EdenteV2, Istex, Corpus, bibRecord, 007289

Values Enactment in Organizations: A Multi-Level Examination

Identifieur interne : 007289 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 007288; suivant : 007290

Values Enactment in Organizations: A Multi-Level Examination

Auteurs : Melissa L. Gruys ; Susan M. Stewart ; Jerry Goodstein ; Mark N. Bing ; Andrew C. Wicks

Source :

Journal of management [ 0149-2063 ] ; 2008-08.

RBID : ISTEX:E75EBE587781D480F016CA3CEFB752D57216C14E

English descriptors

KwdEn :
- Absolute level, Administrative science, Antecedent, Aspen institute, Associate professor, Bandura, Bliese, Borman motowidlo, Business ethics, Certain ways, Chatman, Cohen cohen, Collins porras, Common goal, Contextual, Contextual performance, Control variables, Core values, Corporate values, Corresponding decrease, Corresponding increase, Coworker, Coworkers, Current study, Customer satisfaction, Darden school, Department size, Department values, Department values enactment, Departmental, Departmental context, Departmental coworkers, Departmental levels, Departmental members, Departmental values, Departmental values enactment, Effective behaviors role model behaviors, Employee, Employee behaviors, Employee commitment, Employee promotion, Employee promotions, Employee tenure, Employee turnover, Employee values, Employee values enactment, Employees work, Enactment, Enactment note, Enders tofighi, Ethical leadership, Explicit core, Future research, Gender, Greater contribution, Greater degree, Greater rewards, Greater tenure, Group level, Gruys, Harvard business review, Health care organizations, Helpful feedback, Hierarchical, High degree, High level, High levels, Higher level, Higher levels, Higher scores, Hofmann gavin, Hospital physicians, Hypothesis testing, Independent variables, Individual employee turnover, Individual employee values, Individual employee values enactment, Individual employees, Individual level, Individual members, Individual values, Individual values department values enactment, Individual values enactment, Individual values enactment gender, Individual values enactment increases, Ineffective behaviors, Initial performance rating, Interactive effect, Interpersonal facilitation, Involuntary turnover, Larger departments, Lawrence erlbaum, Level factor, Likely source, Longitudinal data, Lower levels, Main effect terms, Main effects, Management journal, Management review, Management team, Manager values enactment, Managerial behavior, Modeling, More tenure, Motowidlo, Multilevel, Multilevel modeling, Nonsignificant, Nonsignificant relationship, Nonsignificant relationships, Nontask performance, Nursing education, Organ ryan, Organization science, Organizational, Organizational behavior, Organizational citizenship behavior, Organizational citizenship behaviors, Organizational climate, Organizational commitment, Organizational contexts, Organizational culture, Organizational effectiveness, Organizational goals, Organizational identification, Organizational integrity, Organizational level, Organizational performance, Organizational psychology, Organizational strategy, Organizational values, Other employees, Other factors, Other hand, Other words, Paine, Patient safety, Performance appraisal periods, Performance appraisal process, Performance evaluation system, Performance management system, Personal performance, Personal values, Personnel psychology, Personnel selection, Practical implications, Predictor, Prentice hall, Previous research, Project group, Promotion decisions, Prosocial behavior, Rating form, Rating scale, Relationship slope, Research interests, Reward employees, Reward systems, Role model, Role modeling, Role models, Rosenthal masarech, Schneider, Scotter, Scotter motowidlo, Significant predictors, Smaller departments, Social context, Social influence, Social psychology, Special issue, Standard deviations, Standardized estimates, Standardized results, Strong congruence, Stronger alignment, Study variables, Such individuals, Such modeling, Task performance, Team effectiveness, Team members, Turnover, Value congruence, Values department values enactment, Values enactment, Values enactment rating, Values enactment rating scale, Values statements, Variance, Voluntary employee turnover, Voluntary turnover, Work behavior, Work group, Work groups, Wright state university.
Teeft :
- Absolute level, Administrative science, Antecedent, Aspen institute, Associate professor, Bandura, Bliese, Borman motowidlo, Business ethics, Certain ways, Chatman, Cohen cohen, Collins porras, Common goal, Contextual, Contextual performance, Control variables, Core values, Corporate values, Corresponding decrease, Corresponding increase, Coworker, Coworkers, Current study, Customer satisfaction, Darden school, Department size, Department values, Department values enactment, Departmental, Departmental context, Departmental coworkers, Departmental levels, Departmental members, Departmental values, Departmental values enactment, Effective behaviors role model behaviors, Employee, Employee behaviors, Employee commitment, Employee promotion, Employee promotions, Employee tenure, Employee turnover, Employee values, Employee values enactment, Employees work, Enactment, Enactment note, Enders tofighi, Ethical leadership, Explicit core, Future research, Gender, Greater contribution, Greater degree, Greater rewards, Greater tenure, Group level, Gruys, Harvard business review, Health care organizations, Helpful feedback, Hierarchical, High degree, High level, High levels, Higher level, Higher levels, Higher scores, Hofmann gavin, Hospital physicians, Hypothesis testing, Independent variables, Individual employee turnover, Individual employee values, Individual employee values enactment, Individual employees, Individual level, Individual members, Individual values, Individual values department values enactment, Individual values enactment, Individual values enactment gender, Individual values enactment increases, Ineffective behaviors, Initial performance rating, Interactive effect, Interpersonal facilitation, Involuntary turnover, Larger departments, Lawrence erlbaum, Level factor, Likely source, Longitudinal data, Lower levels, Main effect terms, Main effects, Management journal, Management review, Management team, Manager values enactment, Managerial behavior, Modeling, More tenure, Motowidlo, Multilevel, Multilevel modeling, Nonsignificant, Nonsignificant relationship, Nonsignificant relationships, Nontask performance, Nursing education, Organ ryan, Organization science, Organizational, Organizational behavior, Organizational citizenship behavior, Organizational citizenship behaviors, Organizational climate, Organizational commitment, Organizational contexts, Organizational culture, Organizational effectiveness, Organizational goals, Organizational identification, Organizational integrity, Organizational level, Organizational performance, Organizational psychology, Organizational strategy, Organizational values, Other employees, Other factors, Other hand, Other words, Paine, Patient safety, Performance appraisal periods, Performance appraisal process, Performance evaluation system, Performance management system, Personal performance, Personal values, Personnel psychology, Personnel selection, Practical implications, Predictor, Prentice hall, Previous research, Project group, Promotion decisions, Prosocial behavior, Rating form, Rating scale, Relationship slope, Research interests, Reward employees, Reward systems, Role model, Role modeling, Role models, Rosenthal masarech, Schneider, Scotter, Scotter motowidlo, Significant predictors, Smaller departments, Social context, Social influence, Social psychology, Special issue, Standard deviations, Standardized estimates, Standardized results, Strong congruence, Stronger alignment, Study variables, Such individuals, Such modeling, Task performance, Team effectiveness, Team members, Turnover, Value congruence, Values department values enactment, Values enactment, Values enactment rating, Values enactment rating scale, Values statements, Variance, Voluntary employee turnover, Voluntary turnover, Work behavior, Work group, Work groups, Wright state university.

Abstract

Business writers and practitioners recommend that core organizational values be integrated into employee work life for enhanced organizational productivity, yet no published studies have empirically examined the antecedents and outcomes of values enactment. Using longitudinal data on 2,622 employees, hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) results revealed that tenure and department-level values enactment were significant predictors of individual values enactment. Furthermore, employees who demonstrated high levels of values enactment were less likely to leave, and employees of high or low levels of values enactment in departments whose levels of values enactment matched their own were the most likely to be promoted.

Url:

https://api.istex.fr/document/E75EBE587781D480F016CA3CEFB752D57216C14E/fulltext/pdf

