Search results

The current management literature suggests that when employees engage in wrongdoing, managers typically respond with punishment. The emerging moral repair literature suggests an alternative to punishment: a reparative response that focuses on repairing harm and restoring damaged relationships. However, little is currently known about restorative managerial responses, including why managers respond to employee wrongdoing in a reparative versus punitive manner. The purpose of this paper is to examine a variety of cognitive and emotional influences on this managerial decision.

This study used a scenario-based survey methodology. The authors gathered data from 894 managers in sales and financial services contexts to test a set of hypotheses regarding individual-level influences on managers’ punitive versus restorative responses.

This study found that managers’ restorative justice orientation, retributive justice orientation, social considerations (e.g. when employees are relatively interdependent versus independent), instrumental considerations (e.g. when the offender is highly valuable to the organization) and feelings of anger influenced their reparative versus punitive responses.

Data are cross-sectional, so causality inferences should be approached with caution. Another potential limitation is common method bias due to single-source and single-wave data.

The findings of this study show that managers often opt for a restorative response to workplace transgressions, and this study surfaces a variety of reasons why managers choose a restorative response instead of a punitive response.

This study focuses on social order and expectations within the workplace. This is important to victims, offenders, observers, managers and other stakeholders. This study seeks to emphasize the importance of social factors, a shared social identity, social bonds and other relationships within this manuscript. This is an important component of organizational-focused restorative justice research.

This is the first study, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, to explicitly test individual-level influences on managers’ reparative versus punitive responses to employee wrongdoing.

This paper aims to explore the use of lived experience research in peer work.

A suite of user-friendly and engaging lived experience research resources was introduced to consumers by peer workers. In-depth interviews were conducted with 33 consumer participants and five peer workers about their experiences. The data were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

The role of the peer workers appeared critical in ensuring that participants, despite their varied needs, preferences and backgrounds, derived optimum benefit from each resource. Features in resource delivery that promoted a positive experience included presenting the resources in the context of an existing relationship, providing clear explanations, going through resources together, encouraging reflection, taking enough time; and flexible delivery. Peer workers viewed the resources as potentially useful in their everyday peer work and as a valuable addition to their peer work toolkit.

The benefit of lived experience research to consumers is likely to be optimised by supportive and thoughtful delivery of the resources. Peer workers have the skills and are in an ideal position to do this. Bringing lived experience research to consumers provides peer workers with a potentially unique and helpful approach for supporting and promoting recovery and is congruent with their overall practice.

Lived experience research has the potential to benefit consumers directly but is rarely brought to their attention. This paper is the first to examine the potential role of peer workers in introducing learnings from lived experience research to consumers.