Effects of perceived credibility, values, ethics and mission on competitive spirit.

ABSTRACT

Competitive spirit, a predisposition to maximize effort in the workplace is a concept that deserves further research. In this paper, the authors develop a model and make a case for testing four hypotheses that predict a correlation between and among four independent variables; credibility, values, ethics and mission on worker competitive spirit.

1. INTRODUCTION

The variance of worker behavior in the workplace often ranges from "doing as little as necessary" to "jumping in and going all out" to achieving personal and organizational outcomes. Psychologists and organization behavior specialists have tried for years to explain and predict why workers are willing or unwilling to exert effort in the workplace. For example, specific personality attributes have been found to be powerful predictors of behaviors in organizations. Personality attributes, such as self-monitoring, self-esteem, Type A-B, risk tasking and locus of control have consistently shown to moderate individual performance in the workplace. Further, theories of motivation, such as goal setting theory, actualization theory (Maslow, 1970) Herzberg's two-factor theory (Hertzberg, 1982), cognitive theory (Gross, 1992), expectancy theory (Tolman, 1959), social exchange theory (Thibaut and Kelley, 1959) etc. have sought to predict and explain why individuals in the workplace are willing to try harder, persist and do a quality job.

The purpose of this paper is to identify key organization variables that may moderate individual intensity and effort, and to advance hypotheses that require further study. It is important to understand that in this paper we are not interested in whether or not an individual in an organization channels his or her behavior in a direction that benefits the organization (which in line with motivation theory). Our focus is concerned with individual intensity and persistence or willingness to display a "gung he" attitude. We are not concerned with direction. We have labeled this display of behavior as "competitive spirit", and define competitive spirit as a predisposition to maximize effort in the workplace.

For the past four years, the authors of this paper have focused their research on organization hypocrisy. The results of our research have shown An employee's expectations of the organization are created by perceptions of management action, proclamations and rewards. These expectations are developed on an on going basis. Proclamations by management will set expectations. These may come by e-mail, newsletters or hallway conversations. The perceptions of inconsistency, or the extent of organizational hypocrisy, are based on perceived behaviors and the following perceived actions. The employee does not go to work each day totally impervious to its effects. Just as important, employees do not ignore acts of inconsistency, but appear to be affected by them.

The research suggests that manager's need to become fully aware of their actions since they are continuously observed, evaluated and checked for consistency by employees. The employee perceptions are usually based on the actions, beliefs and statements expressed by the manager. Management should be cognizant of the effects of their inconsistency between what they say, and do, on subordinate behavior.

In conducting our research on perceived organization hypocrisy, we noted from employee interviews and comments on employee surveys that numerous employees indicated they would be wiling to give more of themselves in the workplace if the perceived situation or conditions would change. Numerous individuals in our surveys indicated they perceived a disconnection between what management espoused and what they actually did and this perception caused them to reduce their effort, to less than what he employers believe they can or should do, this is what Taylor (Kakar; 1970: p.87,) described as soldering. It became apparent in our research that personality theory and motivation theory does not alone explain why a person in an organization decides to, or not to maximize their effort. We believe that neither personality theory nor motivation theory offer a sufficient explanation why a worker elects to display a competitive spirit.

2. HYPOTHESIS

This paper advances a series of hypotheses aimed at discovering why an individual within an organization elects to maximize his or her effort. In other words, under what conditions do individuals in the workplace willingly display competitive spirit? The hypotheses advanced this paper are as follows:

Hypothesis I: Competitive spirit is likely to be displayed when an individual in the workplace perceived their leadership to have high credibility.

Hypothesis II: Competitive spirit is likely to be displayed when an individual in the workplace perceives stated or published values are values that are practiced.

Hypothesis III: Competitive spirit is likely to be displayed when an individual in the workplace perceives leadership to be highly ethical in their behavior.

Hypothesis IV: Competitive spirit is likely to be displayed when an individual in the workplace perceives a congruent relationship between organization mission and leadership actions.

3. DISCUSSION OF HYPOTHESES

The hypotheses advanced in this paper are designed to independently explore the relationship between the following sets of variables:

1. Credibility and competitive spirit

2. Values and competitive spirit

3. Ethics and competitive spirit

4. Mission and competitive spirit.

We advance there is a strong linkage between each set of variables and there is also a strong relationship among all of them. In other words, to fully achieve a competitive spirit, an individual within an organization will perceive their leadership to be highly credible, stated or published values are practiced, high ethical standards are observed and espoused goals are in operation.

