of leadership. In a critical assessment of the state-of-the-science in this area of research, we question the validity of that conclusion. We identify four problems with theory and research in charismatic–transformational leadership. First, a clear conceptual definition of charismatic–transformational leadership is lacking. Current theories advance multi-dimensional conceptualizations of charismatic–transformational leadership without specifying how these different dimensions combine to form charismatic–transformational leadership, or how dimensions are selected for inclusion or exclusion. Second, theories fail to sufficiently specify the causal model capturing how each dimension has a distinct influence on mediating processes and outcomes and how this is contingent on moderating influences. Third, conceptualization and operationalization confounds charismatic–transformational leadership with i...

Balancing and Rebalancing in the Creation and Evolution of Organizational Control

This research examines data collected as part of a 10-year case study of the creation and evolution of organizational control during organizational founding. Past research has taken a cross-sectional approach to examining control use in mature, stable organizations. In contrast, this study examines organizational controls during the founding period and takes a longitudinal perspective on organizational control. By examining how organizational controls are created and evolve through specific phases of the founding period, the research also provides new data and insights about what drives shifts in the use of various types of control. Specifically, this research sheds light on the role of imbalance among formal and informal controls as the key driver of shifts in control configurations, and provides a step toward making organizational control theory more dynamic.

Social Accounts in Conflict Situations: Using Explanations to Manage Conflict

Considerable attention has been given to different behavioral strategies of conflict management (e.g., avoidance, compromise, collaboration). However, conflict theory and research has overlooked a simple, but effective strategy for managing conflict: the use of social accounts or explanations. In this paper, we review the literature on the use of social accounts in conflict situations and find it supports the argument that social accounts can be an effective conflict- management strategy. Based on this analysis, we propose several promising directions for future theory development and research concerning the role of social accounts in conflict situations. In addition, we identify tradeoffs and dilemmas created when social accounts are used to manage conflict.

Acquisition Decision-Making Processes: The Central Role of Risk

This paper builds upon the work of organizational and strategic management scholars who have conceptualized acquisitions as decisionmaking processes, We suggest that behavioral concepts of risk, specifytally decision-maker risk perceptions andpropensities, are key to understanding the process by which acquisition candidates are selected, the characteristics of pre-acquisition evaluation and negotiations, and approaches to post-acquisition integration. By drawing upon past work concem~ng the efsects of these risk-related variables in other decisioneking contexts, we develop propositions that conceptualize their impact on acquisition decision processes. Incorporation of risk as a key variable in process theories of acquisitions provides a stronger theoretical grounding for these theories, and suggests some important practical implications for managers. Since the mid-1980’s, scholarly attention has increasingly focused on the process by which acquisitions are planned, negotiated, and integrated. While this work has varied in terms of its specific focus, a unifying thread can be seen in the conceptualization of acquisitions as strategic decision processes. In this paper, we attempt to increase our ~derst~ding of why acquisition decision processes unfold as they do, by theorizing about risk as a key variable that has been omitted from most existing work on the acquisition decision process. Finance and strategic management scholars have conducted most of the prior work that has addressed risk in relation to acquisitions. The central focus in most of these empirical studies has been on the risk/return relationship in which risk, operationalized as variation in post-acquisition performance, has been linked to acquisition type (i.e., related versus unrelated). This literature has relied almost exclusively upon ex post meusureS of risk (e.g., Montgomery & Singh, 1984).

Managerial Trust-Building Through the Use of Legitimating Formal and Informal Control Mechanisms

This article examines formal and informal decision criteria used by organizational decision-makers when making potentially controversial, legitimacy-relating decisions that could damage trust. Two experimental studies found consistent patterns of persistent use of formal controls and reduced use of informal controls under higher levels of perceived threat to trust. Institutional theory is consistent with the proposition that increased use of legitimated control uniformly enhances trust. In contrast, this article posits and finds support for an attenuated legalistic institutional proposition that increased use of even legitimated control can predictably foster, or undermine, trust - but such predictions can be made only if we systematically distinguish formal and informal control. Results suggest institutional pressures manifest at the individual level provide a complementary focus to macro-organizational institutionalization.

