A business frame perspective on why perceptions of top management's bottom‐line mentality result in employees’ good and bad behaviors

Abstract

Emerging research suggests that bottom‐line mentalities (BLMs) (i.e., a sole focus on bottom‐line outcomes to the exclusion of other considerations) can have dysfunctional consequences within the workplace. However, research has yet to consider how and why BLMs may result in both beneficial and dysfunctional organizational outcomes. In the present research, we examine employees’ perceptions of top management's BLM as a type of business frame that results in two cognitive states. Under the influence of this business frame, employees may adopt a mental preoccupation with work (i.e., a state of ongoing work‐related cognitions) that propels beneficial employee outcomes by reducing customer incivility and enhancing customer service performance. Yet, also in response to top management's high BLM as a business frame, employees may adopt self‐interest cognitions (i.e., a cognitive state of self‐interest) that instigate customer‐directed unethical conduct. Across two field studies, we found general support for our hypotheses. Taken together, our findings suggest that perceptions of top management's high BLM can be a mixed blessing in that it may drive employees to adopt focused work efforts (mental preoccupation with work), but also self‐interest cognitions, with each cognitive state predicting beneficial or dysfunctional behaviors. We discuss the implications of these findings and directions for future research.

The study of behavioral ethics within organizations: A special issue introduction

“…To be sure, narrative reviews of behavioral ethics literature have emphasized the application of SIPT to explain ethics phenomena (e.g., Tenbrunsel & Smith‐Crowe, ; Treviño et al., ). Three papers within this special issue relied on SIPT to explain how employees turn to leader behavior (Fehr et al., ; Kuenzi et al., ), leader communications (Babalola et al., ), and general norms and procedures within the environment (Kuenzi et al., ) to inform their behavior (e.g., customer‐directed incivility, performance, support offered to their leaders, and unethical behavior).…”

“…For instance, Babalola et al. ) used SIPT principles to suggest that leaders are relevant role models who create behavioral expectations and, therefore, serve as a critical source of information about (un)ethical conduct. Their theorizing also incorporated principles from decision framing and cuing (e.g., Messick, ; Vohs, ), suggesting that leader behavior and communications are critical to understanding employee (un)ethical behavior.…”

“…The results suggest that leaders are a formidable source of such information. Leaders’ behaviors and communications serve as a frame that elicits certain cognitions to achieve organizational goals that can motivate either ethical or unethical acts (Babalola et al., ), inform formal work norms, systems, and structures that shape an EOC and reduce the engagement of unethical behavior (Kuenzi et al., ), and reduce employees’ sense of connection with their leaders (reduced trust and value‐congruence) that motivates employees to withhold support of their leaders (Fehr et al., ). However, leadership and climate are not the only way in which employees’ perceptions and behavior are informed.…”

“…Thus, using samples that generalize to working adults was needed. The papers in the special issue showcase different methodologies, such as time‐separated survey designs that strengthen causal inferences (Babaloa et al., ; Fehr et al., ), a multi‐level approach that is commensurate with understanding the larger impact of leadership across employees within different organizational units (Kuenzi et al., ), and a within‐person, experience sampling method (ESM) approach to unpack the daily internalization experiences of employees that influence the their (un)ethical behavior (Umphress et al., ). Importantly, the author teams designed their studies to provide a conceptual match to their predictions.…”

“…Each of the remaining 48 papers was assigned to one of the three editors for the special issue and was blind‐reviewed by two experts in the field. Ultimately, we accepted four articles that appear in this special issue (Babalola, Greenbaum, Amarnani, Shoss, Deng, Garba, & Guo, ; Fehr, Fulmer, & Keng‐Highberger, ; Kuenzi, Mayer, & Greenbaum, ; Umphress, Gardner, Leavitt, & Stoverink, ). These accepted papers represent an 8% acceptance rate, consistent with the overall acceptance rate for regular submissions to Personnel Psychology .…”