COMPETITIVE SPIRIT MODEL

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

3.1 Credibility

When individuals in the workplace perceive their leaders as highly credible, they are significantly more willing to increase their effort since they perceive their leaders as knowledgeable and having character. On the other hand, when individuals in the workplace perceive their leadership to have low credibility, they are more likely to believe that leadership is incompetent and lack the character necessary to fulfill their commitments. Low credibility contributes to a sense among workers that leadership is not quite telling the truth, and leadership is motivated more by greed then by genuine commitment to workers, and even customers.

For example, Kouzes & Posner quote a survey conducted for the American Society of Quality Control (ASQC) by the Gallup organization. Fifty-five percent of employees surveyed reported that their companies stated that it was extremely important to show their customers that they are committed to quality. However, only 36 percent of the respondents stated that the company followed through extremely well on this commitment. When asked if their companies considered making quality everyone's top priority as extremely important, 53 percent stated yes. But only 35 percent said the company was actually doing very well in that arena (1993, p.39). When the perception of leadership action falls behind leadership promises, the credibility gap widens. This gap may include perceptions by workers that leadership lacks credibility and directly effects their decision to maximize their competitive spirit.

3.2 Values

Without a strong culture to guide them in the decision making process, workers will often initiate ways to devise solutions, which may be capriciously discarded at later point in time. In this way, shared values affect worker effort. Workers are cognizant of what leaders and co-workers in the organization value, those are the actions that gain the preponderance of attention. Actions stressed by leadership will become organization values. However, if the stated or published values are not practiced by leadership, workers will perceive an inconsistency between what is stated and what is practiced. This inconsistency is likely to effect worker competitive spirit.

In Steven Kerr's classic article "On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B", Kerr points out the use and abuse of values relative to rewards and other inducements to motivate people in organizations (Kerr, 1975). Kerr elaborated on his position with numerous examples of reward systems that are inconsistent. The behaviors that are rewarded and thus valued are those that leadership is trying to discourage, while values that are desired are not rewarded.

Among Kerr's examples is the value of teamwork and collaboration, yet most rewards go to the best individual team member. Leadership claims to value innovation and risk-taking; yet, rewards those who do not make mistakes. Leadership claims to value worker development of skills, yet rewards technical achievements and accomplishments. Leadership claims to value worker involvement and empowerment, yet rewards for tight control over operations (Kerr, 1975).

Leader's leads by example, where they spend the majority of their time is the true indicator of their values. Leaders publish their values, and should be committed to those values. Their actions should be consistent with the published values. Perceived inconsistencies by workers will be noticed and in many cases will be magnified out of proportion. In creating values, leadership is expected to honor those values in all situations (Dean and Kennedy, 1982, p.33). Our paper contends that workers who perceive an inconsistency between leaders who demonstrate their values by "Do what I say and not what I do", will not likely display competitive spirit.

3.3 Ethics

Perhaps the most difficult situation for workers is to decide what is the right decision, the right thing to do when faced with making ethical choices. Organization leadership may articulate that decision should be made on the basis of the greatest good for the greatest number, respecting and protecting the basic rights of individuals, and to impose and enforce rules fairly. However, in reality, leadership expects workers to withhold corrections or report actions they perceive to be unethical or illegal practices, especially to outsiders when workers perceive situations they judge to be unethical, they often enter into a stage of ethical ambivalence.

Ethical ambivalence, according to Jansen and Von Gilnow (1985), are actions that are at odds with actions expected by some organizational stakeholders. Workers may engage in ethical behavior that are expected by specific stakeholders, rather than observing organization-wide ethical expectations. Unethical behavior may unintentionally result from a breakdown between what a specific leader demands from a situation and what the organization desires from its workers. When situations ethical ambivalence may arise when there is a noticable difference between what is right for the worker and what is right for the organization or society. The worker is torn between what is right for the individual for the moment and what is right for the organization or society, in this situation the worker may experience ethical ambivalence. Ethical ambivalence predicts that the individual worker's self-interest will be the over-riding factor in the worker's outcome expectations. The worker will likely do what the reward system instructs him to do. This may happen even if it is contrary to the ethical mores of the organization. When the ethics of the organization are no longer the guiding principle for the worker, the worker will likely perform in the employee's self-interest (Jansen and Von Gilnow, 1985). For example, when an organization begins a high profile campaign to increase the company's quality. This initiative includes wall plaques, coffee cups and lapel pins. However, at the worker level, bonuses, promotions and other rewards are still based on the amount of product built or shipped. Therefore, a worker may react in his own self-interest and production becomes his primary concern not quality.

