权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

How the interplay of top management with corporate and societal governance structures explains corporate wrongdoing

高层管理人员与企业和社会治理结构的相互作用如何解释企业的不当行为

基本信息

批准号：
2078689
负责人：
金额：
--
依托单位：
University of Cambridge
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Studentship
财政年份：
2018
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2018 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2078689
关键词：
How interplay top management corporate

项目摘要

Corporate wrongdoing (CW) is highly relevant for management researchers and practitioners because it harms both firms and their stakeholders. CW refers to corporate behaviour that is labelled as wrongful by social-control agents, such as the state, because it is deemed to be illegal, unethical, or socially irresponsible (Greve, Palmer, & Pozner, 2010; Palmer, 2012).CW refers to a firm engaging in activities that negatively affect stakeholders and are considered a violation of ethical norms. This might include, for example, financial fraud, human rights violations, corruption, or environmental pollution. CW comes at a serious cost to all parties attached. First, it harms a firm's stakeholders. Second, though often conducted with the intention of benefitting the firm, CW can lead to a variety of negative firm outcomes, such as increased financial risk or loss of legitimacy. Third, CW can lead to serious financial and legal consequences for those individuals engaged in it. In light of these harmful consequences, the question of what determines whether a firm engages in CW is of paramount importance. Most research on CW in the management literature focuses on the macro and meso levels, explaining CW through different influences in the firm environment (e.g., competitive dynamics) and through attributes of the firm (e.g., ownership and board composition). The micro level of analysis is still a "blind spot" of current research. As a result, most explanations of CW are universalistic regarding the role of managers: they implicitly assume that managers will react homogeneously to macro and meso influences, engaging in wrongdoing when certain conditions are present. Therefore, as of now, we know little about how the individual differences between the people at the top of the organizations influence whether firms commit CW. To address this, the project will examine the relationship between top management psychological characteristics, such as values and moral identity, and CW. In doing so, it aims to explore the microfoundations of CW, thus shifting the current conversation towards an important but neglected direction. In my dissertation I study the overarching question of when and CW happens. Hereby, I advance the perspective of wrongdoing as a normal - instead of an abnormal - phenomenon. Most common explanations of wrongdoing focus on wrongdoing as an "abnormal" phenomenon caused by the presence of extreme factors or distorted processes (Palmer, 2012). They explain wrongdoing as a rational choice based on aberrant preferences ("bad apples") or as a result of organizational cultures contaminated by perverse norms ("bad barrels"). However, managers navigating the line between right and wrong in an organizational context face such "significant behavioural and cognitive challenges", that it is important to consider the normal side of corporate wrongdoing (Palmer, 2012, p. 8). That means studying when and how wrongdoing happens as a result of the actions of normal, boundedly rational and boundedly ethical, people embedded in common organizational structures. Following this direction, my dissertation poses the research question of: How does corporate wrongdoing arise from the interplay of the human side of top managers with the corporate and societal governance structures that they operate in? Hereby, the human side of top managers includes personality, cognition, and the social dynamics of decision making in the upper echelons. Corporate governance structures refers to those structures that are typical in modern corporations, such as boards, compensation, and others. Societal governance structures refers to social control agents - that is, those organizations in the environment of corporations that have varying degrees of legitimacy and authority to label corporate behaviour as wrongful, such as the state, professional societies, interest groups, and the media.

企业不当行为（CW）是高度相关的管理研究人员和从业者，因为它损害了公司和他们的利益相关者。CW指的是被社会控制主体（如国家）标记为错误的企业行为，因为它被认为是非法的、不道德的或对社会不负责任的（Greve, Palmer, & Pozner, 2010; Palmer, 2012）。CW指的是公司从事对利益相关者产生负面影响的活动，被认为违反了道德规范。例如，这可能包括金融欺诈、侵犯人权、腐败或环境污染。化武给相关各方造成了严重损失。首先，它损害了公司的利益相关者。其次，尽管通常是为了使公司受益而进行的，但连续攻击可能会导致各种负面的公司结果，例如增加财务风险或失去合法性。第三，化武可能给从事化武活动的个人带来严重的经济和法律后果。鉴于这些有害后果，决定一家公司是否从事化学武器的因素至关重要。在管理文献中，大多数关于可持续发展的研究都集中在宏观和中观层面，通过企业环境中的不同影响（如竞争动态）和企业属性（如所有权和董事会组成）来解释可持续发展。微观层面的分析仍是当前研究的“盲点”。因此，对于管理者的角色，大多数对可持续发展的解释都是普遍主义的：他们隐含地假设管理者对宏观和中观影响的反应是一致的，当某些条件存在时，他们会从事不法行为。因此，到目前为止，我们对组织高层人员之间的个体差异如何影响公司是否实施联合利华知之甚少。为了解决这个问题，该项目将研究高层管理人员的心理特征（如价值观和道德认同）与连续思维之间的关系。在这样做的过程中，它旨在探索连续语言的微观基础，从而将当前的对话转向一个重要但被忽视的方向。在我的论文中，我研究了什么时候和CW发生的首要问题。因此，我提出了错误行为是一种正常现象而不是异常现象的观点。对不法行为最常见的解释是将不法行为视为一种由极端因素或扭曲过程引起的“异常”现象（Palmer, 2012）。他们将不法行为解释为一种基于异常偏好的理性选择（“坏苹果”），或者是被反常规范污染的组织文化的结果（“坏桶”）。然而，在组织环境中，在对与错之间进行导航的管理者面临着“重大的行为和认知挑战”，因此考虑企业不法行为的正常方面是很重要的（Palmer, 2012, p. 8）。这意味着要研究，在共同的组织结构中，有限度理性和有限度道德的普通人的行为，何时以及如何导致不法行为发生。沿着这个方向，我的论文提出了一个研究问题：企业的不法行为是如何从高层管理人员的人性与他们所处的公司和社会治理结构的相互作用中产生的？因此，高层管理者人性的一面包括人格、认知和上层决策的社会动态。公司治理结构是指现代公司的典型结构，如董事会、薪酬等。社会治理结构指的是社会控制主体——即企业环境中具有不同程度合法性和权威性的组织，如国家、专业协会、利益集团和媒体。