The study aims to investigate how organization-related factors, such as job overload, organizational commitment, and motivation, affect the level of cyberloafing. While research on cyberloafing has been blooming recently, most of the studies are based on self-reports. Thus the validity of obtained results is threatened by the possibility of deliberate response distortion resulting in the underreporting of cyberloafing. We address this issue by using a unique data-set collected by the organization-wide computer-tracking system. Data gathered from the sample of 379 employees whose computer usage was automatically monitored during a four-month period was combined with a survey intended to measure independent variables. We find that job overload is negatively related to cyberloafing and organizational commitment. The results allow questioning the inclusion of cyberloafing in the category of counterproductive work behaviors, while at the same time, they increase the validity of findings on the relationships between the studied variables and cyberloafing.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

What happens to a norm when it becomes publicly known that organizations are decoupling their activities from it? Since the publication of Meyer and Rowan’s pivotal paper, the institutional consequences of publicly denouncing that organizations engage in decoupling have been examined only tangentially. Our article fills this gap by offering a model that explains the institutional consequences of decoupling exposure. We show how sanctions, initial norm validity, reactions of exposed organizations, and evaluations by field members witnessing the exposure lead to either the reinforcement or the disruption of a norm that is transgressed. We also offer a counter-intuitive explanation as to why decoupling exposure may actually weaken rather than reinforce norms that activists attempt to promote by exposing decoupling.

No abstract

While adoption of institutionalized structures has received immense attention from organizational scholars, the processes associated with adoption of proto-institutions are infrequently studied. Drawing on an ethnographic longitudinal study of Producer Choice adoption by a public broadcasting organization, I contribute to the extant literature by offering three findings. First, I show how the semi-edited account of an initial implementation of proto-institution clashes with multiple unedited accounts of subsequent adoptions and results in increased ambiguity regarding the structure. Second, I shed light on how actors involved in the focal adoption struggled to follow incompatible accounts and gauge the proto-institution’s value. Last, I show how actors produce their own adoption by borrowing the justification for reform from the semi-edited account but founding its design on a previous adoption that was perceived as failed.

Growing concerns about the credibility of scientific findings have sparked a debate on new transparency and openness standards in research. Management and organization studies scholars generally support the new standards, while emphasizing the unique challenges associated with their implementation in this paradigmatically diverse discipline. In this study, I analyze the costs to authors and journals associated with the implementation of new transparency and openness standards, and provide a progress report on the implementation level thus far. Drawing on an analysis of the submission guidelines of 60 empirical management journals, I find that the call for greater transparency was received, but resulted in implementations that were limited in scope and depth. Even standards that could have been easily adopted were left unimplemented, producing a paradoxical situation in which research designs that need transparency standards the most are not exposed to any, likely because the standards are irrelevant to other research designs.