The non-sense of organizational morality

Abstract

Purpose – Companies’ corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities tend to be regarded with suspicion: Taking managerial decision about engaging in CSR or communicating, this decision does not constitute the actual execution of this decision itself. A gulf can exist between deciding, speaking and doing. In fact, this gap between speaking and doing has longed fuelled the discussion about the risks, benefits and pitfalls of CSR, mainly for one reason: It remains unknown what happens to CSR concepts when they are transformed from formal decisions at the top of the hierarchy to concrete action in the rest of the organization. This paper explores this internal transformation process by combining the macro- and micro-levels of observation. Design/methodology/approach – From a macro-perspective, the authors use Nils Brunsson’s notion of organizational hypocrisy to elucidate the societal conditions of the intraorganizational enforcement of CSR. Second, the authors combine this framework with Karl Weick’s organizational sensemaking approach to understand better how employee generate meaning and actions from contradictory expectations on the micro-level of the organization. By combining these two streams of theory, the authors provide a clear understanding of the internal sensemaking mechanisms brought about by contradicting societal norms. This approach and its usefulness is illustrated by means of an empirical case study. Findings – The paper illustrates the characteristics of the unavoidable difference between organizational talk and action, the contradictions employees face on the shop floor when executing CSR and the challenges CSR execution has to overcome. Research limitations/implications – Given the combination of theoretical and empirical reflection, the paper remains explorative. Practical implications – The moral dilemmas of employees become much clearer, as much as the organizational hypocrisy which CSR drives companies into. That can help managers to better deal with employees’ and the public’s reaction to own CSR efforts. Originality/value – Combining Nils Brunsson (hypocrisy) with Karl Weick (sensemaking) in the context of CSR has not been undertaken. Accordingly, the insights are unique.

The Leader Oversight Bias in Justice and Hypocrisy Evaluations of Organisational Diversity Practices

“…Organisations may therefore overlook the need for more integrative diversity practices, as evidenced by frequent gaps in the intention of a policy and how it is eventually experienced (MacIntosh & Doherty, 2005;Soldan & Nankervis, 2014). In the literature, such gaps are often ascribed to organisational hypocrisy, as they create a misalignment between an organisation's espoused words and realised actions (Fortin & Fellenz, 2008;Gentile, Wetzel, & Wolf, 2015;Goswami, Ha-Brookshire, & Bonifay, 2018;Kılıcoğlu, 2017). However, this hypocrisy postulate presents some challenges, since the degree of misalignment may well be in the eye of the beholder.…”