DOI: 10.1177/0149206308318610

Links to Exploration step

ISTEX:E75EBE587781D480F016CA3CEFB752D57216C14E

Le document en format XML

<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Values Enactment in Organizations: A Multi-Level Examination</title>
<author><name sortKey="Gruys, Melissa L" sort="Gruys, Melissa L" uniqKey="Gruys M" first="Melissa L." last="Gruys">Melissa L. Gruys</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation></mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: melissa.gruys@wright.edu</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Management, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435-0001, melissa.gruys@wright.edu</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Stewart, Susan M" sort="Stewart, Susan M" uniqKey="Stewart S" first="Susan M." last="Stewart">Susan M. Stewart</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Management, Western Illinois University-Quad Cities, Moline, IL 61265-5881</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Management, Western Illinois University-Quad Cities, Moline, IL 61265-5881</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Goodstein, Jerry" sort="Goodstein, Jerry" uniqKey="Goodstein J" first="Jerry" last="Goodstein">Jerry Goodstein</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Management and Operations, Washington State University-Vancouver, Vancouver, WA 98686-9600</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Management and Operations, Washington State University-Vancouver, Vancouver, WA 98686-9600</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Bing, Mark N" sort="Bing, Mark N" uniqKey="Bing M" first="Mark N." last="Bing">Mark N. Bing</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Management, University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677-1848</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Management, University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677-1848</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Wicks, Andrew C" sort="Wicks, Andrew C" uniqKey="Wicks A" first="Andrew C." last="Wicks">Andrew C. Wicks</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>The Darden School of Business, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22906-6500</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>The Darden School of Business, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22906-6500</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno>
<idno type="RBID">ISTEX:E75EBE587781D480F016CA3CEFB752D57216C14E</idno>
<date when="2008" year="2008">2008</date>
<idno type="doi">10.1177/0149206308318610</idno>
<idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/E75EBE587781D480F016CA3CEFB752D57216C14E/fulltext/pdf</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">007289</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">007289</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Values Enactment in Organizations: A Multi-Level Examination</title>
<author><name sortKey="Gruys, Melissa L" sort="Gruys, Melissa L" uniqKey="Gruys M" first="Melissa L." last="Gruys">Melissa L. Gruys</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation></mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: melissa.gruys@wright.edu</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Management, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435-0001, melissa.gruys@wright.edu</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Stewart, Susan M" sort="Stewart, Susan M" uniqKey="Stewart S" first="Susan M." last="Stewart">Susan M. Stewart</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Management, Western Illinois University-Quad Cities, Moline, IL 61265-5881</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Management, Western Illinois University-Quad Cities, Moline, IL 61265-5881</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Goodstein, Jerry" sort="Goodstein, Jerry" uniqKey="Goodstein J" first="Jerry" last="Goodstein">Jerry Goodstein</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Management and Operations, Washington State University-Vancouver, Vancouver, WA 98686-9600</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Management and Operations, Washington State University-Vancouver, Vancouver, WA 98686-9600</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Bing, Mark N" sort="Bing, Mark N" uniqKey="Bing M" first="Mark N." last="Bing">Mark N. Bing</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Management, University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677-1848</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Management, University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677-1848</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Wicks, Andrew C" sort="Wicks, Andrew C" uniqKey="Wicks A" first="Andrew C." last="Wicks">Andrew C. Wicks</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>The Darden School of Business, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22906-6500</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>The Darden School of Business, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22906-6500</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<monogr></monogr>
<series><title level="j">Journal of management</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0149-2063</idno>
<idno type="eISSN">1557-1211</idno>
<imprint><publisher>SAGE Publications</publisher>
<pubPlace>Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA</pubPlace>
<date type="published" when="2008-08">2008-08</date>
<biblScope unit="volume">34</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" from="806">806</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" to="843">843</biblScope>
</imprint>
<idno type="ISSN">0149-2063</idno>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
<seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0149-2063</idno>
</seriesStmt>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Absolute level</term>
<term>Administrative science</term>
<term>Antecedent</term>
<term>Aspen institute</term>
<term>Associate professor</term>
<term>Bandura</term>
<term>Bliese</term>
<term>Borman motowidlo</term>
<term>Business ethics</term>
<term>Certain ways</term>
<term>Chatman</term>
<term>Cohen cohen</term>
<term>Collins porras</term>
<term>Common goal</term>
<term>Contextual</term>
<term>Contextual performance</term>
<term>Control variables</term>
<term>Core values</term>
<term>Corporate values</term>
<term>Corresponding decrease</term>
<term>Corresponding increase</term>
<term>Coworker</term>
<term>Coworkers</term>
<term>Current study</term>
<term>Customer satisfaction</term>
<term>Darden school</term>
<term>Department size</term>
<term>Department values</term>
<term>Department values enactment</term>
<term>Departmental</term>
<term>Departmental context</term>
<term>Departmental coworkers</term>
<term>Departmental levels</term>
<term>Departmental members</term>
<term>Departmental values</term>
<term>Departmental values enactment</term>
<term>Effective behaviors role model behaviors</term>
<term>Employee</term>
<term>Employee behaviors</term>
<term>Employee commitment</term>
<term>Employee promotion</term>
<term>Employee promotions</term>
<term>Employee tenure</term>
<term>Employee turnover</term>
<term>Employee values</term>
<term>Employee values enactment</term>
<term>Employees work</term>
<term>Enactment</term>
<term>Enactment note</term>
<term>Enders tofighi</term>
<term>Ethical leadership</term>
<term>Explicit core</term>
<term>Future research</term>
<term>Gender</term>
<term>Greater contribution</term>
<term>Greater degree</term>
<term>Greater rewards</term>
<term>Greater tenure</term>
<term>Group level</term>
<term>Gruys</term>
<term>Harvard business review</term>
<term>Health care organizations</term>
<term>Helpful feedback</term>
<term>Hierarchical</term>
<term>High degree</term>
<term>High level</term>
<term>High levels</term>
<term>Higher level</term>
<term>Higher levels</term>
<term>Higher scores</term>
<term>Hofmann gavin</term>
<term>Hospital physicians</term>
<term>Hypothesis testing</term>
<term>Independent variables</term>
<term>Individual employee turnover</term>
<term>Individual employee values</term>
<term>Individual employee values enactment</term>
<term>Individual employees</term>
<term>Individual level</term>
<term>Individual members</term>
<term>Individual values</term>
<term>Individual values department values enactment</term>
<term>Individual values enactment</term>
<term>Individual values enactment gender</term>
<term>Individual values enactment increases</term>
<term>Ineffective behaviors</term>
<term>Initial performance rating</term>
<term>Interactive effect</term>
<term>Interpersonal facilitation</term>
<term>Involuntary turnover</term>
<term>Larger departments</term>
<term>Lawrence erlbaum</term>
<term>Level factor</term>
<term>Likely source</term>
<term>Longitudinal data</term>
<term>Lower levels</term>
<term>Main effect terms</term>
<term>Main effects</term>
<term>Management journal</term>
<term>Management review</term>
<term>Management team</term>
<term>Manager values enactment</term>
<term>Managerial behavior</term>
<term>Modeling</term>
<term>More tenure</term>
<term>Motowidlo</term>
<term>Multilevel</term>
<term>Multilevel modeling</term>
<term>Nonsignificant</term>
<term>Nonsignificant relationship</term>
<term>Nonsignificant relationships</term>
<term>Nontask performance</term>
<term>Nursing education</term>
<term>Organ ryan</term>
<term>Organization science</term>
<term>Organizational</term>
<term>Organizational behavior</term>
<term>Organizational citizenship behavior</term>
<term>Organizational citizenship behaviors</term>
<term>Organizational climate</term>
<term>Organizational commitment</term>
<term>Organizational contexts</term>
<term>Organizational culture</term>
<term>Organizational effectiveness</term>
<term>Organizational goals</term>
<term>Organizational identification</term>
<term>Organizational integrity</term>
<term>Organizational level</term>
<term>Organizational performance</term>
<term>Organizational psychology</term>
<term>Organizational strategy</term>
<term>Organizational values</term>
<term>Other employees</term>
<term>Other factors</term>
<term>Other hand</term>
<term>Other words</term>
<term>Paine</term>
<term>Patient safety</term>
<term>Performance appraisal periods</term>
<term>Performance appraisal process</term>
<term>Performance evaluation system</term>
<term>Performance management system</term>
<term>Personal performance</term>
<term>Personal values</term>
<term>Personnel psychology</term>
<term>Personnel selection</term>
<term>Practical implications</term>
<term>Predictor</term>
<term>Prentice hall</term>
<term>Previous research</term>
<term>Project group</term>
<term>Promotion decisions</term>
<term>Prosocial behavior</term>
<term>Rating form</term>
<term>Rating scale</term>
<term>Relationship slope</term>
<term>Research interests</term>
<term>Reward employees</term>
<term>Reward systems</term>
<term>Role model</term>
<term>Role modeling</term>
<term>Role models</term>
<term>Rosenthal masarech</term>
<term>Schneider</term>
<term>Scotter</term>
<term>Scotter motowidlo</term>
<term>Significant predictors</term>
<term>Smaller departments</term>
<term>Social context</term>
<term>Social influence</term>
<term>Social psychology</term>
<term>Special issue</term>
<term>Standard deviations</term>
<term>Standardized estimates</term>
<term>Standardized results</term>
<term>Strong congruence</term>
<term>Stronger alignment</term>
<term>Study variables</term>
<term>Such individuals</term>
<term>Such modeling</term>
<term>Task performance</term>
<term>Team effectiveness</term>
<term>Team members</term>
<term>Turnover</term>
<term>Value congruence</term>
<term>Values department values enactment</term>
<term>Values enactment</term>
<term>Values enactment rating</term>
<term>Values enactment rating scale</term>
<term>Values statements</term>
<term>Variance</term>
<term>Voluntary employee turnover</term>
<term>Voluntary turnover</term>
<term>Work behavior</term>
<term>Work group</term>
<term>Work groups</term>
<term>Wright state university</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Absolute level</term>
<term>Administrative science</term>
<term>Antecedent</term>
<term>Aspen institute</term>
<term>Associate professor</term>
<term>Bandura</term>
<term>Bliese</term>
<term>Borman motowidlo</term>
<term>Business ethics</term>
<term>Certain ways</term>
<term>Chatman</term>
<term>Cohen cohen</term>
<term>Collins porras</term>
<term>Common goal</term>
<term>Contextual</term>
<term>Contextual performance</term>
<term>Control variables</term>
<term>Core values</term>
<term>Corporate values</term>
<term>Corresponding decrease</term>
<term>Corresponding increase</term>
<term>Coworker</term>
<term>Coworkers</term>
<term>Current study</term>
<term>Customer satisfaction</term>
<term>Darden school</term>
<term>Department size</term>
<term>Department values</term>
<term>Department values enactment</term>
<term>Departmental</term>
<term>Departmental context</term>
<term>Departmental coworkers</term>
<term>Departmental levels</term>
<term>Departmental members</term>
<term>Departmental values</term>
<term>Departmental values enactment</term>
<term>Effective behaviors role model behaviors</term>
<term>Employee</term>
<term>Employee behaviors</term>
<term>Employee commitment</term>
<term>Employee promotion</term>
<term>Employee promotions</term>
<term>Employee tenure</term>
<term>Employee turnover</term>
<term>Employee values</term>
<term>Employee values enactment</term>
<term>Employees work</term>
<term>Enactment</term>
<term>Enactment note</term>
<term>Enders tofighi</term>
<term>Ethical leadership</term>
<term>Explicit core</term>
<term>Future research</term>
<term>Gender</term>
<term>Greater contribution</term>
<term>Greater degree</term>
<term>Greater rewards</term>
<term>Greater tenure</term>
<term>Group level</term>
<term>Gruys</term>
<term>Harvard business review</term>
<term>Health care organizations</term>
<term>Helpful feedback</term>
<term>Hierarchical</term>
<term>High degree</term>
<term>High level</term>
<term>High levels</term>
<term>Higher level</term>
<term>Higher levels</term>
<term>Higher scores</term>
<term>Hofmann gavin</term>
<term>Hospital physicians</term>
<term>Hypothesis testing</term>
<term>Independent variables</term>
<term>Individual employee turnover</term>
<term>Individual employee values</term>
<term>Individual employee values enactment</term>
<term>Individual employees</term>
<term>Individual level</term>
<term>Individual members</term>
<term>Individual values</term>
<term>Individual values department values enactment</term>
<term>Individual values enactment</term>
<term>Individual values enactment gender</term>
<term>Individual values enactment increases</term>
<term>Ineffective behaviors</term>
<term>Initial performance rating</term>
<term>Interactive effect</term>
<term>Interpersonal facilitation</term>
<term>Involuntary turnover</term>
<term>Larger departments</term>
<term>Lawrence erlbaum</term>
<term>Level factor</term>
<term>Likely source</term>
<term>Longitudinal data</term>
<term>Lower levels</term>
<term>Main effect terms</term>
<term>Main effects</term>
<term>Management journal</term>
<term>Management review</term>
<term>Management team</term>
<term>Manager values enactment</term>
<term>Managerial behavior</term>
<term>Modeling</term>
<term>More tenure</term>
<term>Motowidlo</term>
<term>Multilevel</term>
<term>Multilevel modeling</term>
<term>Nonsignificant</term>
<term>Nonsignificant relationship</term>
<term>Nonsignificant relationships</term>
<term>Nontask performance</term>
<term>Nursing education</term>
<term>Organ ryan</term>
<term>Organization science</term>
<term>Organizational</term>
<term>Organizational behavior</term>
<term>Organizational citizenship behavior</term>
<term>Organizational citizenship behaviors</term>
<term>Organizational climate</term>
<term>Organizational commitment</term>
<term>Organizational contexts</term>
<term>Organizational culture</term>
<term>Organizational effectiveness</term>
<term>Organizational goals</term>
<term>Organizational identification</term>
<term>Organizational integrity</term>
<term>Organizational level</term>
<term>Organizational performance</term>
<term>Organizational psychology</term>
<term>Organizational strategy</term>
<term>Organizational values</term>
<term>Other employees</term>
<term>Other factors</term>
<term>Other hand</term>
<term>Other words</term>
<term>Paine</term>
<term>Patient safety</term>
<term>Performance appraisal periods</term>
<term>Performance appraisal process</term>
<term>Performance evaluation system</term>
<term>Performance management system</term>
<term>Personal performance</term>
<term>Personal values</term>
<term>Personnel psychology</term>
<term>Personnel selection</term>
<term>Practical implications</term>
<term>Predictor</term>
<term>Prentice hall</term>
<term>Previous research</term>
<term>Project group</term>
<term>Promotion decisions</term>
<term>Prosocial behavior</term>
<term>Rating form</term>
<term>Rating scale</term>
<term>Relationship slope</term>
<term>Research interests</term>
<term>Reward employees</term>
<term>Reward systems</term>
<term>Role model</term>
<term>Role modeling</term>
<term>Role models</term>
<term>Rosenthal masarech</term>
<term>Schneider</term>
<term>Scotter</term>
<term>Scotter motowidlo</term>
<term>Significant predictors</term>
<term>Smaller departments</term>
<term>Social context</term>
<term>Social influence</term>
<term>Social psychology</term>
<term>Special issue</term>
<term>Standard deviations</term>
<term>Standardized estimates</term>
<term>Standardized results</term>
<term>Strong congruence</term>
<term>Stronger alignment</term>
<term>Study variables</term>
<term>Such individuals</term>
<term>Such modeling</term>
<term>Task performance</term>
<term>Team effectiveness</term>
<term>Team members</term>
<term>Turnover</term>
<term>Value congruence</term>
<term>Values department values enactment</term>
<term>Values enactment</term>
<term>Values enactment rating</term>
<term>Values enactment rating scale</term>
<term>Values statements</term>
<term>Variance</term>
<term>Voluntary employee turnover</term>
<term>Voluntary turnover</term>
<term>Work behavior</term>
<term>Work group</term>
<term>Work groups</term>
<term>Wright state university</term>
</keywords>
</textClass>
<langUsage><language ident="en">en</language>
</langUsage>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Business writers and practitioners recommend that core organizational values be integrated into employee work life for enhanced organizational productivity, yet no published studies have empirically examined the antecedents and outcomes of values enactment. Using longitudinal data on 2,622 employees, hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) results revealed that tenure and department-level values enactment were significant predictors of individual values enactment. Furthermore, employees who demonstrated high levels of values enactment were less likely to leave, and employees of high or low levels of values enactment in departments whose levels of values enactment matched their own were the most likely to be promoted.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<istex><corpusName>sage</corpusName>
<keywords><teeft><json:string>values enactment</json:string>
<json:string>core values</json:string>
<json:string>individual values enactment</json:string>
<json:string>departmental</json:string>
<json:string>organizational values</json:string>
<json:string>departmental values enactment</json:string>
<json:string>enactment</json:string>
<json:string>gruys</json:string>
<json:string>voluntary turnover</json:string>
<json:string>task performance</json:string>
<json:string>turnover</json:string>
<json:string>department values enactment</json:string>
<json:string>employee values enactment</json:string>
<json:string>individual employees</json:string>
<json:string>department size</json:string>
<json:string>chatman</json:string>
<json:string>schneider</json:string>
<json:string>high levels</json:string>
<json:string>departmental values</json:string>
<json:string>hierarchical</json:string>
<json:string>contextual</json:string>
<json:string>organizational</json:string>
<json:string>bandura</json:string>
<json:string>coworker</json:string>
<json:string>current study</json:string>
<json:string>nonsignificant</json:string>
<json:string>manager values enactment</json:string>
<json:string>motowidlo</json:string>
<json:string>bliese</json:string>
<json:string>modeling</json:string>
<json:string>predictor</json:string>
<json:string>individual employee values enactment</json:string>
<json:string>contextual performance</json:string>
