Robert Folger

Theory and theory testing are the underpinnings of Management research. This symposium consists of four presentations, each of which takes a critical stance on how Management scholars build and ref...

This research examines 3rd parties' reactions to the abusive supervision of a coworker. Reactions were theorized to depend on 3rd parties' beliefs about the targeted coworker and, specifically, whether the target of abuse was considered deserving of mistreatment. We predicted that 3rd parties would experience anger when targets of abuse were considered undeserving of mistreatment; angered 3rd parties would then be motivated to harm the abusive supervisor and support the targeted coworker. Conversely, we predicted that 3rd parties would experience contentment when targets of abuse were considered deserving of mistreatment; contented 3rd parties would then be motivated to exclude the targeted coworker. Additionally, we predicted that 3rd parties' moral identity would moderate the effects of 3rd parties' experienced emotions on their behavioral reactions, such that a strong moral identity would strengthen ethical behavior (i.e., coworker support) and weaken harmful behavior (i.e., supervisor-directed deviance, coworker exclusion). Moderated mediation results supported the predictions. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Evolutionary biologists often refer to a distinction between ultimate and proximate explanation. On the one hand, such a distinction points to important issues for social psychologists, especially in terms of what it means to say that people experience emotions such as guilt and shame. On the other hand, the value of the ultimate/proximate distinction depends on how it is understood because its application can be problematic. We illustrate the use and possible misuse of the distinction in terms of its application to the differentiation of the self‐conscious emotions guilt and shame.

Ethical leadership (EL) is a key consideration for organizations, and research on that topic has received increasing attention. For example, a supervisor’s score on a measure of EL has been shown to be associated with important effects on employees who report to that person. A related question, however, has received less attention: What are the consequences for the leaders themselves? We focus on the possible effects of EL on supervisors in terms of evaluations by the managers to whom they report. Evaluations of performance and promotability impact the leader directly, but they can also affect organizations: Leaders who are evaluated favorably have a better chance of remaining in positions that influence organizational outcomes, and they also have a better chance of advancing to positions of greater influence. Thus it is important to determine whether supervisors’ EL is associated with such evaluations. In turn that raises the related question: To what extent does being ethical related to the ways in which leaders are evaluated? We address that question by examining the measurement of EL from the two ethical perspectives most common in Western traditions (a.k.a., the “right” and the “good”) and whether one might be more closely associated than the other with evaluations of performance and promotability. Results utilizing 117 triads (consisting of a subordinate, a supervisor, and a manager) support hypotheses develop by considering whether managers might be more favorably inclined toward one ethical perspective relative to the other. We discuss the implications of those findings for research on EL.