A Model of Fair Process and Its Limits

Wu, Yaozhong; Loch, Christoph H.; Heyden, Ludo Van der

doi:10.1287/msom.1070.0189

Cited by 42 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are also studies which adhere more closely to the 'uncertainty about probability' definition of ambiguity (Gao et al, 2018;Mak et al, 2014;Natarajan et al, 2012;Wu et al 2008;Zhang et al, 2016).…”

Section: Situating Ambiguity In the Om Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Ambiguity and its coping mechanisms in supply chains lessons from the Covid-19 pandemic and natural disasters

Gunessee

Subramanian

2020

IJOPM

150

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe first purpose of this paper is to situate and conceptualise ambiguity in the operations management (OM) literature, as connected to supply chain decision-making (SCDM). The second purpose is to study the role of ambiguity-coping mechanisms in that context.Design/methodology/approachThis research uses the behavioural decision theory (BDT) to better embed ambiguity in a generic SCDM framework. The framework explicates both behavioural and non-behavioural antecedents of ambiguity and enables us to also ground the “coping” mechanisms as individual and organisational level strategies. Properties of the framework are illustrated through two “ambiguous” events – the 2011 Thai flood and Covid-19 pandemic.FindingsThree key findings are documented. First, ambiguity is shown to distinctively affect supply chain decisions and having correspondence with specific coping mechanisms. Second, the conceptual framework shows how individual coping mechanisms can undermine rational-based organisational coping mechanisms, leading to “sub-optimal” (poor) supply chain decisions. Third, this study highlights the positive role of visibility but surprisingly organisational “experiential” learning is imperfect, due to the focus on “similar” past experience and what is known.Originality/valueThe paper is novel in two ways. First, it introduces ambiguity – an often neglected concept in operations management – into the supply chain lexicon, by developing a typology of ambiguity. Second, ambiguity-coping mechanisms are also introduced as both individual and organisational strategies. This enables the study to draw distinctive theoretical and practical implications.

show abstract

Section: Situating Ambiguity In the Om Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Ambiguity and its coping mechanisms in supply chains lessons from the Covid-19 pandemic and natural disasters

Gunessee

Subramanian

2020

IJOPM

150

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This approach largely complies with the notion of calculative trust, while works in the social exchange cluster additionally consider other forms such as personal and societal trust (Williamson 1993 (Price 2006a, b). Despite these benefits of cooperation both for individual reputation and for organizational outcomes, rules of reciprocity are often violated by unfair actions in general and free-riding more specifically (Wu, Loch, and Van der Heyden 2008). These violations suggest that fairness is subject to cost-benefit evaluations (Zwick and Chen 1999).…”

Section: Cluster 2: Economic Exchangementioning

confidence: 99%

Management Research on Reciprocity: A Review of the Literature

Göbel

Vogel

Weber

2013

Bus Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although reciprocity is fundamental to all social orders, management research offers few reviews of the concept’s theoretical origins and current applications. To help bridge this gap, we elucidate the dominant understandings of reciprocity, ask which areas of research emerge from them, and explore how they interconnect. Our bibliometric methodology detects four clusters of management research on reciprocity. Across these clusters, authors subscribe mainly to substantialist ontology, marginalize morally oriented motives consistent with relational ontology, and largely assume that benefit-oriented motives underlie reciprocity. We outline the advantages of a moral-oriented relationalist concept of reciprocity and discuss potential areas for its development in management research.

show abstract

“…But the effect of emotions on behavior is relevant in many processes, which has been observed in previous work as an “aside:” for example, the perception of “fair process” (i.e., transparent decision making that invites inputs from workers) triggers positive emotions and thus a motivation for compliance, while the absence of fair process triggers negative emotions and thus a motivation to resist (Lind and Tyler, 1988; Kim and Mauborgne, 1996; Wu et al, 2008). Another example is psychological safety: if workers feel unsafe (e.g., threatened by sanctions), fear prompts them to avoid initiatives and risk, while perceived safety encourages initiative taking (Edmondson, 1999; Tucker et al, 2007; Siemsen et al, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social preferences and emotions as regulators of behavior in processes⋆

Urda

Loch²

2012

J of Ops Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tBehavior is driven not only by individual "(economically) rational" deliberation, but also by shortcuts (decision biases) and by social preferences (the achievement of status, reciprocal relationships, and group identity). An important aspect of these behavioral drivers is that they may operate (at least in part) through emotions. Emotions influence behavior in ways that are relevant to performance in processes; for example, anger prompts employees to refuse cooperation, fear inhibits workers' willingness to take initiatives (for example, in continuous improvement), and shame motivates them to change behavior.This study provides experimental evidence that the social preferences systematically trigger emotions. This happens not "linearly" (more achievement of a social preference might be expected to cause more positive emotions), but rather in more complex patterns that regulate social relationships. Arbitrary (but earned) status signals trigger pride, while status achievement from being lucky does not. An externally (not by an own fault) caused status loss triggers anger and disgust. Not receiving cooperation by another person triggers anger, but more so if the cooperation failure violates a reciprocity expectation; the happiness form receiving cooperation by another person is attenuated by guilt and sadness is the subject itself has previously refused cooperation to the other person. Events happening to salient in-group members trigger emotions as if they happened to subjects directly, including if the in-group member behaves in an embarrassing way.These results are relevant for front-line managers because they help predicting and interpreting emotional reactions of employees: awarding or withholding status, offering or demanding reciprocity, and the creation of in-groups have emotional effects that depend on the context in predictable ways. Our results also contribute to theory by connecting literatures on emotions, decision making, and behavioral operations.

show abstract

A Model of Fair Process and Its Limits

Cited by 42 publications

References 34 publications

Ambiguity and its coping mechanisms in supply chains lessons from the Covid-19 pandemic and natural disasters

Ambiguity and its coping mechanisms in supply chains lessons from the Covid-19 pandemic and natural disasters

Management Research on Reciprocity: A Review of the Literature

Social preferences and emotions as regulators of behavior in processes⋆

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About