<json:string>future research</json:string>
<json:string>individual values</json:string>
<json:string>management journal</json:string>
<json:string>management review</json:string>
<json:string>role model</json:string>
<json:string>multilevel</json:string>
<json:string>departmental coworkers</json:string>
<json:string>scotter</json:string>
<json:string>organizational identification</json:string>
<json:string>corresponding decrease</json:string>
<json:string>organizational citizenship behavior</json:string>
<json:string>team members</json:string>
<json:string>business ethics</json:string>
<json:string>control variables</json:string>
<json:string>corresponding increase</json:string>
<json:string>antecedent</json:string>
<json:string>organizational behavior</json:string>
<json:string>standardized results</json:string>
<json:string>employee promotion</json:string>
<json:string>individual values enactment increases</json:string>
<json:string>standard deviations</json:string>
<json:string>employee tenure</json:string>
<json:string>ineffective behaviors</json:string>
<json:string>larger departments</json:string>
<json:string>smaller departments</json:string>
<json:string>high degree</json:string>
<json:string>individual level</json:string>
<json:string>coworkers</json:string>
<json:string>employee turnover</json:string>
<json:string>performance appraisal process</json:string>
<json:string>organizational citizenship behaviors</json:string>
<json:string>personnel selection</json:string>
<json:string>personnel psychology</json:string>
<json:string>higher levels</json:string>
<json:string>promotion decisions</json:string>
<json:string>individual members</json:string>
<json:string>organizational commitment</json:string>
<json:string>organizational performance</json:string>
<json:string>effective behaviors role model behaviors</json:string>
<json:string>corporate values</json:string>
<json:string>significant predictors</json:string>
<json:string>employee</json:string>
<json:string>gender</json:string>
<json:string>paine</json:string>
<json:string>variance</json:string>
<json:string>high level</json:string>
<json:string>interactive effect</json:string>
<json:string>performance evaluation system</json:string>
<json:string>social context</json:string>
<json:string>nonsignificant relationships</json:string>
<json:string>social influence</json:string>
<json:string>previous research</json:string>
<json:string>values department values enactment</json:string>
<json:string>organizational culture</json:string>
<json:string>role modeling</json:string>
<json:string>nontask performance</json:string>
<json:string>managerial behavior</json:string>
<json:string>lower levels</json:string>
<json:string>employee behaviors</json:string>
<json:string>management team</json:string>
<json:string>higher scores</json:string>
<json:string>organization science</json:string>
<json:string>higher level</json:string>
<json:string>rating form</json:string>
<json:string>scotter motowidlo</json:string>
<json:string>values enactment rating</json:string>
<json:string>main effects</json:string>
<json:string>absolute level</json:string>
<json:string>darden school</json:string>
<json:string>organizational psychology</json:string>
<json:string>administrative science</json:string>
<json:string>organizational climate</json:string>
<json:string>practical implications</json:string>
<json:string>harvard business review</json:string>
<json:string>associate professor</json:string>
<json:string>such individuals</json:string>
<json:string>department values</json:string>
<json:string>organ ryan</json:string>
<json:string>individual employee turnover</json:string>
<json:string>greater degree</json:string>
<json:string>independent variables</json:string>
<json:string>common goal</json:string>
<json:string>project group</json:string>
<json:string>personal performance</json:string>
<json:string>greater contribution</json:string>
<json:string>longitudinal data</json:string>
<json:string>role models</json:string>
<json:string>other employees</json:string>
<json:string>rating scale</json:string>
<json:string>explicit core</json:string>
<json:string>performance appraisal periods</json:string>
<json:string>initial performance rating</json:string>
<json:string>departmental context</json:string>
<json:string>organizational contexts</json:string>
<json:string>group level</json:string>
<json:string>values enactment rating scale</json:string>
<json:string>research interests</json:string>
<json:string>collins porras</json:string>
<json:string>study variables</json:string>
<json:string>hypothesis testing</json:string>
<json:string>values statements</json:string>
<json:string>interpersonal facilitation</json:string>
<json:string>rosenthal masarech</json:string>
<json:string>nonsignificant relationship</json:string>
<json:string>standardized estimates</json:string>
<json:string>main effect terms</json:string>
<json:string>cohen cohen</json:string>
<json:string>wright state university</json:string>
<json:string>more tenure</json:string>
<json:string>employees work</json:string>
<json:string>individual values enactment gender</json:string>
<json:string>relationship slope</json:string>
<json:string>enactment note</json:string>
<json:string>hospital physicians</json:string>
<json:string>other hand</json:string>
<json:string>borman motowidlo</json:string>
<json:string>enders tofighi</json:string>
<json:string>hofmann gavin</json:string>
<json:string>departmental members</json:string>
<json:string>reward systems</json:string>
<json:string>individual values department values enactment</json:string>
<json:string>work behavior</json:string>
<json:string>departmental levels</json:string>
<json:string>organizational level</json:string>
<json:string>other factors</json:string>
<json:string>aspen institute</json:string>
<json:string>stronger alignment</json:string>
<json:string>customer satisfaction</json:string>
<json:string>reward employees</json:string>
<json:string>individual employee values</json:string>
<json:string>certain ways</json:string>
<json:string>employee promotions</json:string>
<json:string>organizational effectiveness</json:string>
<json:string>voluntary employee turnover</json:string>
<json:string>likely source</json:string>
<json:string>employee commitment</json:string>
<json:string>such modeling</json:string>
<json:string>level factor</json:string>
<json:string>involuntary turnover</json:string>
<json:string>performance management system</json:string>
<json:string>team effectiveness</json:string>
<json:string>helpful feedback</json:string>
<json:string>health care organizations</json:string>
<json:string>multilevel modeling</json:string>
<json:string>employee values</json:string>
<json:string>prentice hall</json:string>
<json:string>personal values</json:string>
<json:string>greater rewards</json:string>
<json:string>ethical leadership</json:string>
<json:string>social psychology</json:string>
<json:string>organizational goals</json:string>
<json:string>work group</json:string>
<json:string>greater tenure</json:string>
<json:string>lawrence erlbaum</json:string>
<json:string>value congruence</json:string>
<json:string>work groups</json:string>
<json:string>other words</json:string>
<json:string>organizational strategy</json:string>
<json:string>special issue</json:string>
<json:string>nursing education</json:string>
<json:string>prosocial behavior</json:string>
<json:string>organizational integrity</json:string>
<json:string>patient safety</json:string>
<json:string>strong congruence</json:string>
</teeft>
</keywords>
<author><json:item><name>Melissa L. Gruys</name>
<affiliations><json:null></json:null>
<json:string>E-mail: melissa.gruys@wright.edu</json:string>
<json:string>Department of Management, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435-0001, melissa.gruys@wright.edu</json:string>
</affiliations>
</json:item>
<json:item><name>Susan M. Stewart</name>
<affiliations><json:string>Department of Management, Western Illinois University-Quad Cities, Moline, IL 61265-5881</json:string>
<json:string>Department of Management, Western Illinois University-Quad Cities, Moline, IL 61265-5881</json:string>
</affiliations>
</json:item>
<json:item><name>Jerry Goodstein</name>
<affiliations><json:string>Department of Management and Operations, Washington State University-Vancouver, Vancouver, WA 98686-9600</json:string>
<json:string>Department of Management and Operations, Washington State University-Vancouver, Vancouver, WA 98686-9600</json:string>
</affiliations>
</json:item>
<json:item><name>Mark N. Bing</name>
<affiliations><json:string>Department of Management, University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677-1848</json:string>
<json:string>Department of Management, University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677-1848</json:string>
</affiliations>
</json:item>
<json:item><name>Andrew C. Wicks</name>
<affiliations><json:string>The Darden School of Business, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22906-6500</json:string>
<json:string>The Darden School of Business, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22906-6500</json:string>
</affiliations>
</json:item>
</author>
<subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>values</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>values enactment</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>organizational values</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>values-based performance</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>performance</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>promotion</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>voluntary turnover</value>
</json:item>
</subject>
<articleId><json:string>10.1177_0149206308318610</json:string>
</articleId>
<arkIstex>ark:/67375/M70-59979Z48-G</arkIstex>
<language><json:string>eng</json:string>
</language>
<originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string>
</originalGenre>
<abstract>Business writers and practitioners recommend that core organizational values be integrated into employee work life for enhanced organizational productivity, yet no published studies have empirically examined the antecedents and outcomes of values enactment. Using longitudinal data on 2,622 employees, hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) results revealed that tenure and department-level values enactment were significant predictors of individual values enactment. Furthermore, employees who demonstrated high levels of values enactment were less likely to leave, and employees of high or low levels of values enactment in departments whose levels of values enactment matched their own were the most likely to be promoted.</abstract>
<qualityIndicators><score>8.188</score>
<pdfWordCount>16397</pdfWordCount>
<pdfCharCount>105180</pdfCharCount>
<pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion>
<pdfPageCount>38</pdfPageCount>
<pdfPageSize>468 x 684 pts</pdfPageSize>
<refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative>
<abstractWordCount>99</abstractWordCount>
<abstractCharCount>721</abstractCharCount>
<keywordCount>7</keywordCount>
</qualityIndicators>
<title>Values Enactment in Organizations: A Multi-Level Examination</title>
<genre><json:string>research-article</json:string>
</genre>
<host><title>Journal of management</title>
<language><json:string>unknown</json:string>
</language>
<issn><json:string>0149-2063</json:string>
</issn>
<eissn><json:string>1557-1211</json:string>
</eissn>
<publisherId><json:string>JOM</json:string>
</publisherId>
<volume>34</volume>
<issue>4</issue>
<pages><first>806</first>
<last>843</last>
</pages>
<genre><json:string>journal</json:string>
</genre>
</host>
<namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2001</json:string>
<json:string>2008</json:string>
</date>
<geogName></geogName>
<orgName><json:string>Future Research Researchers</json:string>
<json:string>Washington State University</json:string>
<json:string>Washington State University Healthcare Research Grant</json:string>
<json:string>AMA</json:string>
<json:string>Bing Department of Management, University of Mississippi, University, MS</json:string>
<json:string>University of Virginia</json:string>
<json:string>Stewart Department of Management, Western Illinois University–Quad Cities, Moline, IL</json:string>
<json:string>and Organization Science</json:string>
<json:string>Batten Institute, the Darden School, University of Virginia</json:string>
<json:string>Person-Organization</json:string>
<json:string>Department Size Manager</json:string>
<json:string>Jerry Goodstein Department of Management and Operations</json:string>
<json:string>American Management Association</json:string>
<json:string>AES Corporation</json:string>
<json:string>Department Values Enactment</json:string>
</orgName>
<orgName_funder></orgName_funder>
<orgName_provider></orgName_provider>
<persName><json:string>Schein</json:string>
<json:string>K. J. Klein</json:string>
<json:string>W. Borman</json:string>
<json:string>Svyantek</json:string>
<json:string>P. C. Godfrey</json:string>
<json:string>D. A. Whetten</json:string>
<json:string>Results</json:string>
<json:string>David LaHuis</json:string>
<json:string>Andrew C. Wicks</json:string>
<json:string>American Management Association.</json:string>
<json:string>F. Drasgow</json:string>
<json:string>Thomas Tripp</json:string>
<json:string>P. Bliese</json:string>
<json:string>John Campbell</json:string>
<json:string>Employees</json:string>
<json:string>Allen Hamilton</json:string>
<json:string>S. Schmitt</json:string>
<json:string>L. M. Hough</json:string>
<json:string>Lencioni</json:string>
<json:string>Values</json:string>
<json:string>Mark Gavin</json:string>
<json:string>S. W. J. Kozlowski's</json:string>
<json:string>H. Kristl</json:string>
<json:string>Goodman</json:string>
<json:string>M. Dunnette</json:string>
<json:string>Jack Welch</json:string>
<json:string>J. M. Brett</json:string>
</persName>
<placeName><json:string>United States</json:string>
<json:string>VA</json:string>
<json:string>Vancouver</json:string>
<json:string>Charlottesville</json:string>
<json:string>WA</json:string>
</placeName>
<ref_url></ref_url>
<ref_bibl><json:string>Kristof-Brown et al.</json:string>
<json:string>Dickson, Smith, & Grojean, 2001</json:string>
<json:string>Chatman, 1989</json:string>
<json:string>Grojean, Resick, Dickson, & Smith, 2004</json:string>
<json:string>ASA; Schneider, 1987</json:string>
<json:string>AMA, 2002</json:string>
<json:string>Zimbardo & Leippe, 1991</json:string>
<json:string>Porras, Hargis, Patterson, Maxfield, Roberts, & Bies, 1982</json:string>
<json:string>Paine, 2003</json:string>
<json:string>Bandura, 1986: 207</json:string>
<json:string>Kouzes & Posner, 1987, 1993</json:string>
<json:string>Bretz & Judge, 1994</json:string>
<json:string>Bliese and Hanges (2004)</json:string>
<json:string>Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994</json:string>
<json:string>Bryan & Test, 1967</json:string>
<json:string>Kronzon, 2002</json:string>
<json:string>see Bliese, 2005</json:string>
<json:string>Harrison, Price, and Bell (1998)</json:string>
<json:string>Decker, 1986</json:string>
<json:string>Goodman and Svyantek (1999)</json:string>
<json:string>Waddock, 2002</json:string>
<json:string>Bass, 1985</json:string>
<json:string>Cohen & Cohen, 1983</json:string>
<json:string>Wood & Bandura, 1989</json:string>
<json:string>Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994</json:string>
<json:string>Wicks, Berman, & Jones, 1999</json:string>
<json:string>Arrow, McGrath, & Berdahl, 2000</json:string>
<json:string>Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, 1998</json:string>
<json:string>Paine, 1994</json:string>
<json:string>Hofmann & Gavin, 1998</json:string>
<json:string>KristofBrown et al., 2005</json:string>
<json:string>Shore et al.</json:string>
<json:string>Brown et al., 2005</json:string>
<json:string>Trevino et al.</json:string>
<json:string>Organ, 1988, 1997</json:string>
<json:string>Organ & Ryan, 1995</json:string>
<json:string>Cha and Edmondson (2006: 58)</json:string>
<json:string>McGaw & Fabish, 2006</json:string>
<json:string>Aquino & Bommer, 2003</json:string>
<json:string>Collins & Porras, 1994</json:string>
<json:string>Wetlaufer, 1999</json:string>
<json:string>Gruys et al.</json:string>
<json:string>Trevino, Hartman, & Brown, 2000</json:string>
<json:string>Morgan & Hunt, 1994</json:string>
<json:string>Pfeffer, 1982: 97</json:string>
<json:string>Kristof-Brown et al. (2005)</json:string>
<json:string>Enders & Tofighi, 2007</json:string>
<json:string>Leapes & Berwick, 2005</json:string>
<json:string>Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005</json:string>
<json:string>Dutton et al.</json:string>
<json:string>Choi, Price, & Vinokur, 2003</json:string>
<json:string>Bliese, 2000</json:string>
<json:string>McCarthy & Blumenthal, 2006</json:string>
<json:string>Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell, 2002</json:string>
<json:string>Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager, 1993</json:string>
<json:string>Ashforth & Mael, 1989</json:string>
<json:string>Camarillo, 2003</json:string>
<json:string>Chattopadhyay, 1991</json:string>
<json:string>Richman-Hirsch & Glomb, 2002</json:string>
<json:string>Dale, 2004</json:string>
<json:string>Bliese, 2005</json:string>
<json:string>Beersma, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, Moon, Conlon, & Ilgen, 2003</json:string>
<json:string>Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996</json:string>
<json:string>Kreft, De Leeuw, & Aiken, 1995</json:string>
<json:string>Lencioni, 2002: 113</json:string>
<json:string>employee values; Choi, 2003</json:string>
<json:string>Latham & Saari, 1979</json:string>
<json:string>Pruzan, 1998</json:string>
<json:string>Cohen and Cohen (1983: 100)</json:string>
<json:string>Van Lee, Fabish, & McGaw, 2002</json:string>
<json:string>Bretz and Judge (1994)</json:string>
<json:string>Reilly et al., 1991</json:string>
<json:string>Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins, 1989</json:string>
<json:string>Anderson, 1997</json:string>
<json:string>Pfeffer, 1998</json:string>
<json:string>Fritz, Arnett, & Conkel, 1999</json:string>
<json:string>Barber, Huselid, & Becker, 1999</json:string>
<json:string>Bandura, 1986</json:string>
<json:string>Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999</json:string>
<json:string>Shore, Barksdale, & Shore, 1995</json:string>
<json:string>Meyer & Allen, 1991</json:string>
<json:string>Borman & Motowidlo, 1993</json:string>
<json:string>Trevino et al., 2000</json:string>
<json:string>Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000</json:string>
<json:string>Dukerich et al. (2002)</json:string>
<json:string>Brown et al.</json:string>
<json:string>Enders and Tofighi (2007)</json:string>
<json:string>Diefendorff, Brown, Kamin, & Lord, 2002</json:string>
<json:string>Mathieu & Kohler, 1990</json:string>
<json:string>Goldstein & Sorcher, 1974</json:string>
<json:string>Pratt, 1998</json:string>
<json:string>Nelms, Jones, & Gray, 1993</json:string>
<json:string>Glomb & Liao, 2003</json:string>
<json:string>Bliese & Hanges, 2004</json:string>
<json:string>Schneider, 1987</json:string>
<json:string>Paine, 1994, 1997</json:string>
<json:string>Campbell, 1990</json:string>
<json:string>Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982</json:string>
<json:string>Rosenhan & White, 1967</json:string>
<json:string>Glomb, Richman, Hulin, Drasgow, Schneider, & Fitzgerald, 1997</json:string>
<json:string>Calton & Lad, 1995</json:string>
<json:string>Cropanzano, Rupp, & Byrne, 2003</json:string>
<json:string>Fritz et al., 1999</json:string>
<json:string>Bandura, 1977, 1986</json:string>
<json:string>Hewlin (2003)</json:string>
<json:string>Dukerich et al.</json:string>
<json:string>Conway, 1999</json:string>
<json:string>Paine, 1994, 1997, 2003</json:string>
<json:string>Wheeler, Gallagher, Brouer, & Sablynski, 2007</json:string>
<json:string>Korsgaard, Schweiger, & Sapienza, 1995</json:string>
<json:string>Rosenthal & Masarech, 2003</json:string>
<json:string>Brown, Trevino, & Harrison, 2005</json:string>
<json:string>Kristof-Brown et al., 2005</json:string>
</ref_bibl>
<bibl></bibl>
</unitex>
</namedEntities>
<ark><json:string>ark:/67375/M70-59979Z48-G</json:string>
</ark>
<categories><wos><json:string>1 - social science</json:string>
<json:string>2 - psychology, applied</json:string>
<json:string>2 - management</json:string>
<json:string>2 - business</json:string>
</wos>
<scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - economic & social sciences</json:string>
<json:string>2 - economics & business </json:string>
<json:string>3 - business & management</json:string>
</scienceMetrix>
<scopus><json:string>1 - Social Sciences</json:string>
