Riddle Me This: What Do Courage,Rhetoric,Neuroscience,Socialization,Revenge,and CEO Personality Have in Common? Answer: Outstanding 2014 GOM Articles

Courage Within Teams

Beginning with the Outstanding Article selections, and discussing them alphabetically by the first author’s last name, brings us first to Benjamin Amos and Richard J. Klimoski’s article titled “Courage: Making Teamwork Work Well.” Our editorial team found the focus of this article on the critical but under-researched virtue of courage, and its impact on teamwork, to be unique and intriguing. Apparently, GOM readers did as well, as this was one of the most frequently read articles in 2014. Drawing from the emerging positive organizational scholarship literature, Amos and Klimoski advance eight propositions about circumstances within teams that enable members to muster the courage to lead in situations where doing so is fraught with personal and/or professional risk. Moreover, they identify three key qualities—character, confidence, and credibility—that provide the foundation for the courage to lead teams facing problematic situations. They conclude with recommendations for the selection and retention of team members based on the virtue of courage and the composition of the team. Together, the propositions and practical recommendations advanced provide valuable guidance for researchers seeking to explore this promising avenue for study and practitioners striving to achieve courageous leadership in teams facing risky endeavors.

Charismatic Leader Rhetoric

An exemplary application of qualitative methods is provided by Loizos Heracleous and Laura Alexa Klaering’s article titled “Charismatic Leadership and Rhetorical Competence: An Analysis of Steve Jobs’s Rhetoric.” Our editorial team found this case study of Steve Jobs’s rhetoric and its contribution to his charismatic image to be fascinating, as did GOM readers who made this one of the most heavily downloaded 2014 articles. Heracleous and Klaering examine text from three distinct contexts: (a) an Security Exchange Commission (SEC) deposition of Jobs regarding stock option backdating, (b) a CNBC interview of Jobs regarding Apple’s supplier shift from IBM to Intel, and (c) a discussion with Jobs at the Wall Street Journal’s “D8: All Things Digital” conference. The results reveal the nuance with which Jobs customized his rhetoric for different audiences and situations, as well as the continuity of central themes across these settings. Of course, the beauty of rhetorical analysis arises from the richness of the text. A tantalizing taste of how Jobs used rhetoric to foster his charismatic image is provided by the following sample quotation:

There is tremendous teamwork at the top of the company, which filters down to tremendous teamwork throughout the company. Teamwork is dependent on trusting the other folks to come through with their part without watching them all the time—but trusting that they’re gonna come through with their parts. That’s what we do really well. And we’re great at figuring out how to divide things up into these great teams that we have and all work on the same thing, touch base frequently and bring it all together into a product. We do that really well. (Heracleous & Klaering, 2014, p. 148)

I encourage others to read this article for additional great examples of how and why Steve Jobs’s words helped to make him the prototypical charismatic leader of his generation.

Neuroscience Implications for Management Development

Delving deep into the field of neuroscience, Paul McDonald and Yi-Yuan Tang generate some intriguing research questions in their article titled “Neuroscientific Insights Into Management Development: Theoretical Propositions and Practical Implications.” After first providing an informative overview of key neuroscientific terms, the authors apply third-generation management development principles (Gosling & Mintzberg, 2003) to organize and present relevant evidence from the neuroscience literature. In contrast to the first (a lecture format coupled with the discussion of business cases) and second (action learning whereby people learn from each other) generations, third-generation management development focuses on providing managers with opportunities to learn from natural work experience. Furthermore, it

proposes that managers develop within and integrate across five parallel domains: (a) reflective mind-set (management of self), (b) analytic mind-set (management of organization), (c) worldly mind-set (management of perspectives), (d) collaborative mind-set (management of relationships), and (e) action mind-set (management of change). (McDonald & Tang, 2014, p. 478)

Defying conventional wisdom, the authors apply neuroscience principles to generate novel insights and associated propositions within each of the above mentioned domains. Consider, as an example, the implications of neuroscience findings for the reflective mind-set domain. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) research (Ochsner et al., 2005) focused on how our brains process direct and reflected self-knowledge reveals that neural systems make a distinction between appraisals of the self derived from information supplied by close versus nonclose others. Specifically, the brain has a positive bias whereby information emanating from one’s in-group has greater cognitive salience and impact than information supplied by an out-group. McDonald and Tang (2014) use this finding as the basis for their first two propositions: “In-group contextualization, defined as situations involving known and trusted associates, increases the effectiveness of management development” and “anonymity with respect to information source decreases the consequence of developmental feedback” (p. 482). Note that these propositions imply that many performance evaluation systems, such as 360-degree feedback approaches that assure anonymity to peers, subordinates, and client raters, may inadvertently undermine the internalization of self-relevant feedback because it is not associated with an in-group source in the brain. Insights such as these reveal exciting opportunities whereby neuroscience findings can be applied to generate highly innovative approaches to the study and practice of management development.

Organizational Socialization Tactics and Newcomer Adjustment

What better way to learn about the tactics organizations use to socialize new members is there than to study a French apprenticeship system that dates back to the Middle Ages? This apprenticeship sample is even more impressive than Donald Trump’s! Our editorial team found Serge Perrot, Talya N. Bauer, David Abonneau, Eric Campoy, Berrin Erdogan, and Robert C. Liden’s article titled “Organizational Socialization Tactics and Newcomer Adjustment: The Moderating Role of Perceived Organizational Support” to be fascinating. The authors used a sample of 103 blue-collar workers to explore the apprenticeship process whereby they learned their trade (carpentry, roofing, and stonecutting). Newcomers to the trade were surveyed during the first months of their employment to explore how selected socialization tactics interacted with perceived organizational support (POS) to influence three key socialization outcomes—learning the job, learning work-group norms, and role innovation.