Organizational Control: A configurational theory of control

Organization theory scholars have long acknowledged that control processes are integral to the way in which organizations function (Blau and Scott,1962; Etzioni, 1965; Tannenbaum, 1962). While control theory research spans many decades and draws on several rich traditions (Dunbar and Statler, Chapter 2), several theoretical problems have kept it from generating reasonably consistent and interpretable empirical findings and from reaching consensus concerning the nature of key relationships. As new forms of organizational relations (networks, alliances, mass customization, supply chains, consortia, contract employees, telecommuting, virtual teams, etc.) emerged in the late twentieth century, traditional organizational control theories were viewed as less and less relevant by organizational scholars. As a result, attention to organizational control research waned, with the exception of critical theorists (e.g., Adler, 2007; Tsoukas, 2007) and accounting researchers (e.g., Davilia and Foster, 2007; Whitley, 1999). For example, despite the importance of the topic and the pervasiveness of the control phenomenon in organizations, organizational control research has not been sufficiently cumulative. The control literature is rich, but deceptive. Although most organizational scholars might be shocked by our assertion, we observe that there is very little empirical work on control in the organizational literature relative to other classic and fundamental organizational phenomena (e.g., design-effectiveness, planning-performance, diversification–performance relationships). From a distance, it may appear as though there is a great deal of empirical work and that there is broad support for the few dominant control theories (e.g., Merchant, 1985; Ouchi 1977, 1979).

Beyond knowledge sharing: Withholding knowledge at work

This chapter discusses why employees keep their knowledge to themselves. Despite managers’ best efforts, many employees tend to hoard knowledge or are reluctant to share their expertise with coworkers or managers. Although many firms have introduced specialized initiatives to encourage a broader dissemination of ideas and knowledge among organizational members, these initiatives often fail. This chapter provides reasons as to why this is so. Instead of focusing on why individuals might share their knowledge, however, we explain why individuals keep their knowledge to themselves. Multiple perspectives are offered, including social exchange, norms of secrecy, and territorial behaviors.

Impression management and the use of procedures at the Ritz‐Carlton: Moral standards and dramaturgical discipline

This article uses Goffmans work on moral standards and dramaturgical discipline to inform a case study featuring a hotels procedures for guaranteeing reliable impression management. Through an analysis of archival material and 18 interviews at two sites, we developed four categories of impression management behaviors. Viewing our analysis through Goffmans lens, we argue that procedures codify moral standards thereby offering employees specific means by which they can enact dramaturgical discipline. In our discussion we suggest several ways in which our case study reinforces and expands Goffmans original concepts. Our findings are (a) procedures can function as codified moral standards within the organizational setting, (b) procedures can serve as the basis for employee enactment of dramaturgical discipline, (c) the use of databases in collecting and storing information offers a new wrinkle to impression management theory, and (d) the use of incentives to pacify guests expands the defensive practices available to those engaging in impression management.

Trust dynamics in acquisitions: The role of relationship history, interfirm distance, and acquirer's integration approach

Drawing on the trust literature and research on sociocultural integration in mergers and acquisitions (M&As), we develop a model of the antecedents and consequences of trust dynamics in acquisitions. The model proposes that target firm members’ perceptions of the acquiring firm managements trustworthiness are affected by the relationship history of the firms, the interfirm distance, and the integration approach taken by the acquirer. Ability, benevolence, integrity, and value congruence perceptions are proposed to converge into a generalized trust judgment or result in a state of ambivalence, depending on whether the trustworthiness attributions are consistent or conflicting. The model explains the mechanisms by which trust and ambivalence may affect a variety of attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. A number of testable propositions are derived from this model, and the implications for M&A research and practice are discussed.