<json:string>2 - Business, Management and Accounting</json:string>
<json:string>3 - Strategy and Management</json:string>
<json:string>1 - Social Sciences</json:string>
<json:string>2 - Economics, Econometrics and Finance</json:string>
<json:string>3 - Finance</json:string>
</scopus>
<inist><json:string>1 - sciences humaines et sociales</json:string>
</inist>
</categories>
<publicationDate>2008</publicationDate>
<copyrightDate>2008</copyrightDate>
<doi><json:string>10.1177/0149206308318610</json:string>
</doi>
<id>E75EBE587781D480F016CA3CEFB752D57216C14E</id>
<score>1</score>
<fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension>
<original>true</original>
<mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/E75EBE587781D480F016CA3CEFB752D57216C14E/fulltext/pdf</uri>
</json:item>
<json:item><extension>zip</extension>
<original>false</original>
<mimetype>application/zip</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/E75EBE587781D480F016CA3CEFB752D57216C14E/fulltext/zip</uri>
</json:item>
<istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/E75EBE587781D480F016CA3CEFB752D57216C14E/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Values Enactment in Organizations: A Multi-Level Examination</title>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority>
<publisher scheme="https://publisher-list.data.istex.fr">SAGE Publications</publisher>
<pubPlace>Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA</pubPlace>
<availability><licence><p>sage</p>
</licence>
</availability>
<p scheme="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-0J1N7DQT-B"></p>
<date>2008</date>
</publicationStmt>
<notesStmt><note type="research-article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</note>
<note type="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note>
</notesStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Values Enactment in Organizations: A Multi-Level Examination</title>
<author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Melissa L.</forename>
<surname>Gruys</surname>
</persName>
<email>melissa.gruys@wright.edu</email>
<affiliation></affiliation>
<affiliation>Department of Management, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435-0001, melissa.gruys@wright.edu</affiliation>
</author>
<author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Susan M.</forename>
<surname>Stewart</surname>
</persName>
<affiliation>Department of Management, Western Illinois University-Quad Cities, Moline, IL 61265-5881</affiliation>
<affiliation>Department of Management, Western Illinois University-Quad Cities, Moline, IL 61265-5881</affiliation>
</author>
<author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Jerry</forename>
<surname>Goodstein</surname>
</persName>
<affiliation>Department of Management and Operations, Washington State University-Vancouver, Vancouver, WA 98686-9600</affiliation>
<affiliation>Department of Management and Operations, Washington State University-Vancouver, Vancouver, WA 98686-9600</affiliation>
</author>
<author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">Mark N.</forename>
<surname>Bing</surname>
</persName>
<affiliation>Department of Management, University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677-1848</affiliation>
<affiliation>Department of Management, University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677-1848</affiliation>
</author>
<author xml:id="author-0004"><persName><forename type="first">Andrew C.</forename>
<surname>Wicks</surname>
</persName>
<affiliation>The Darden School of Business, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22906-6500</affiliation>
<affiliation>The Darden School of Business, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22906-6500</affiliation>
</author>
<idno type="istex">E75EBE587781D480F016CA3CEFB752D57216C14E</idno>
<idno type="ark">ark:/67375/M70-59979Z48-G</idno>
<idno type="DOI">10.1177/0149206308318610</idno>
<idno type="article-id">10.1177_0149206308318610</idno>
</analytic>
<monogr><title level="j">Journal of management</title>
<idno type="pISSN">0149-2063</idno>
<idno type="eISSN">1557-1211</idno>
<idno type="publisher-id">JOM</idno>
<idno type="PublisherID-hwp">spjom</idno>
<imprint><publisher>SAGE Publications</publisher>
<pubPlace>Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA</pubPlace>
<date type="published" when="2008-08"></date>
<biblScope unit="volume">34</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" from="806">806</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" to="843">843</biblScope>
</imprint>
</monogr>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><creation><date>2008</date>
</creation>
<langUsage><language ident="en">en</language>
</langUsage>
<abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Business writers and practitioners recommend that core organizational values be integrated into employee work life for enhanced organizational productivity, yet no published studies have empirically examined the antecedents and outcomes of values enactment. Using longitudinal data on 2,622 employees, hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) results revealed that tenure and department-level values enactment were significant predictors of individual values enactment. Furthermore, employees who demonstrated high levels of values enactment were less likely to leave, and employees of high or low levels of values enactment in departments whose levels of values enactment matched their own were the most likely to be promoted.</p>
</abstract>
<textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head>
<item><term>values</term>
</item>
<item><term>values enactment</term>
</item>
<item><term>organizational values</term>
</item>
<item><term>values-based performance</term>
</item>
<item><term>performance</term>
</item>
<item><term>promotion</term>
</item>
<item><term>voluntary turnover</term>
</item>
</list>
</keywords>
</textClass>
</profileDesc>
<revisionDesc><change when="2008-08">Published</change>
</revisionDesc>
</teiHeader>
</istex:fulltextTEI>
<json:item><extension>txt</extension>
<original>false</original>
<mimetype>text/plain</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/E75EBE587781D480F016CA3CEFB752D57216C14E/fulltext/txt</uri>
</json:item>
</fulltext>
<metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus sage not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration>
<istex:docType PUBLIC="-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" URI="journalpublishing.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType>
<istex:document><article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="2.3" xml:lang="EN"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="hwp">spjom</journal-id>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">JOM</journal-id>
<journal-title>Journal of Management</journal-title>
<issn pub-type="ppub">0149-2063</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>SAGE Publications</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/0149206308318610</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">10.1177_0149206308318610</article-id>
<article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject>
</subj-group>
</article-categories>
<title-group><article-title>Values Enactment in Organizations: A Multi-Level Examination</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gruys</surname>
<given-names>Melissa L.</given-names>
</name>
<aff>Department of Management, Wright State University, Dayton,
OH 45435-0001, <email xlink:type="simple">melissa.gruys@wright.edu</email>
</aff>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Stewart</surname>
<given-names>Susan M.</given-names>
</name>
<aff>Department of Management, Western Illinois University-Quad
Cities, Moline, IL 61265-5881</aff>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Goodstein</surname>
<given-names>Jerry</given-names>
</name>
<aff>Department of Management and Operations, Washington
State University-Vancouver, Vancouver, WA 98686-9600</aff>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bing</surname>
<given-names>Mark N.</given-names>
</name>
<aff>Department of Management, University of Mississippi,
University, MS 38677-1848</aff>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Wicks</surname>
<given-names>Andrew C.</given-names>
</name>
<aff>The Darden School of Business, University of Virginia,
Charlottesville, VA 22906-6500</aff>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<pub-date pub-type="ppub"><month>08</month>
<year>2008</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>34</volume>
<issue>4</issue>
<fpage>806</fpage>
<lpage>843</lpage>
<abstract><p><italic>Business writers and practitioners recommend that core organizational values be integrated into employee work life for enhanced organizational productivity, yet no published studies have empirically examined the antecedents and outcomes of values enactment. Using longitudinal data on 2,622 employees, hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) results revealed that tenure and department-level values enactment were significant predictors of individual values enactment. Furthermore, employees who demonstrated high levels of values enactment were less likely to leave, and employees of high or low levels of values enactment in departments whose levels of values enactment matched their own were the most likely to be promoted.</italic>
</p>
</abstract>
<kwd-group><kwd>values</kwd> 
            <kwd>values enactment</kwd> 
            <kwd>organizational values</kwd> 
            <kwd>values-based performance</kwd> 
            <kwd>performance</kwd> 
            <kwd>promotion</kwd> 
            <kwd>voluntary turnover</kwd>
</kwd-group>
<custom-meta-wrap><custom-meta xlink:type="simple"><meta-name>sagemeta-type</meta-name>
<meta-value>Journal Article</meta-value>
</custom-meta>
<custom-meta xlink:type="simple"><meta-name>search-text</meta-name>
<meta-value>806
Values
Enactment in Organizations: A Multi-Level Examination
SAGE Publications, Inc.200810.1177/0149206308318610
Melissa L.Gruys
Department of Management, Wright State University, Dayton,
OH 45435-0001, melissa.gruys@wright.edu
Susan M.Stewart
Department of Management, Western Illinois University-Quad
Cities, Moline, IL 61265-5881
JerryGoodstein
Department of Management and Operations, Washington
State University-Vancouver, Vancouver, WA 98686-9600
Mark N.Bing
Department of Management, University of Mississippi,
University, MS 38677-1848
Andrew C.Wicks
The Darden School of Business, University of Virginia,
Charlottesville, VA 22906-6500
Business writers and
practitioners recommend that core organizational values be integrated into
employee work life for enhanced organizational productivity, yet no published
studies have empirically examined the antecedents and outcomes of values enactment.
Using longitudinal data on 2,622 employees, hierarchical linear modeling (HLM)
results revealed that tenure and department-level values enactment were significant
predictors of individual values enactment. Furthermore, employees who demonstrated
high levels of values enactment were less likely to leave, and employees of
high or low levels of values enactment in departments whose levels of values
enactment matched their own were the most likely to be promoted.
values
values enactment
organizational values
values-based performance
performance
promotion
voluntary turnover
†We
would like to thank John Campbell, H. Kristl Davison, Mark Gavin, David LaHuis,
and Thomas Tripp for their helpful comments and suggestions. We also wish
to acknowledge the financial support provided by a Washington State University
Healthcare Research Grant and the Batten Institute, the Darden School, University
of Virginia. *Corresponding author: Tel.: 937-775-2375; fax: 937-775-3546.
807
“ . . . AND NOW ABOUT THOSE VALUES. . . . People must be able to use them as
march- ing orders because they are the how of the mission, the means to the
end, winning. . . . To make values really mean something, companies have to
reward the people who exhibit them.” Welch (2005: 17, 20) Within the
past decade, writers from a variety of backgrounds, including the famous and
former CEO of General Electric, Jack Welch, have directed attention to the
importance of developing core values to guide an organization over time (Collins
& Porras, 1994). Core values formally define the key components of an
organization and are descriptive terms used to denote dimensions of the strategic
mission as developed by leaders of the organization. Most organizations have
core values that are communicated to its members in various ways. A study
by the American Management Association (AMA) of AMA executives and council
members found that 86% of these respondents indicated that the corporate values
of their organizations are explicitly written or stated (AMA, 2002). Another
survey on corporate val- ues conducted by the Aspen Institute and management
consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton included responses from 9,500 senior executives
within 365 companies representing a broad range of industries in 30 countries
(Van Lee, Fabish, & McGaw, 2002). The survey found that 89% of the companies
responding had a written corporate values statement that reflected values
such as integrity, commitment to customers, commitment to employees, and team-
work. In addition, nearly three fourths of respondents noted that both executives
and employ- ees in their organizations are under significant pressure to demonstrate
strong corporate values. The study concludes that core values are defined
as “a corporation's institutional standards of behavior” (Van
Lee et al., 2002). On the basis of these large scale findings, we will adopt
this definition of core values in the current study. Core values, as Lencioni
noted, are “inherent and sacrosanct; they can never be compro- mised,
either for convenience or short-term economic gain” (2002: 114). The
core values provide a foundation for profitable and ethical performance (Collins
& Porras, 1994; Paine, 1994, 1997, 2003; Waddock, 2002), as they reflect
the organization's business plan and strategic long-term plans. In short,
these core values are explicitly espoused to be important for the organization.
But simply declaring what the organization's values are is not enough. The
values must be lived out or enacted by the organization's leadership and its
employees through specific actions and behaviors (McGaw & Fabish, 2006).
In this vein, many writers have stressed that values-based management is not
simply a question of developing a values statement. Lencioni noted that more
than 80% of Fortune 100 companies “tout their values publicly— values that often stand for nothing but a desire to be au courant, or worse
still, politically cor- rect” (2002: 113). Integration of the mission
and core values into organizations requires that the mission and values be
reflected in organizational structures, decision-making processes, employee
rewards, and in measures of employee and organizational performance (Paine,
1994; Pruzan, 1998; Welch, 2005). The consequences of values publicly espoused
and not backed up by tangible actions or fully integrated into the processes
and structures of organi- zations are troubling: “Most values statements
are bland, toothless, or just plain dishonest. And far from being harmless,
as some executives assume, they're often highly destructive.
808
Empty
values statements create cynical and dispirited employees, alienate customers,
and undermine managerial credibility” (Lencioni, 2002: 113). As demonstrated
by this quote, failing to reinforce the important connection between espoused
core values and employee activities can lead to cynicism and mistrust, or
as seen in the Enron case, can set the stage for ethical disconnects that
undermine the integrity and long-term performance of the orga- nization (Cha
& Edmondson, 2006; Welch, 2005). It is clear that one of the key challenges
faced by organizations that want to follow through on their core values is
how to reinforce the importance of the values in the day-to- day lives of
executives, managers, and all employees (Anderson, 1997; Pruzan, 1998; Rosenthal
& Masarech, 2003; Wetlaufer, 1999) and thus align employee behaviors with
the core values. We refer to this alignment as “values enactment” and will use this term to emphasize the vital connection between espoused
core values and workplace behaviors on the part of employees and managers
that reflect these values. One of the most important vehicles for fostering
the integration of the mission and values into employees' work lives is the
human resource management system (Barber, Huselid, & Becker, 1999; Paine,
2003; Trevino, Hartman, & Brown, 2000). Lencioni (2002: 117) argued for
integrating the core val- ues into all aspects of the human resource management
process—hiring, performance assess- ment, rewards, and punishments.
This view is supported as well by users of high-performance human resource
management systems who note the importance of measuring and rewarding what
is valued in the organization (Pfeffer, 1998). Within values-driven companies
like AES Corporation, for example, 50% of an employee's performance assessment
is based on tech- nical factors and 50% on the degree to which the employee
understands and conforms to the shared values of AES (Wetlaufer, 1999). One
strategy for an organization to encourage values enactment, as suggested above,
is to use formal performance assessment and reward systems as mechanisms for
reinforcing the integration of the core values into employee and managerial
behavior. When employee and managerial behavior reflect the values of the
organization, these behaviors should help the organization achieve its broad
strategic goals. For example, if an organization is focused on customers as
a key stakeholder critical to its long-term success and has put in place a
core value of excellent customer service, then as employees and managers enact
that value by pro- viding good service, this is likely to enhance customer
satisfaction, repeat business, and con- tribute to the overall performance
of the organization. Purpose of the Current Study Although there has been
no shortage of descriptive and prescriptive arguments offered on the importance
of organizational members' living out core values, we could not locate any
rigorous empirical work directed at examining values enactment and its antecedents
within organizations. Furthermore, researchers have not scientifically studied
the implications of values enactment on important outcomes such as individual
rewards (e.g., promotion) and separation (e.g., turnover) over time. We therefore
agree with Cha and Edmondson (2006: 58) who characterize the field of research
on values in organizations as in “nascent stages.” Hence, the
primary contribution of our study is to open up this unexplored area of inquiry
809
Figure
1 Summary of Proposed Model of Values Enactment
Note:
Dashed lines for the boxes around Gender, Age, and Task Performance indicate
that these variables are control variables. by adopting a social learning
perspective (Bandura, 1977, 1986) in specifying some key antecedents and outcomes
of values enactment (see Figure 1). Our fundamental argument (developed in
greater depth below) is that the level of values enactment on the part of
indi- vidual employees is likely to be higher when employees work for an organization
longer and are therefore aware of and understand the core values, and when
direct managers and depart- mental coworkers also enact the values of the
organization. We also analyze the effects of values enactment over time on
employee promotions and turnover, thereby contributing to the broader literature
on values in organizations by departing from the more traditional cross-sectional
studies. We draw on longitudinal data obtained from a large health care organization
that uses a performance evaluation system that specifically includes ratings
for how well employees and managers within the hospital have enacted the core
values of the hospital. Given that values
810
enactment
represents an important dimension of performance within the context of health
care organizations, one might expect that those who perform well on this dimension
would be less likely to leave the organization and more likely to be promoted
when the department within which they work shares these values. Using a health
care organization for the current study on values enactment is especially
relevant and timely, as hospitals have recently been under strong attack to
change or strengthen their organizational values in areas such as patient
safety, evidence-based medicine, and quality of care (Leapes & Berwick,
2005; McCarthy & Blumenthal, 2006; Yates, Bernd, Sayles, Stockmeier, Burke,
