A Difficult Burden to Bear: The Managerial Process of Dissonance Resolution in the Face of Mandated Harm-Doing
This conceptual paper draws on cognitive theory and attribution theory to develop a process model of managerial dissonance and responsibility attribution after harm-doing. Although extant harm-doing literature assumes managerial backing for such decisions, this study suggests that there will, at tim...
| Published in: | Journal of business ethics |
|---|---|
| Authors: | ; |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Springer Science + Business Media B. V
2017
|
| In: |
Journal of business ethics
Year: 2017, Volume: 141, Issue: 1, Pages: 71-86 |
| Further subjects: | B
Necessary evils
B Blame B Responsibility B Harm-doing B Dissonance |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | This conceptual paper draws on cognitive theory and attribution theory to develop a process model of managerial dissonance and responsibility attribution after harm-doing. Although extant harm-doing literature assumes managerial backing for such decisions, this study suggests that there will, at times, be acts of organizationally mandated harm-doing (e.g., pay freezes) that managers believe are unnecessary. In these cases, it is proposed that managers will experience dissonance from enacting the harm-doing event, resulting in the externalization of responsibility to either the organization or the harm-doing target. This paper examines the challenges faced by the manager through each phase of the dissonance resolution process and possible outcomes of the process. This study concludes with the model’s implications for moral theorizing. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1573-0697 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of business ethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/s10551-015-2697-y |