Ethical ambivalence emphasizes the external control of behavior by stimulus, and provides a viewpoint parallel to the emphasis on individual and moral actions (Jansen and Von Gilnow, 1985). The theory of Ethical ambivalence is consistent with agency theory in its basis that individual ethical behavior is a function of self-interest (Grover, 1993).

This paper predicts that when workers perceive ethical incompatibility or a disconnect between ethical and unethical behavior, the worker is likely to perceive the situation as dysfunctional and lose his or her desire to display competitive spirit.

3.4 Mission

Mission consensus and clarity has long been suggested as a key ingredient for organization success. However, mission clarity, like decision making in an organization is more of a desired state than a reality state. Bounded nationality, intuition, available and representative heuristics, escalation of commitment and organization constraints are very likely to effect worker perceptions of the mission. Mission consensus and clarity may indeed be a desirable state. However, we suggest in reality most workers are often confused regarding espoused organization mission and therefore, lose their competitive spirit. This situation makes it very difficult for workers to display excitement and make a commitment to the organization.

Absence of mission consensus and clarity forecasts a situation where workers are often forced to choose behaviors that are in their self-interests. For example, Grover (1993) suggests that workers may even deceive others to achieve personal power and control. Although workers may achieve success in gaining more power and control, we suggest that his or her success will not produce a competitive spirit outcome within the individual.

Ouchi (1980) proposes that firms can proactively manage their socialization or cultural practices so that worker interests are aligned with those of the firms. These so-called "clan" forms of organization will have limited need for formal devices to mediate the exchange between the individual and organization. In this way, the worker's natural inclination is to behave in ways that are consistent with the organization's mission. We predict that organization leadership needs to align their mission with the self-interests of the workers to achieve a state of competitive spirit. Competitive spirit emerges when workers perceive that organization leadership and co-workers clearly focus on its stated mission.

4. SUMMARY

This paper suggests that competitive spirit is an important variable that requires further research. We have identified four organization variables; credibility, values, ethics and mission that we believe directly affect worker competitive spirit. This paper makes an important distinction between motivation and competitive spirit. We advance that competitive spirit includes intensity, how hard a worker tries, and persistence, the maintenance of their effort; however, it does not include a key component of motivation theory, direction or how a worker channels his or her efforts. To achieve competitive spirit in the workplace, or what some may identify as a "gung ho" attitude, this paper postulates that workers need to perceive their leadership to have high credibility; or perceive published or stated values are practiced; or perceive leadership to be highly ethical; or perceive a congruent relationship between organization mission and leadership actions. Further, it may require workers to have a perception of two or more of the above stated variables to achieve a state competitive spirit.

REFERENCES

Deal, T.E., & Kennedy, A.A. (1982). Corporate culture: the rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and Personality. New York.

Grover, S.L. (1993). "Lying, Deceit, and subterfuge: A model of dishonesty in the work place". Organization Science, 4, 478-795.

Gross, R.G. (1992). Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behavior. London.

Herzburg, F. (1982). The Managerial Choice: To be efficient and to be human. Salt Lake, UT: Olympus.

Jansen, E., & Von Gilnow, M.A. (1985). "Ethical ambivalence and organizational reward systems". Academy of Management Review, 10, 814-822.

Kakar, S. (1970). Fredrick Taylor: A study in Personality and innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kerr, S.(1975). "On the folly of rewarding A, While hoping for B". Academy of Management Journal, 18, 776-783.

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (1993). Credibility. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Ouchi, W. G. (1980). "Markets, bureaucracies, and clans". Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 129-141.

Thibaut, J.W. & Kelly, H.H. (1959) The Social Psychology of Groups. New York.

Tolman, E.C. (1959). Principles of Purposive Behaviorism. Psychology: A Study of a Science. S. Koch, ed. New York.

Jerry W. Koehler, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 

Thomas W. Philippe, St. Petersburg College, St. Petersburg, Florida