& Merti, 2006). Our discussion highlights both the theoretical and practical
implications of our findings and offers a variety of possible directions for
researchers and practitioners alike. Conceptual Clarification Given the novelty
of studying values enactment, it is important to begin by conceptually clarifying
the term. Values enactment refers broadly to employee and managerial behaviors
that are aligned with the explicitly defined core values of the organization
such as those found in mission and values statements. Variation in values
enactment therefore depends on how closely an individual's behavior aligns
with a particular set of explicit core organiza- tional values. The nature
of these core values can vary across organizations given that they are defined
based on an array of factors that are institutional (e.g., founding influences,
his- torical events) and environmental (e.g., competitive contexts, external
changes). Values enactment can be distinguished from both task performance
and contextual per- formance. First, exhibiting behavior that is consistent
with the values of the organization, whether defined in terms of teamwork
or other values such as integrity or respect, is differ- ent than simply performing
the technical aspects of one's job tasks (i.e., task performance). There are,
of course, some ties between values enactment and task performance. Employees
execute their daily tasks by exhibiting behaviors that are consistent with
core values as they perform the activities that are required of their job
positions. In a sense, performing the tasks of one's job provides employees
with opportunities to enact the values of the organization. However, to illustrate
how values enactment is different from task performance, consider two different
nurses, both of whom obtain accurate readings from a patient (e.g., blood
pressure, heart rate, temperature, etc.) and record them correctly for a doctor.
One does so while hav- ing poor bedside manner (and is even rude to the patient),
and the other displays excellent bedside manner (is very kind and considerate).
In this case, task performance is equivalent across these two nurses, but
values enactment clearly differs. Furthermore, in the organiza- tion examined
for the current study, employees are formally evaluated on a regular basis
on how well they have enacted the values of the organization through their
work, based on explicitly defined and measured criteria that relate directly
to the mission and core values of the organization. Although task performance
criteria are likely to vary depending on the par- ticular job an employee
performs in an organization, values enactment criteria are the same for all
members of a given organization. Values enactment also differs from organizational
citizenship behaviors (OCBs) and contextual performance behaviors. Facets
associated with contextual performance, such as
811
interpersonal
facilitation and job dedication (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996), or OCBs
that are of a cooperative, prosocial nature (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993),
are not likely to be explicitly defined, connected to the core values of the
organization, or formally integrated into the performance evaluation and reward
systems (Shore, Barksdale, & Shore, 1995). Alternatively, values enactment
is grounded in behaviors that are clearly aligned with explicit core values
and are formally assessed as part of the performance appraisal process. It
is also important to address Person-Organization (P-O) and Person-Group (P-G)
fit as relevant concepts that are influenced, in part, by values enactment.
Values enactment is the degree to which an employee enacts the espoused values
of the organization, and it reflects the degree to which there is congruence
or fit between the demonstrated behavior of an employee and the values of
the organization. P-O and P-G fit represent broad concepts that include the
degree of fit between the values of an individual and the values of the organiza-
tion and the departmental work group, respectively. It can be seen that as
values enactment increases, the degree of fit or match between the employee
and the organization should increase as well, which can strengthen P-O fit
(an idea more fully developed later). By the same logic, as long as the group
or department within which an employee works shares the values espoused by
the organization, then P-G fit should be strengthened when an employee's value
enactment increases. Thus, although val- ues enactment may to some extent
influence P-O or P-G fit, values enactment is still distinct from these concepts
because it is the degree to which an individual chooses to enact the core
organizational values (and thus demonstrates behaviors consistent with the
organizational values); it is not a measure of the employee's perception of
fit or match between himself or herself and the organization, which depends
on many other additional matching factors (e.g., personality; cf. Schneider,
Smith, & Taylor, 1998). Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Applied
to the work context, social learning theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986) suggests
that employees may acquire much of their learned behavior by observing and
imitating others and by observing the outcomes of others' behaviors, especially
organizational leaders (Brown, Trevino, & Harrison, 2005). Given these
observations, and namely taking note of which actions are rewarded or punished,
individuals may choose to enact or not to enact cer- tain behaviors on the
basis of the social information gathered. This learning process is more passive
in that people could effectively learn from others' mistakes and from the
positive or negative outcomes achieved by others. An example of this process
would be an employee's observation of a coworker consistently engaging in
behaviors that are in line with the orga- nization's values—and noting
the subsequent promotion of the coworker. As a result, this employee, if desiring
promotion as well, may be more likely to enact the organization's val- ues
after noting the promotion of the coworker who enacted those values. Although
a portion of the social learning process reflects passive learning (simply
observing behavior), the theory also proposes that after one views the behavior
of others as well as the con- sequences of that behavior (e.g., punishments,
rewards), individuals may use this knowledge in an active fashion by seeking
to behave in certain ways that lead to positive outcomes. For
812
example,
individuals will be more likely to engage in behaviors if it is viable that
an oppor- tunity exists from which they will benefit (Zimbardo & Leippe,
1991). The organization can influence this enactment or change of behavior
on the part of employees through the process of role modeling. Managers and
leaders are an important and likely source of such model- ing, a process by
which behavior is explicitly presented for emulation (Goldstein & Sorcher,
1974; Wood & Bandura, 1989), along with information about the likely consequences
of engaging in that behavior. High standing in a “prestige hierarchy” and the ability to control rewards both contribute to modeling effectiveness
(Bandura, 1986: 207). Previous research has demonstrated that role models
influence prosocial behavior (Bryan & Test, 1967; Rosenhan & White,
1967); supervisory skills for interpersonal problem solv- ing (Latham & Saari, 1979); caring behaviors on the part of nurses (Nelms, Jones, & Gray, 1993); ergonomic and safety behavior (Dale, 2004); as well as changes
in subordinate behav- ior, improved productivity, and decreased absenteeism
(Porras, Hargis, Patterson, Maxfield, Roberts, & Bies, 1982). Other work
has suggested that role modeling of leader and man- agerial behavior is very
important for the ethical climate and subsequent ethical behaviors of employees
(Dickson, Smith, & Grojean, 2001; Grojean, Resick, Dickson, & Smith,
2004) and that observation, vicarious learning, and imitation of others' behaviors
may be of par- ticular importance when the targeted behaviors relate to ethical
conduct in organizations, such as engaging in proactive ethical behaviors
(Brown et al., 2005). In the current study, we expect social learning to be
important and relevant in regard to the enactment of espoused core organizational
values. Hence, we propose that employees may learn specific behaviors, such
as behaviors indicative of core organizational values, through observing and
imitating the behavior of others. Moreover, social learning theory suggests
that modeled behavior that pays off with a desired reward, such as a promotion,
tends to be more readily imitated. Individuals will cognitively appraise this
information and manage their own behavior given these relevant cues and consequences
(Bandura, 1986). To summarize, we believe that the tenets of social learning
can be applied in the examination of a values-based performance management
system because this theory emphasizes the impact of social factors on individual
behaviors as well as the outcomes that reward individuals for displaying desired
behaviors. Antecedents of Individual Values Enactment Based on the insights
of social learning theory and previous research, three antecedents are of
particular interest in this study. The first relates to employee tenure with
the organi- zation, the second relates to the manager of the particular departmental
unit, and the third pertains to the coworkers of the department. Employee
tenure. One of the most important individual-level considerations to examine
in relation to values-based performance is the level of connection and commitment
the employees have to the organization. Employees who have been with the organization
longer are more likely to have a higher degree of commitment, identification,
or alignment with organizational goals (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Mowday, Porter,
& Steers, 1982). Those with longer tenure will also be more likely to
exhibit contextual-type performance activities
813
(Motowidlo
& Van Scotter, 1994; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) that are indicative
of values- based performance. Furthermore, greater tenure with the organization
increases the likeli- hood that an individual will have internalized the core
values of the organization (Chatman, 1991; O'Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell,
1991) and hence will be more likely to engage in behaviors and perform in
ways that are consistent with these values. We therefore hypothe- sized the
following: Hypothesis 1: Employees with greater tenure in the organization
will be more likely to display high levels of values enactment. Departmental
managers. It has become a widely accepted belief that managers play a vital
role in influencing employee perceptions and performance (Conway, 1999; Fritz,
Arnett, & Conkel, 1999; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Van Scotter & Motowidlo,
1996). Research indicates that a greater degree of continuity on certain principles
among workers and their managers is related to greater levels of satisfaction,
commitment, and performance (Camarillo, 2003; Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins,
1989). A similar effect may be found for val- ues enactment, such that a manager's
level of values enactment may influence the level of values enactment exhibited
by subordinate employees. A manager can signal the corporate values through
displaying related behaviors, and these behaviors become particularly salient
to subordinates when they are recognized, reinforced, and rewarded (AMA, 2002; Paine, 1994, 1997; Rosenthal & Masarech, 2003). This idea relates to social
learning theory because it acknowledges that individual behav- ior can be
learned by monitoring others' behaviors and their consequences (Bandura, 1977,
1986). The coded, observed information serves as a guide for action. Hence,
a manager's ability to role model the core organizational values is influential
because others can learn from example before actually performing the behaviors
themselves (Bass, 1985; Decker, 1986; Kouzes & Posner, 1987, 1993). According
to Brown et al., “Leaders [managers] are an important and likely source
of such modeling first by virtue of their assigned role, their status and
success in the organization, and their power to affect the behavior and outcomes
of others” (2005: 119). To summarize, we believe that when managers
exhibit behaviors that reflect the core organizational values, subordinates
will view those behaviors and attempt to model them. Hence, we hypothesized
the following: Hypothesis 2: Employees who work in departments with managers
who demonstrate high levels of values enactment will be more likely to display
high levels of values enactment. Departmental coworkers. Social learning theory
can also be readily applied to group behavior to determine how contextual
social factors, such as one's coworkers, motivate employees to behave in certain
ways (Harrison & McIntosh, 1992). For example, in the new- comer socialization
process, standard practices within the organization are inculcated and reinforced “through
the provision of role models, the availability of literature illustrating
the new principles to be adopted, and through constant exposure to various
vicarious and direct feedback that illustrates the desired behavior and conduct” (Pfeffer, 1982: 97). In a book on managing careers, Schein noted that a critical
stage of the socialization process is
814
“deciphering
the reward system and learning how to get ahead” (1978: 99). Hence,
an employee's departmental coworkers can serve an important socializing role
for that employee by enacting behaviors aligned with the core values that
are recognized and rewarded. Furthermore, once employees are fully socialized,
referent others such as departmental coworkers can continue to signal the
importance of enacting core values and through their behavior model explicit
ways in which other employees can also enact the values. Employees therefore
observe and process the social context in which their coworkers enact the
values and demonstrate this understanding through displaying similar workplace
behav- iors. In this way, individuals who work within a departmental context
where employees exhibit behaviors that are consistent with the core values
may experience a powerful con- nection. Organizational research has supported
the view that a composite or collective of individuals can generate emergent
properties that both influence and transcend individuals (Morgeson & Hofmann,
1999). Empirical studies have demonstrated that variables that rep- resent
the context of the situation at the group level (even when created by aggregating
indi- vidual responses or behaviors) have distinct influences on behavior
over and above the within-individual–level effect of the same variables
(e.g., Choi, Price, & Vinokur, 2003; Mathieu & Kohler, 1990). This
would suggest that the aggregate behaviors of one's cowork- ers might create
a departmental context that supports the enactment of core organizational
values. Specifically, in departments where coworkers are routinely demonstrating
behaviors that are consistent with the core values, the social learning process
can influence the level of values enactment exhibited at the individual level
by other employees within those same departments. Thus, we hypothesized the
following: Hypothesis 3: Employees who work in departments in which departmental
coworkers demonstrate high levels of values enactment will be more likely
to display high levels of values enactment. Interactive effect of department
size on manager and departmental coworker influence. In addition to the main
effects of the level of manager and departmental values enact- ment on individual
values enactment, we hypothesized an interactive effect for manager values
enactment and department size, and departmental values enactment and depart-
ment size. Specifically, in smaller departments with fewer employees, the
effects of the prevailing levels of values enactment among managers and coworkers
are likely to be stronger in terms of their influence on individual employee
values enactment. Within smaller departments, individual employees are more
likely to have frequent supervisory and coworker interactions and increased
opportunities for critical observations of oth- ers' behaviors. Within larger
departments, more employees report to the same manager, and thus the manager
with more subordinates has less time to interact with individual members,
subsequently diluting the manager's influence in larger departments. Thus,
the social learning process may be enhanced in smaller departments in comparison
to larger ones. When managers and coworkers exhibit high levels of values
enactment in smaller departments, as opposed to larger departments, there
is likely to be a greater degree of social influence, and this should be reflected
in stronger relationships between manager values and individual employee values,
and between departmental values and individual employee values.
815
Hypothesis
4a: There will be an interaction between department size and manager values
enactment when predicting employee values enactment, such that when manager
values enactment increases, there will be a greater positive effect on employee
values enactment in smaller versus larger departments. Hypothesis 4b: There
will be an interaction between department size and departmental values enactment
when predicting employee values enactment, such that when departmental values
enactment increases, there will be a greater positive effect on employee values
enactment in smaller versus larger departments. Outcomes of Values Enactment
Social learning theory is concerned not only with how the social context influences
learn- ing and behavior but the consequences of effective social learning.
To the extent that indi- viduals have been effective in internalizing relevant
information from the social context and reflecting this learning through behavior,
what implications does this have for individuals and for organizations? Reframing
this question in terms of values enactment in organiza- tions, when the social
learning context influences employees to effectively enact the values of the
organization, we ask whether these employees are more likely to stay with
the orga- nization and whether they are more likely to be promoted. The next
section examines these important questions using the outcomes of voluntary
employee turnover and promotion. Employee turnover. Employees who internalize
the organization's core values and exhibit behavior in accordance with those
values should want to remain in an organization where they are recognized
for helping to sustain the organization's mission via their values enact-
ment. High levels of values enactment among employees can be an important
indicator that the underlying values of the employees and the core values
of the organization are aligned, which is an important factor in motivating
employees to maintain relationships (Morgan & Hunt, 1994) and to continue
their tenure with an organization (Chatman, 1991; Fritz et al., 1999; Goodman
& Svyantek, 1999; O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986; O'Reilly et al., 1991; Schneider, 1987; Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995). Goodman and Svyantek
noted, “Values that are socially endorsed by the organization and prized
by the individuals can lead to close relationships, positive affect, and attachment” (1999: 257). The literature on P-O and P-G fit reinforces these arguments
as related to the effects of values enactment on employee commitment to organizations.
For example, studies that have examined the level of congru- ence between
a person's own individual values and the organizational values, as measured
by the individual's self-reported perceptions (Chatman, 1989; O'Reilly, Chatman,
& Caldwell, 1991), have shown that when there is greater congruence between
individual and organiza- tional values, individuals will exhibit lower levels
of intention to leave the organization and have lower levels of actual turnover
(Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). We therefore expect that
the level of values enactment, which emphasizes the alignment of employee
behaviors (and implicit employee values) with espoused core organizational
values, will influence employee desire to remain with the organization. Those
with high lev- els of values enactment will stay employed in the organization,
whereas employees who do not agree with or support the values of the company
will be likely to exit the organization,
816
often
to find a place of employment that might better match their own values philosophy.
