Search results

Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) imposes significant costs on organizations, thus antecedents of CWB are of particular interest to both practitioners and academics. The authors examine how one’s own narcissism interacts with co-worker narcissism to influence willingness to engage in retaliatory CWB against a co-worker.

The data for this study were obtained from Amazon Mechanical Turk participants and Master of Business Administration students, representing a cross-section of employee representatives.

The authors find that employees expect narcissistic co-workers to engage in continuing future CWB and this, in turn, increases employees' willingness to engage in retaliatory CWB. That is, non-narcissistic employees are provoked to engage in organizationally-destructive behaviors by peers perceived as narcissists. This affect is attenuated by the employee’s own narcissism. Relative to non-narcissists, narcissistic employees find a narcissistic co-worker more likeable, which reduces their willingness to engage in retaliatory CWB against the co-worker.

For corporations and HR managers, this study demonstrates the caution necessary when considering hiring and operational practices. Specifically, non-narcissists demonstrate increased willingness to engage in organizationally-destructive behaviors after interpersonal conflict with a narcissistic co-worker.

The authors extend prior research about interpersonal drivers of CWB, which primarily considered superior-subordinate dyad, by examining the joint effects of individual and co-worker narcissism in peer-to-peer relationships.

Prior research in psychology reports an age-based bias against narcissists. We examine whether managers' reactions to narcissistic subordinates exhibit a similar bias. Using an experimental method, where we manipulate subordinate narcissism, we find evidence of an age-based bias. Older managers react to a narcissistic subordinate by making conservative revisions to the subordinate's aggressive accounting estimates. They do so even at the cost of failing to meet a personally beneficial earnings target. A test of moderated mediation shows the actions of older managers (in their late 40s and older) were driven by their negative perceptions of the narcissistic subordinate. Our work demonstrates that not all individuals perceive narcissists the same way, and has implications for manger/subordinate relationships, and group dynamics involving mixed personalities and ages.

Firm community service initiatives are popular and generally seen as positive developments. However, moral licensing theory suggests engaging in community service (acting morally) can facilitate subsequent immoral behavior, which could diminish audit quality. In a series of experiments with practicing auditors, we provide evidence that voluntary community service causes moral licensing, but mandatory service (i.e., participation in a firm-wide event) attenuates moral licensing. Compared to a control group, auditors who voluntarily committed to a service activity engaged in more dysfunctional audit behavior, but auditors who were told they would be participating in a firm-directed service event did not. Our study highlights an unintended consequence of employee volunteerism, and contributes to research on audit quality, and ethical behavior in professional settings.

This chapter examines EI, presents a history of EI including the various models, and a discussion of the three streams approach to classifying EI literature. The author advocates for the efficacy of the Stream One Ability Model (SOAM) of EI citing previous authors and literature. The commonly used SOAM instruments are discussed in light of recent studies. The discussion turns to alternate tests of the SOAM of EI including Situational Judgment Tests (SJTs). Recommendations include an analysis of SOAM instruments, a new approach to measurement, and increased use of SJTs to capture the four-branch ability model of EI.

To analyze and draw conclusions from the “Framework for ‘Investment Contract’ Analysis of Digital Assets” (the “Framework”), released by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on April 3, 2019, and the SEC’s corresponding no-action letter to TurnKey Jet, Inc. (“TKJ”), which is the SEC’s first no-action letter publicly agreeing with the view that the digital asset described therein is not a security.

Explains how the Framework assists market participants in analyzing whether a digital asset is a security, by applying the Howey factors for identifying an investment contract. Discusses the SEC’s TKJ Letter, highlighting the factors the SEC emphasized in its analysis of the Framework.

While largely reiterating prior guidance, the Framework provides a helpful overview of the SEC’s views on when a digital asset is a security and how to properly analyze the prongs of Howey with respect to digital assets. The Framework also leaves certain important questions unanswered, including, for example, whether digital assets distributed by means of a so-called “Airdrop” are securities under the Framework, and the extent to which the Framework is meant to interact with digital assets that were issued or otherwise operate on platforms that are primarily overseas.

Expert guidance from lawyers with broad experience in financial services, securities, investment funds, derivatives, and digital assets regulation and compliance.

Both authors have been involved as lay members in research and other activities for a number of years, ensuring they represent the views of members of the public. This chapter identifies what is, and what is not, patient and public involvement as well as highlighting the importance of involving members of the public in all aspects of the research process. Best practice is explored as identified in the UK Standards for Public Involvement 2019 and the UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research 2020. The implications of the Mental Capacity Act and its wording on research matters are also considered. Case studies have been incorporated to highlight the impact of involving patients and members of the public in all aspects of the research process. These include the lessons learnt by researchers and lay members of the team. The aspiration is to move towards more collaboration between members of the public and researchers; therefore, we discuss co-production of research or community-based participatory research (CBPR). We highlight the need for a better partnership between researchers and members of the public. The benefits of this are explored along with the consequences for all involved.

This study examines the effect of delegation of decision rights, moral justification (MJ), and ethical climate (EC) on managers’ misreporting in the financial services sector. We employed an online research panel called Qualtrics, to collect data based on a sample of 127 middle-level managers from various US financial services firms. We find that MJ mediates the relation between delegation and misreporting, suggesting delegation of decision rights increases employees’ misreporting indirectly by increasing MJ. We also find that EC significantly moderates the relationship between MJ and misreporting. Furthermore, our test of the moderated-mediation effect reveals that the indirect effect of the delegation of decision rights on misreporting through MJ is stronger when there is a higher level of instrumental climate (IC) and a lower level of principle climate (PC).