The results reveal a positive relationship between socialization tactics (both institutional and individualized) and socialization outcomes for low POS, and a non-significant relationship for high POS. The explanation of these findings is that when new employees perceive strong support from their organization, they experience greater role clarity, and hence, socialization tactics exert less influence on their learning. In contrast, when organizational support is seen as weak, socialization tactics play a vital role in helping newcomers learn about their trade. Surprisingly, an unexpected negative relationship between POS and role innovation emerged, suggesting that, at least for newcomers, role innovation may reflect a perceived lack of guidance and support from the organization. While socialization tactics, and particularly those that are institutionalized by the organization, play a key role in apprentice learning, this role is less crucial than perceptions that the organization cares about new employees, treats them warmly, and supports their well-being. Indeed, Perrot and colleagues’ findings make it clear that even when the organization is not using institutionalized tactics to socialize new employees, learning can be achieved when strong support is provided. Bottom line: If you want your employees to learn, make sure they get the support they need.

Rumor as Revenge

Have you ever marveled at how rumors, no matter how far-fetched, often run rampant at work? A two-study article by Prashant Bordia, Kohyar Kiazad, Simon Lloyd D. Restubog, Nicholas Difonzo, Nicholas Stenson, and Robert L. Tang reveals a surprising reason: Revenge! In this article, simply titled “Rumor as Revenge in the Workplace,” the authors report the results of two well-designed and well-executed studies that help explain how and why rumors are used to gain revenge in the workplace. Study 1 used an experimental/vignette design and a sample of 100 retail workers, while Study 2 involved a survey of public sector employees who participated in training seminars in the Philippines. Study 1 confirmed that participants had higher intentions to transmit a harmful rumor when their psychological contract with the organization was breached. Revenge motivation mediated this relationship, such that workers who expressed a desire to “get even” with the organization were particularly likely to spread a rumor that had harmful implications for the firm. Surprisingly, believability of the rumor had no effect on the tendency to spread it—a somewhat scary and sobering finding. Study 2 reported that workers’ belief in a negative reciprocity norm (a belief that “paybacks” are warranted) strengthened the relationship between a psychological breach and revenge motivation. Together, the novel topic, exemplary two-study design, and surprising results contributed to the editorial team’s decision to select Bordia and associates’ article as the 2014 GOM Best Micro Paper. We expect their ground-breaking research will open up an enthralling area for future inquiry, while providing organizational leaders another important reason to keep their promises—to avoid employee revenge.

CEO Personality, Organizational Culture, and Firm Performance

Management scholars and practitioners alike commonly assume that (a) the personality of senior executives shapes the culture of the organization, and (b) organizational culture in turn serves as a key determinant of consequential organizational outcomes. Surprisingly, the empirical evidence in support of these assumptions is rather thin. To fill this gaping void in the literature, Charles A. O’Reilly, III, David F. Caldwell, Jennifer A. Chatman, and Bernadette Doerr set out to test these assumptions using a sample of 32 high-tech firms. Their findings are summarized in an article titled “The Promise and Problems of Organizational Culture: CEO Personality, Culture, and Firm Performance.” CEO personality as measured by the Five Factor Model (FFM) was indeed related to several dimensions of culture (e.g., adaptability, detail-oriented, results-oriented, collaborative, customer-oriented), which in turn were linked to financial performance (revenue growth, Tobin’s Q), organizational reputation as reflected by the rankings used in Fortune’s Most Admired Companies, analysts’ stock recommendations, and employee attitudes. Specifically, the results revealed that: (a) CEOs who are higher in openness to experience are more likely to lead organizations with cultures that emphasize adaptability, (b) CEOs higher in conscientiousness are more likely to lead detail-oriented cultures, and (c) CEOs who are less agreeable (skeptical, competitive) are associated with more results-oriented cultures. In addition, positive linkages between organizational culture and important organizational outcomes were confirmed. Indeed, as predicted, firms whose cultures emphasized adaptability enjoyed more favorable levels of revenue growth, market valuations (Tobin’s Q), reputational rankings, stock analyst recommendations, and employee attitudes. Also, as expected, more detail-oriented cultures were shown to perform better, as they achieved higher levels of revenue growth and were rated higher in the Fortune Most Admired rankings. Although not predicted, firms with more customer-oriented cultures experienced higher market valuations. Finally, it is reassuring to learn that firms whose cultures placed a strong emphasis on integrity were more likely to receive favorable recommendations from stock analysts.

By demonstrating that CEO personality is linked to organizational culture, and culture is linked to firm performance, O’Reilly and colleagues have confirmed that our intuitive beliefs about these relationships are grounded in fact. Clearly these are important findings that have significant implications for organizations, as they provide evidence of the critical role that the personality of upper echelon leaders plays in shaping culture and the subsequent influence of that culture on consequential organizational outcomes. GOM readers immediately recognized the magnitude of this contribution, as it quickly became the most read article for 2014. All of these factors contributed to the very deserving recognition of O’Reilly and colleagues’ article as the 2014 GOM Best Macro Paper.

Speaking on behalf of GOM’s entire editorial team, I wish to convey our pride in recognizing such a fine set of articles as the 2014 Outstanding Articles. Together, they dramatically illustrate the high quality, disciplinary variety, breadth of scope, methodological diversity, creativity, and impact that scholars and practitioners can expect to find within the pages of GOM. Judging from the intriguing mix of methods, topics, disciplines, and research questions reflected thus far by this year’s articles, it is clear that 2015 will be another banner year for GOM. So, stay tuned for next year’s riddle. While the question will be different, the answer will be the same: Outstanding GOM Articles.