Of course, this pertains only to the context of voluntary turnover, and not
to involuntary turnover, when the decision for individuals to exit is made
by the organization. However, it is important to note that there may be situations
in which the enactment of core values may not reflect a strong alignment between
underlying individual and organiza- tional values. Employees may appear to
embrace organizational values perhaps because of overlearned scripts (e.g.,
such as a nurse as subservient to doctors in hospitals) or con- sciously chosen
deceit. Hewlin (2003) proposed the concept of “facades of conformity” or false representations by employees, in which some employees may perceive
the need to sup- press their own values and pretend to embrace organizational
values. Despite this possibil- ity, individuals who take this route of a facade
of conformity in enacting the core values (e.g., maybe because of financial
concerns and the desire to keep employment) would still be more likely to
stay with the organization than those who do not enact the core organizational
val- ues. Summarizing the above arguments, we hypothesized the following:
Hypothesis 5: Employees who demonstrate high levels of values enactment will
be less likely to voluntarily leave the organization. Employee promotion.
For those employees who remain with the organization, an impor- tant consideration
is the connection between values enactment and rewards such as promo- tions.
Trevino et al. specifically argued that “using rewards and discipline
effectively may be the most powerful way to send signals about desirable and
undesirable conduct. That means rewarding those who accomplish their goals
by behaving in ways that are consistent with stated values” (2000: 133).
This is an important aspect underlying social learning theory and could be
accomplished through the process of awarding promotions to those with high
lev- els of values enactment. Bretz and Judge (1994) found that strong congruence
between orga- nizational and personal values was associated with greater rewards
in the organization (e.g., salary increases and promotions). These findings
are supported by the Shore et al. study (1995) that indicated that when managers
perceived a high degree of alignment between individual and organizational
values, they rated those employees as more likely to be pro- moted and as
having more managerial potential. The Attraction-Selection-Attrition Model
(ASA; Schneider, 1987) also suggests that individ- uals working within a certain
work group or organization will tend to become homogeneous in their values
over time relative to those outside the work group or organization. This occurs
for a variety of reasons, one of which is the promotion process, in which
organizations promote those individuals who are performing to the expectations
and requirements of their job positions. An important strategy for organizations
that are committed to encouraging employees to enact core values is to promote
employees who demonstrate high levels of values enactment into leadership
positions and/or positions with greater job responsibilities. Promoting indi-
viduals who enact the values of the organization extends the concept of P-O
fit (Chatman, 1989; O'Reilly et al., 1991) by directing attention to the “match” between employee behav- iors and explicit core organizational values as a
determinant of promotion decisions. Indeed, value congruence has become accepted
as one of the key components of P-O fit (Kristof- Brown et al., 2005). A high
degree of P-O fit will likely be apparent to the employer and the
817
employee's
manager through the employee's behaviors that signal a high degree of fit
(e.g., verbal interactions, showing enthusiasm for new assignments, etc.).
Given values enactment is measured as part of the performance appraisal process
in the organization under study, those individuals who determine promotions
will be able to identify the employees whose values fit the values of the
organization, and as such, promote them over those who have lesser fit. Hence,
we hypothesized the following: Hypothesis 6: Employees who demonstrate high
levels of values enactment will be more likely to be promoted within the organization.
Interactive effect of department and individual values enactment on turnover
and promo- tion. The concept of fit that is developed in the previous section
pertains to the fit between the values of individual employees and those of
the organization, or P-O fit. However, we also considered the possibility
that the level of values enactment in the department could moderate these
relationships. In other words, it is possible that increases in employee values
enactment (or increases in P-O fit with respect to values) will lead to decreases
in turnover and increases in promotion as long as departments share the organization's
values (i.e., as long as P-G fit is also present). However, in departments
in which the aggregated coworker values indicate that the department does
not share the organization's values (i.e., is low on value enactment), then
such departments might undermine the organizational strategy of rewarding
(e.g., promoting) those employees who enact organizational values because
those employees are not conforming to the departmental values (i.e., group
values) that deviate from the organizational values. Also, if an employee
is enacting the organization's values (i.e., has a high degree of P-O fit
with respect to values) and finds himself or herself in a department that
fails to enact these values, then such a mismatch (or a lack of P-G fit) could
certainly frustrate the employee to the point of deciding to voluntarily depart
from the orga- nization. Thus, issues of P-G fit with respect to values enactment
have implications for the importance of person-department fit in the current
study. With regard to P-G fit, Kristof-Brown et al. stated that “despite
high levels of interest in coworker similarity on demographic variables .
. . little research has emphasized how the psychological compatibility between
coworkers influences individual outcomes in group set- tings” (2005:
286). However, recent theoretical and empirical work suggest that person-
department, or P-G fit, have important consequences for individual-level work
outcomes such as commitment and turnover intentions (Arrow, McGrath, & Berdahl, 2000; Beersma, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, Moon, Conlon, & Ilgen, 2003; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Wheeler, Gallagher, Brouer, & Sablynski, 2007).
Also, research by Harrison, Price, and Bell (1998) has suggested that P-G
fit in terms of deep-level characteristics, such as the values studied here,
should be more important for determining work outcomes (e.g., turnover and
promo- tion) in comparison to what have been called surface-level attributes,
such as demographics. Furthermore, the finding by Bretz and Judge (1994) of
a strong congruence between orga- nizational and personal values being associated
with greater rewards in the organization can be applied directly to promotions
within departmental contexts in the current study. One could argue that employees
will be more likely to be promoted when their level of values enactment matches
the general level of values enactment for the department within which
818
they
work. The same type of logic applies to turnover. If the level of employees'
values enactment does not match that of their department, these individuals
will likely detect and experience the lack of fit and thus be more likely
to voluntarily leave the organization. This idea is supported by the Kristof-Brown
et al. (2005) meta-analysis, which indicated that P-G fit was related to lower
levels of intentions to quit. To the extent that one's department (or group)
may influence an individual's fate within an organization, we assumed that
as individual employees conformed to and thus enacted the orga- nization's
core values, there would be a corresponding decrease in the likelihood of
turnover and an increase in the likelihood of promotion as long as the department
also enacted the organiza- tion's core values. Under the condition in which
a department does not conform and enact the organization's core values, then
as individuals within that department enact the organization's core values,
they are essentially deviating from departmental values while conforming to
orga- nizational values. If such individuals are seen as nonconformist or
deviant within their own departments, then those individuals would not “fit” with their department and could be less likely to be promoted. This mismatch
between an individual enacting the organization's core values within a department
that is low on values enactment could also result in the individual leaving
the organization. Therefore, to the extent that conforming to one's departmental
values influences turnover and promotion, we assumed that departmental values
would moderate the relationship between individual values enactment and turnover,
and between individual values enactment and promotions. The specific hypotheses
were as follows: Hypothesis 7a: There will be an interaction between department
values and individual values enact- ment when predicting voluntary employee
turnover, such that as individual values enactment increases, there will be
a corresponding decrease in the likelihood of individual employee turnover
when departments also enact the organization's values. Alternatively, when
depart- ments do not enact the organization's values, there will be an increase
in the likelihood of indi- vidual employee turnover as individual values enactment
increases. Hypothesis 7b: There will be an interaction between department
values and individual values enact- ment when predicting employee promotions,
such that as individual values enactment increases, there will be a corresponding
increase in the likelihood of employee promotion when depart- ments also enact
the organization's values. Alternatively, when departments do not enact the
organization's values, there will be a decrease in the likelihood of employee
promotion as indi- vidual values enactment increases. Method Participants
and Procedure The participants for this study consisted of 2,622 employees
from a community-based, not-for-profit hospital located in the northwestern
United States who worked in a variety of departments and positions throughout
all levels of the organization (e.g., nurses, physicians, physical therapists,
administrators, pharmacists, and support and service staff). The physi- cians
in the study are employed by the hospital; they are not physicians who are
not employed by the hospital yet have medical privileges at the facility.
819
The
data were obtained from official personnel records that were collected as
a part of the annual performance appraisal process for the organization in
2001. The performance ratings were conducted by each employee's direct supervisor.
Turnover and promotion data included a 2-year period (2002-2003) that followed
the performance appraisal. Thus, the data allowed for a desirable time lag
between the measurement of the independent variables and the outcome variables
(voluntary turnover and promotion). The sample was 85% female with an average
age of 45.26 years (SD = 10.92) and an average tenure of 10.13 years (SD =
7.67). In this sample, there were 108 departments and 144 managers. The departments
ranged in size from 2 to 229 members, with a mean department size of 24.28
and a median department size of 14. Measures Dependent variables. Values enactment
was measured using ratings on five items, each representing one of the five
core values identified in the organization. The five core values and their
descriptions (obtained from organizational documentation) included the following:
(a) respect—recognizing and valuing others' points of views, strengths,
and contributions; (b) compassion—recognizing and responding to emotional
needs of others; (c) integrity— earning confidence and inspiring trust
by telling the truth and acting consistent with one's own values and organizational
values; (d) teamwork—working effectively together to accomplish a common
goal (the term team may include coworkers, shift, work group, department,
pro- ject group, or cross-functional group); and (e) excellence—constantly
striving to improve personal performance and make a greater contribution to
the organization. Each item was rated on the following 5-point scale: 1 =
ineffective, 2 = developing, 3 = fully effective, 4 = consistently exceeds; and 5 = role model. Higher scores indicate a higher level of values enactment.
A composite score was calculated as the average of this multi-item scale,
and the alpha estimate of reliability for this measure was .86. In addition
to completing an annual performance appraisal on task performance (i.e., employee
performance in a specific job), the organization also annually conducts an
appraisal relating to how well the employee is enacting the core values noted
above. This rat- ing of values enactment is used in conjunction with the task
performance appraisal for deci- sion making on items such as salaries and
promotions. In the values enactment appraisal, managers assess the extent
to which the employee being rated demonstrated each of the five values. The
rating form included a comment section in which raters could cite specific
job- related examples and sources related to each value. They were told to
consider the following sources of information when making the evaluations:
direct observation; related documenta- tion; and peer, customer, and interdepartmental
feedback. The rating form provided behav- ioral examples that might be displayed
at various levels of the rating scale. Some example behaviors that were included
on the rating form under the value of teamwork are as follows: “Disengages
or removes oneself from the team” is an ineffective behavior (indicative
of a rat- ing of 1 on the 5-point scale), “takes advantage of opportunities
to improve relationship(s) with team members” is a fully effective behavior
(rating of 3), and “creates opportunities to improve relationship(s)
with team members” is a role model behavior (rating of 5). Additional
sample behaviors for all five values dimensions can be found in the Appendix.
820
Employee
turnover was measured using a dichotomous variable that indicated employee
separation from the organization for a specific employee in the two performance
appraisal periods following the initial performance rating (coded as follows:
not separated = 0, vol- untarily separated = 1). For the purpose of this study,
only voluntary turnover was used (as indicated in the development of Hypotheses
5 and 7a). Employee promotion was measured using a dichotomous variable that
indicated employee promotion within the organization in the two performance
appraisal periods following the initial performance rating (coded as follows:
not promoted = 0, promoted = 1). Independent variables. Tenure was measured
as a continuous variable of years of service to the organization. Manager
values enactment was assessed using the same values enactment measure out-
lined above. This variable represents the values enactment rating of each
employee's indi- vidual manager as rated by that manager's manager (averaged
across the five values enactment items). Higher scores indicate a higher level
of manager values enactment. A department values enactment measure was created
by calculating the average values enact- ment rating across all of the members
of each employee's individual department, including the employee and the employee's
manager. Higher scores on this measure indicate a higher average level of
values enactment within that department. Control variables. Control variables
were included to account for important individual- level variables that might
influence the dependent variables in the study. For example, research in domains
related to employee values enactment, such as OCB, traditionally include age
and gender as control variables (e.g., Aquino & Bommer, 2003; Chattopadhyay,
1991; Cropanzano, Rupp, & Byrne, 2003; Diefendorff, Brown, Kamin, & Lord, 2002). As such, age (number of years) and gender (coded as follows:
male = 0, female = 1) were included as control variables in this study. A
measure of task performance was also included as a control variable when examining
turnover and promotion to verify that effects of values, if found, were not
simply the result of task performance. This variable, a rating of overall
goal accomplishment on task perfor- mance, was measured on a 5-point scale
ranging from did not achieve goals (1) to achieved all goals (5). Performance
goals are mutually set on an annual basis by each employee with his or her
manager. The ratings reflect the degree to which those task performance goals
have been accomplished. Hence, we controlled for the influence of performance
on daily job tasks to better focus on the independent impact of values enactment
in the proposed hypotheses. Analysis In developing arguments grounded in the
tenets of social learning theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986), P-O fit (Chatman,
1989), P-G fit (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), previous research on values in
organizational contexts (Bretz & Judge, 1994), and ASA models of employee
adap- tation to organizational environments (Schneider, 1987), we hypothesized
that group-level (or rather in this study departmental-level) and individual-level
variables would affect individual
821
values
enactment. We also hypothesized that the level of individual values enactment
would affect subsequent organizational outcomes at the individual level, specifically
pro- motion and voluntary turnover. This would provide for a basic mediation
model to describe an organizational chain of events were it not for the fact
that (a) several moderated relation- ships were hypothesized a priori, (b)
the data were nonindependent (i.e., nested within departments), and (c) higher-level
variables such as departmental values were hypothesized to exert both main
effects and moderating influences. Because ordinary least squares (OLS) regression
procedures do not account for the non- independence of nested data, the use
of OLS regression for analyzing nested data is inap- propriate as it increases
both Type I (when analyzing group-level effects) and Type II (when analyzing
individual-level effects) errors (Bliese & Hanges, 2004). Thus, we used
the advan- tages of hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) procedures (also known
as random coefficient modeling, or RCM) advocated by Bliese and Hanges (2004).
HLM appropriately models the nonindependence of nested data when testing for
both main and moderating effects among group-level as well as individual-level
variables and thus is more appropriate as a statistical procedure than OLS
regression when analyzing nested data (e.g., when individual employ- ees are
nested within organizational departments as in the current study) (Bliese,
2000). For both methodological and conceptual reasons we chose to grand-mean
center the vari- ables prior to conducting HLM analyses. Grand-mean centering
is particularly helpful in reducing correlations among main-effect terms,
interactive terms, and random-effect terms (Bliese, 2005). In addition, we
thought the relative standing of an individual within the depart- ment on
values enactment was less important than the individual's absolute standing
on the values enactment rating scale. The absolute level on the values enactment
rating scale was of primary conceptual importance because the levels were
anchored in a performance appraisal system (i.e., 1 = ineffective, 2 = developing,
3 = fully effective, 4 = consistently exceeds, and 5 = role model) that likely
influenced organizational rewards (e.g., promotion possibilities) and voluntary
turnover decisions. Under these conditions, in which it is theorized that
the absolute level is more important than the relative level of values enactment,
grand-mean cen- tering is preferable to group mean centering (Kreft, De Leeuw,
& Aiken, 1995).1 Results Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations,
and intercorrelations among the items used to measure individual values enactment,
along with the average individual values scale score. Table 2 displays the
means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among all of the study variables.
Hypothesis Testing: Prediction of Individual Values Enactment Our first set
of hypotheses dealt with the prediction of individual employee values enact-
ment by tenure (Hypothesis 1), manager values enactment (Hypothesis 2), and
department values enactment (Hypothesis 3). These three primary antecedents
were all expected to exert a positive influence on individual employee values
enactment such that as these antecedents increased, we anticipated corresponding
increases in individual employee values enactment.
822
Table
1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of Individual Values
Enactment Ratings
Note:
N = 2,622. Ratings on each value were provided on the following 5-point scale:
1 = ineffective, 2 = develop- ing, 3 = fully effective, 4 = consistently exceeds,
and 5 = role model. The coefficient alpha estimate of reliability for this
scale was .86. Individual values were calculated by averaging the five ratings.
**p < .01 (two-tailed) Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations
of All Study Variables
Note
: N = 2,622. **p < .01 (two-tailed) In addition, we assumed that as department
size decreased, both manager and departmental values enactment would exert
stronger positive influences on individual employee values enactment. Thus,
we assumed that for smaller departments, there would be stronger positive
associations between manager and individual employee values enactment (Hypothesis
4a), and between departmental and individual employee values enactment (Hypothesis
4b). Using HLM, we tested for these three main effects as well as these two
interactions while controlling for employee gender and age. As a first step
in these analyses, we used HLM to calculate the interclass correlations 1
and 2 (ICC 1 and ICC 2) for departmental values, which were .14 and .64, respectively.
These results suggest that approximately 14% of the variance in individual
values enactment is accounted for by departmental membership and that the
mean departmental values enactment score was a reasonably reliable indicator
of
823
Table
3 Results From Hierarchical Linear Modeling Analysis—Predicting Individual-Level
Value Enactment
Note:
All variables were grand mean centered before conducting the analyses. **p
< .01 (two-tailed) department values enactment (i.e., the reliability estimate
for departmental values enactment was .64). Taken together, these ICCs provide
justification for the aggregation of individual val- ues enactment within
a department to generate a department-level values enactment variable. Table
3 and Figure 2 display the standardized results from the HLM analysis used
to test this first set of hypotheses. In Figure 2, note that “n.s.” connotes a nonsignificant relation- ship and that the arrows drawn from department
size to other arrows, specifically to the arrows that connect both manager
and department values enactment to individual values enactment, represent
moderator effects (i.e., tests of interactions). Clearly, from Figure 2 it
can be seen that there were no significant interactions between department
size and manager and departmental values enactment. Consequently, to avoid
multicollinearity with nonsignificant interaction terms, the standardized
estimates in Figure 2 (and reported in Table 3) were obtained from the HLM
analysis that included only main effect terms (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). From
Figure 2 it can also be seen that gender, age, manager values enactment, and
depart- ment size all had nonsignificant relationships with individual values.
However, both tenure and departmental values enactment were significant predictors
of individual values enact- ment, and in the hypothesized directions. Specifically,
as employee tenure increased, there was a corresponding increase in individual
values enactment (β = .18, p < .01), most likely because of the increased
opportunities gained over time by employees with more tenure to acquire and
subsequently enact the organization's core values. Furthermore, departments
exerted a socializing influence on their individual employee members such
that as depart- mental values enactment increased, there was a corresponding
increase in individual employee values enactment (β = .36, p < .01).
In sum, the significant results for tenure and departmental values enactment
suggest that the collective effects of enacted coworker values appear to exert
a socializing influence on individual members within the same department,
which affects the learning of core values by these individual members. Thus,
support was found for Hypotheses 1 and 3, but not for Hypotheses 2, 4a, and
4b.2 The estimated percentage of variance explained in individual values enactment
was 18%. To calculate this effect size, we used results from the HLM analysis
to obtain betas for each predictor and results from the HLM analysis to obtain
the correlation between each predictor
824
Figure
2 Standardized Results From the HLM Analysis Used to Predict Individual Values
Enactment
Note:
HLM = hierarchical linear modeling; n.s. = nonsignificant. **p < .01 (two-tailed)
and the criterion while taking into account the nested and nonindependent
nature of the data. We then applied the formula for calculating R2 from these
estimates available in Cohen and Cohen (1983: 100). Thus, this effect size
estimates the amount of variance explained in indi- vidual differences in
the three criteria investigated in this study, (a) individual values enact-
ment, (b) individual-level voluntary turnover, and (c) individual-level promotions,
and are very similar in interpretation to traditional R2 values obtained in
OLS regression. Hypothesis Testing: Prediction of Individual-Level Outcomes
We developed a number of hypotheses, specifically Hypotheses 5, 6, 7a, and
7b, which involved individual-level outcomes (i.e., voluntary turnover and
promotion) that could be influenced by individual values enactment, as well
as by departmental values enactment. Because the organization had made values
enactment a formal part of its performance eval- uation procedures, we assumed
that those individuals who were higher on values enactment, and thus conformed
to the organization's core values, would be more likely to remain with the
organization (i.e., be less likely to turnover; Hypothesis 5). Likewise, we
also assumed that individuals with higher levels of values enactment would
be more likely to be promoted within the organization given they embody the
core values that the organization desires to endorse among its constituents
(Hypothesis 6). However, we also considered the possibility that departmental
values enactment could moderate these relationships. Specifically, to the
extent that the department may influence an individual's fate within an organization,
we assumed that as individual employees con- formed to and thus enacted the
organization's core values, there would be a corresponding decrease in the
likelihood of turnover and an increase in the likelihood of promotion as long
825
Table
4 Results From Hierarchical Linear Modeling Analysis—Predicting Individual-Level
Voluntary Turnover
Note:
All variables were grand mean centered before conducting the analyses. *p
< .05 (two-tailed) **p < .01 (two-tailed) as the department also enacted
the organization's core values (Hypothesis 7a and Hypothesis 7b, respectively).
Under the condition in which a department does not enact or conform to the
organization's core values, then as individuals within that department enact
the organi- zation's core values, they are essentially deviating from departmental
values while conform- ing to organizational values. If such deviations from
the department result in a lack of “fit” with the department,
then such individuals could be more likely to voluntarily leave the orga-
nization (Hypothesis 7a). This mismatch between an individual enacting the
organization's core values within a department that is low on values enactment
could also result in such an individual employee being less likely to be promoted
(Hypothesis 7b). Tables 4 and 5 and Figures 3 and 4 display the standardized
results from the HLM analy- ses used to test this second set of hypotheses.
In these HLM analyses, task performance was controlled for statistically,
and the relationship (i.e., slope and intercept) between individual values
enactment and the outcome of interest (i.e., voluntary turnover and promotion)
was allowed to vary across departments. Again, note that “n.s.” connotes a nonsignificant rela- tionship in the figures. From Figure 3, it
can be seen that departmental values enactment did not moderate the relationship
between individual values enactment and voluntary turnover (i.e., there was
not a significant interaction), and thus Hypothesis 7a was not supported.
As before, to avoid mul- ticollinearity with the nonsignificant interaction
term, the standardized estimates in Table 4 and Figure 3 were obtained from
the HLM analysis that included only main effect terms (Cohen & Cohen,
1983). The results reveal that two of the control variables, age and task
performance, both had significant negative relationships with voluntary turnover,
whereas the third control variable, gender, had no relationship with voluntary
turnover. Manager val- ues enactment and department size both had nonsignificant
relationships with voluntary turnover. However, tenure, individual values
enactment, and department values enactment were all significant predictors
of voluntary turnover.
826
Table
5 Results From Hierarchical Linear Modeling Analysis—Predicting Individual-Level
Promotions
Note:
All variables were grand mean centered before conducting the analyses. *p
< .05 (two-tailed) **p < .01 (two-tailed) Figure 3 Standardized Results
From the HLM Analysis Used to Predict Individual-Level Voluntary Turnover
Note:
HLM = hierarchical linear modeling; n.s. = nonsignificant; Mgr. = manager; Dept. = department. **p < .01 (two-tailed) Specifically, as employee tenure
increased, there was a corresponding decrease in volun- tary turnover (β = –.12, p < .01). As predicted, increases in individual values enactment
led to corresponding decreases in turnover (β = –.13, p < .01),
providing support for Hypothesis 5.
827
Figure
4 Standardized Results From the HLM Analysis Used to Predict Individual-Level
Promotions
Note:
HLM = hierarchical linear modeling; Mgr. = manager; Dept. = department. *p
< .05 (two-tailed) **p < .01 (two-tailed) Thus, as predicted, as individuals
enacted the organization's core values, they were less likely to leave the
organization. The estimated percentage of variance explained in voluntary
turnover was 6% and was calculated using the same procedure described previously
for indi- vidual values enactment. Clearly, in this case, one could argue
that the organization's incor- poration of a values enactment measurement
system into the formal performance evaluation process benefited the organization
at the individual level by retaining employees more likely to conform to the
organization's espoused values. Table 5 and Figure 4 show the results of HLM
analysis predicting promotions. We found that two of the three control variables
had significant relationships. Specifically, task performance had a significant
positive relationship with promotions, whereas age had a significant negative
relationship with promotions. Gender was not a significant predictor of promotions.
Manager values enactment had a significant negative relationship with promotions.
It should be acknowl- edged that the process by which promotions take place
is quite complex. For example, to gain a promotion, there must first be a
position opening for which the individual is qualified. Then, even if offered
the promotion, some individuals may choose not to accept it (e.g., because
of increased job responsibility or longer work hours). Also, given the context
of health care, hos- pital employees, particularly hospital physicians and
nurses, may prefer to work in finely tuned
828
departments
for which they have training and experience; however, promotions in those
depart- ments can be infrequent. On the other hand, often promotions mean
an increase in paperwork and administrative duties and less contact with patients.
Many health care professionals define their work as patient-centered and would
be unhappy without having patient contact. Also, hos- pital physicians frequently
are paid a salary plus a percentage of the department's patient rev- enue
generated by them. To stop or decrease seeing patients because of a promotion
could potentially mean a pay decrease. Consequently, being a manager or department
head would not result in increased status. Therefore, those having higher
levels of values enactment who are rewarded with promotional opportunities
may still be less likely to be promoted because of some combination of these
factors. It might be especially true that when an employee has a manager with
a high level of values enactment, he or she might prefer to stay in the current
position under that manager rather than being promoted. Table 5 and Figure
4 also illustrate that tenure, department size, department values enact- ment,
and individual values enactment all had nonsignificant relationships with
promotions. Thus, Hypothesis 6 was not supported as individual values enactment
did not predict pro- motions. However, individual values and department values
enactment did interact signifi- cantly in the prediction of promotions (β = .06, p < .01), thereby providing support for Hypothesis 7b. Thus, the
relationship (i.e., slope) between individual values enactment and promotion
was found to vary significantly across departments as a result of differences
in departmental values enactment. We found that the cross-level interaction
between individual and departmental values enactment explained 27.5% of the
variance in these slopes (see Bliese, 2005). Note that this estimate is interpreted
slightly differently from traditional effect size estimates as it deals specifically
with explaining variance in slopes across departments. However, the estimated
percentage of variance explained in individual-level promotions from these
results was 2% and was calculated as described previously using results from
the HLM analysis (betas and correlations) and Cohen and Cohen (1983: 100).
Figure 5 presents the pattern of this cross-level interaction, graphed at
plus and minus two standard deviations on the departmental values enactment
variable. As noted earlier, method- ologists have recommended verifying cross-level
interactions obtained under conditions of grand-mean centering with a group-mean
centering procedure (Enders & Tofighi, 2007; Hofmann & Gavin, 1998).
We followed this recommendation and found that the cross-level interaction,
which we obtained under the grand-mean centering procedure, remained statis-
tically significant and essentially identical in terms of the pattern of the
interaction under the group-mean centering procedure. Clearly, Figure 5 illustrates
that as individual values enactment increases, there is a cor- responding
increase in promotions for individual employees as long as they are within
departments that also enact the organization's core values. Alternatively,
as employees dis- played a high level of values enactment, there was a corresponding
decrease in promotions for those employees when they were located within departments
that failed to conform to the organization's core values (i.e., within departments
low on values enactment). This interac- tion may occur because employees high
on values enactment are misaligned (or mis- matched) with departments that
are low on values enactment. Indeed, such employees might be seen by departmental
members and departmental leaders as being disloyal or lacking in conformity
to the department by deviating from the departmental norms and thus are less
829
Figure
5 The Cross-Level Interaction of Individual and Departmental Values Enactment
in the Prediction of Individual-Level Promotions
likely
to be promoted because of such incongruence. These results provide support
for Hypothesis 7b, the moderating effect of departmental values enactment
on the relationship between individual values enactment and individual-level
promotions. To summarize, where there was a match or fit between individual
values enactment and departmental values enact- ment (i.e., the employee and
the department in which he or she worked both had high levels of values enactment,
or both had low levels of values enactment), then promotion was more likely
than when there was a mismatch or a lack of fit between individual values
enactment and departmental values enactment (i.e., the employee and the department
in which he or she worked had opposite levels of values enactment). It is
interesting to note that those individuals who clearly do not enact core organizational
values (low individual employee values enactment) but clearly are congruent
with their own department's values (low department values enactment) are as
likely to be promoted as those individuals who do enact core organizational
values (high individual employee values enact- ment) and are congruent with
their own department's values (high department values enact- ment). Note also
that at the middle point, middle individual values enactment/middle department
values enactment, where individual and departmental values enactment are neither
high nor low, promotion is not as likely as in the extreme congruent cases
described above (low individual values enactment/low department values enactment
and high individual values
830
enactment/high
department values enactment). This finding for middle individual values enactment/middle
department values enactment makes sense in terms of moderate promo- tion likelihood
when we assume departments have to be on either one of the extreme ends (low
or high) on values enactment for those values to be a defining and influential
feature of the department. Also, the noncongruent points of low individual
values enactment/high department values enactment and high individual values
enactment/low department values enactment are the very least likely to be
promoted. The results shown in Figure 5 indicate that the departmental influence
can be at odds with the organization's likely intention, which would be to
reward those who enact its values with promotions. An organization's attempt
to impart core values to individual employees and exert some control over
individual-level work behavior as a consequence is tempered by, and can even
be counteracted by, departmental-level influences. These results illustrate
that departments that resist conforming to the organization's core values
may actually actively prevent the promotion of those individuals within the
department who do conform to the organization's values. Discussion This research
represents a first attempt to empirically study a topic that is widely recog-
nized, discussed, and practiced within organizations. Today many organizations
are striving to establish their core values and incorporate those values into
the fabric of the business such that it helps to achieve organizational goals.
A sound and useful values-based management system is one that is centrally
concerned with formally defining responsibilities and associ- ated behaviors
that employees are expected to fulfill in relation to how a specific organiza-
tion has defined its mission and core values, measuring how well employees
have enacted these values, and then offering rewards to support values enactment.
In this study we examined values enactment and its antecedents and outcomes
at both individual and departmental levels. In predicting values enactment,
we found that tenure and departmental values were significant predictors of
individual values enactment. As employee tenure increased, there was a corresponding
increase in employee values enactment, proba- bly because of the increased
opportunities gained over time by employees with more tenure to acquire and
subsequently enact the organization's core values. In addition, departments
exerted an influence on their individual members such that as departmental
values enactment increased, there was a corresponding increase in individual
values enactment. We did not confirm the hypothesized positive effects of
manager values enactment on individual values enactment. These unexpected
results might have been influenced by the specific context of this research.
Within health care settings, where health care professionals tend to have
a high degree of autonomy and may interact less with managers, the effects
of one's peers and their behaviors may have a stronger influence than one's
manager. When predicting voluntary turnover, results indicate that as individual
values enactment increased, there was a corresponding decrease in individual-level
turnover. This correspon- dence between values and turnover at the individual
level of analysis suggests that incorpo- rating the measurement of values
enactment into the performance appraisal process is a
831
viable
organizational strategy for increasing retention of those employees who adhere
to the organization's value structure. When predicting promotions, we found
a cross-level interaction between departmental val- ues and individual values.
Results suggest that employees in departments whose level of values enactment
matches their own (a high level of department values enactment if individual
val- ues enactment is high or a low level of department values enactment if
individual values enactment is low) were the most likely to be promoted. This
result is of interest because it illustrates that a congruence of individual
values with departmental values (i.e., high P-G fit) leads to an increased
likelihood of promotion at the individual level. As one would expect, individuals
high in values enactment were likely to be promoted when working in depart-
ments that were also high in values enactment. However, individual employees
who were low in values enactment were also likely to be promoted as long as
they were working within departments that were low in values enactment. Also,
individual employees who were high in values enactment were not likely to
be promoted when working in departments that were low in values enactment.
Thus, when P-G fit was low, individual-level promotion was unlikely. Specifically,
when employees who enacted the core organizational values at higher levels
were found in departments that enacted values at lower levels (i.e., when
P-G fit was low), those employees' promotion likelihood was reduced. Thus,
the organizational strategy of attempting to promote individuals who show
high levels of enacting organizational values was undermined by departments
that did not enact the core organizational values and that promoted those
employees who actually did not enact the organization's core values (and yet
conformed to the department's low level of values enactment). These results
illustrate that shared departmental values matter and that departments that
do not embody organizational values can undermine organizational policy by
promoting those individual employees who also do not share organizational
values. This has interesting implications for ASA models, as adapting and
conforming to one's organization may con- flict with, or in some cases even
be opposed to, adapting to one's particular department espe- cially when the
department does not share the organization's core values. In sum, P-G fit
can be at odds with P-O fit, and future investigations should examine adaptation
at the depart- ment or group level that conflicts with adaptation at the organizational
level. This finding is especially interesting when considered in conjunction
with the fact that individual values enactment did not predict individual-level
promotion as a main effect. Thus, at least in this hospital setting, the cross-level
interaction reflecting the level of fit between individual values enactment
and department values enactment had more of an impact on whether or not an
employee would be promoted than the extent to which that employee enacted
the organization's values. Thus, at the individual-level of analysis, P-G
fit, or in this case person-department fit, certainly affects the individual-level
reward of promotion. Relational and political influences exerted by department
members may have an impact. Further study on the possibility of nonconformist
departments within organizational contexts should be investigated in terms
of both important individual-level (e.g., turnover and promo- tion) and department-level
(e.g., productivity, profits, shrinkage) outcomes. It would also be interesting
to look at departmental and organizational outcomes such as promotion and
turnover rates, productivity, profit, or customer satisfaction across departments
to examine the impact that departmental nonconformity to the organizational
values might have.
832
We
should note that the cross-level interaction described above was obtained
only in the prediction of promotion and not in the prediction of voluntary
turnover. This may have occurred because departments are better capable of
influencing promotion decisions than they are turnover decisions. This would
mean that “fitting” (or being congruent) with one's department
matters for promotion, but not as much for turnover. We could argue that turnover
is more multiply determined than promotion (i.e., has more antecedents and
exter- nal causes). For example, factors like continuance commitment may come
into play to pre- dict turnover, as do decisions to take another job to increase
one's salary or to meet the needs of one's family (e.g., moving to be near
parents that need to be attended to, or to be near grandchildren, etc.). Hiring
raids may also be a factor that affects turnover but not promo- tions. Health
care organizations frequently hire employees from other health care providers,
and it might be the case that in departments where the values enactment level
is high, indi- vidual employees in those departments might then become targets
of hiring raids by other organizations. This hiring raid influence in the
health care industry would help to explain the slight positive (albeit nonsignificant)
relationship between departmental values and individual-level turnover. Thus,
by acknowledging that turnover is multiply determined and that other factors
may exert influences on turnover, we may gain insight into why we did not
find the cross-level interaction between individual and departmental values
when predicting voluntary turnover. Promotions, on the other hand, are less
multiply determined than turnover, and thus departments have a “say” (either formally or informally, depending on organizational pro- motion policies)
in promotion decisions. In this context, “fitting” with one's
department can matter for one's promotion opportunities, as we found in this
study. Departmental members inevitably have social and relational influences
on which members of the department will be promoted. Departments can reward
the members who match the level of values demonstrated within the department
(even if those values stand in contrast to those of the organization). Further
studies should investigate whether this interaction of departmental and individual
values in the prediction of promotions and other rewards (e.g., raises) generalizes
to other types of organizations. Theoretical and Practical Implications There
are a number of important theoretical and practical implications of these
findings. We grounded our research in a social learning perspective and by
doing so identified several important factors that influence employee values
enactment. First, our analyses indicated that departmental membership influences
values enactment. Departmental coworkers appear to act as role models who
exert a socializing influence on other departmental members that affects their
enactment of core organizational values. In addition, over time, as exposure
to these social influences increases as a result of increased tenure with
the organization, enact- ment of the organizational values increases as well.
Departmental coworkers may create a shared social context that enhances employee
learning and the enactment of the core values. Hence, our study has implications
for managing organizational culture and for understand- ing departmental subcultures
that can support or counteract organizational initiatives.
833
We
found that higher levels of employee values enactment were associated with
reduced voluntary turnover. To the extent that the underlying processes of
turnover reinforce the dynamic cycle of ASA (Schneider, 1987; Schneider, et
al., 1995) and the salience of espoused organizational values throughout the
organization, there is a greater likelihood that these values will become
an integral part of the culture of the organization. Those who leave the organization
will tend to be individuals for which the alignment of individual and orga-
nizational values is not as strong (Chatman, 1991; O'Reilly et al., 1991; Schneider, 1987), whereas those who remain are likely to have a stronger alignment
with the values. A company can further this aim of developing a culture that
reflects the espoused values of the organization by disciplining and potentially
eliminating those employees who are not enact- ing the core organizational
values (i.e., via involuntary turnover). This can be done by incor- porating
measures of values enactment into the performance evaluation system to clearly
record desirable and undesirable behaviors (Kronzon, 2002). Furthermore, if
the organiza- tion promotes individuals into leadership/supervisory roles
who have demonstrated a stronger alignment with organizational values, a culture
that supports the core values of the organization can be developed and strengthened
over time. However, our findings indicate that organizations must attend to
the possibility that indi- vidual departments can generate subcultures that
do not conform to desired organizational standards. Thus, to counteract the
influence of these nonconforming departments on the pro- motion of those employees
who do not enact the organization's desired values, companies may consider
incorporating a review of promotion decisions at higher organizational levels
to verify that such promotions advance organizational strategies. Future research
should explore the impact of organizational culture and managerial decisions
and rewards on values enactment and subsequently on the outcomes of turnover
and promotion at both individual and departmental levels. Future research
should also consider the possibility that depart- ments can create subcultures
that oppose organizational values and that influence individual- level rewards
and outcomes in a manner that does not benefit the organization. Another implication
of this research relates to making values enactment an explicitly measured
and rewarded aspect of the performance appraisal process. Too often the values
of organizations show up on laminated cards or wall plaques, rarely heard
or seen. Goodman and Svyantek (1999) argued that in the current environment
where psychological contracts between employees and organizations have been
influenced by downsizings and corporate scandals, employees pay a great deal
of attention to what is measured and rewarded. As such, there are powerful
reasons why organizations should want to reinforce and reward employ- ees
and departments that exhibit strong values enactment. If organizations truly
want their employees to enact the values, then they will need to incorporate
this concept directly into their performance management system (Welch, 2005).
Limitations and Future Research Researchers have rarely measured the enactment
of core values and have yet to empirically investigate its organizational
consequences systematically. Nonetheless, practitioners and organiza- tions
have clearly moved forward in advancing values-based management, and thus
organizations
834
are
moving ahead with this practice in advance of much empirical support. The
organization rep- resented in this study directly rates its employees on the
extent to which they enact the organi- zation's core values, and the inclusion
of this rating system into the appraisal process appears to be value-added
for reducing voluntary turnover among those individual employees that adhere
to the organization's values. One limitation of the current study was the
fact that we could not obtain measures of nontask performance beyond values
enactment such as contextual perfor- mance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994) and organizational citi- zenship behavior
(Organ, 1988, 1997; Organ & Ryan, 1995). Such measures would have allowed
us to assess the relative influence of values enactment, task performance,
and nontask performance on employee turnover and promotion. As such, organizational
researchers should consider expanding current notions of performance beyond
the previous conceptions and models of job performance (e.g., Campbell, 1990; Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager, 1993; Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000)
to include values enactment. Future research on values enactment should build
on the strengths and insights of this research and more closely investigate
the nature of the relationship between values enactment, task and nontask
performance, and other impor- tant organizational variables (e.g., counterproductive
work behavior and employee work atti- tudes, such as organizational commitment).
We must also acknowledge the fact that although we were able to determine
with these data that some departments enacted organizational values more so
than others, and some individual employees enacted the values more so than
others, more normative data across various organizations, or across various
geographic locations within a larger organization, would be needed to better
determine the degree to which this particular hospital enacted its own core
values. For example, if we had 20 different hospitals and clinics within a
large medical organization, we would be more capable of determining the extent
to which each location enacts the core organizational values via cross-location
comparisons and whether mean shifts in values enactment across the different
locations are associated with changes in organizational effectiveness at those
locations (e.g., customer service ratings, annual turnover rate, number of
malpractice lawsuits, etc.). In addition, because the core values examined
here were ones such as respect, compas- sion, and integrity, which are very
likely to be universally desirable values, we hypothesized and found increased
values enactment to be associated with increased positive consequences (e.g.,
reduced turnover). Nonetheless, it does not logically follow that enhanced
values enactment in all organizations will always lead to enhanced organizational
effectiveness. Different organizations may choose different core values to
support their different organiza- tional missions, and these core values may
be misaligned with the mission, and thus unsup- portive of the mission, or
their enactment within the organization may lead to unintended consequences.
For example, in a new entrepreneurial start-up, a young organization may set
as its core values assertiveness and competitiveness to support its mission
of organizational growth and enhanced market share. However, as assertiveness
and competitiveness values are enacted within the organization, they can lead
to unintended negative consequences, such as interteam competitiveness, employee
rivalries, and workplace stress. Future research should investigate the extent
to which a change in the core values (e.g., from compassion to competitiveness)
moderates the relationship between values enactment and positive organi- zational
outcomes (e.g., reduced turnover).
835
Additional
research in this area might also be aimed at conceptualizing a richer array
of considerations that would likely affect employee values enactment. For
example, a promis- ing area to draw on is the work on organizational identification
(Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell, 2002; Dutton,
Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Pratt, 1998). Dutton et al. defined organizational
identification as “a cognitive linking between the defin- ition of the
organization and the definition of self” (1994: 242). Dukerich et al.
noted that when organizational identification is strong, members of organizations
are more likely to “consider worthy the central, distinctive, and enduring
values and goals of the organization and incorporate these into their sense
of self” (2002: 509). Dukerich et al. (2002) found that physicians with
a stronger sense of organizational identification were more likely to engage
in organizational citizenship behaviors. Drawing from this research, it is
fully possible that strong identification with an organization might motivate
employees to enact organizational values in their work. Future research should
examine psychological commitment to the orga- nizational values as well as
the manifestation of values in behavior, or values enactment. There are other
factors at the departmental or organizational level that may influence val-
ues enactment. We found that the level of values enactment within one's departmental
unit affected employee values enactment. Beyond one's immediate department,
there may be important higher organizational-level influences on employee
values enactment from the top management team. Many look to the top management
team to assess how seriously the orga- nization pays attention to espoused
values (AMA, 2002; Cha & Edmondson, 2006; Trevino et al., 2000.) In the
Aspen Institute 2002 study, 85% of respondents reported that their com- panies
rely on explicit CEO support to reinforce values, and 77% stated that this
support is the most effective practice (among many cited) for reinforcing
organizational values (Van Lee et al., 2002). When employees work in a context
where the top management team is enacting the values of the organization,
this may strengthen the belief that top management is leading by example and
enacting core organizational values, which may in turn motivate employees
to do the same. When employees perceive a disconnection between what execu-
tives say and what they do, then employees are more likely to make attributions
of leader- ship hypocrisy and become disenchanted (Cha & Edmondson, 2006).
Thus, in future research, it would be advantageous to include an assessment
of the extent to which employ- ees perceive their top management members as
enacting the organization's values. Future research could also address the
way in which values enactment is measured. In the current study, the rating
scale for measuring values enactment was as follows: 1 = ineffec- tive, 2
= developing, 3 = fully effective, 4 = consistently exceeds, and 5 = role
model. One could question whether “consistently exceeds” is really
semantically less than that obtained by “role model[s]” in organizations.
In other words, what causes an employee to be identi- fied as a “role
model” within the organization, and how can an employee truly go beyond “consistently
exceeding” expectations, except to do so all the time? In this study,
we used the organization's measurement of employee values enactment, and we
should emphasize the fact that the scale was behaviorally anchored to distinguish
fully effective values enact- ment from being a role model (see Appendix),
but future research could include additional measures of values enactment
to generate evidence of convergent validity. Finally, we see potential in
considering other individual-level outcomes beyond employee turnover and promotion.
Researchers might study how values enactment is related to other
836
rewards
such as salary increases or appointments to critical committees and task assign-
ments. Another outcome variable worth exploring is trust (cf. special issues
in Academy of Management Review [Sitkin, Rousseau, Burt, & Camerer, 1998]
and Organization Science [McEvily, Perrone, & Zaheer, 2003]). Systems
that measure values enactment and reward employees for high levels of values
enactment may enhance trust at the individual, depart- mental, and organizational
levels when employees' efforts are explicitly recognized and rewarded for
fulfilling the mission and values of the organization. This may have special
sig- nificance, because in a number of contexts, the development of such trust
may be critical to a variety of organizational objectives, including the fulfillment
of the organizational mission, enabling complex coordination of work practices,
and enhancing organizational performance (Calton & Lad, 1995; Korsgaard,
Schweiger, & Sapienza, 1995; Wicks, Berman, & Jones, 1999). However,
if values enactment is recognized through the performance evaluation sys-
tem but is not weighed and rewarded to the same degree as task performance,
there is a risk that employees will become cynical and distrustful about the
importance of these values. Given the importance of these values to trust
and other dimensions of organizational perfor- mance, such cynicism could
have considerable negative impact for managers and firms. Conclusion A challenge
for any organization attempting to put its core values into practice is to
find meaningful ways to institutionalize these values. As Selznick (1992)
cautioned, the mission and values of organizations are precarious and must
be integrated into the core structures and processes of the organization to
persist and influence individual and organizational behavior. Collins and
Porras pressed this point more forcefully when they argued, “Intentions
are all fine and good, but it is the translation of those intentions into
concrete items—mechanisms with teeth—that can make the difference
between becoming a visionary company or forever remaining a wannabe” (1994: 87). As more and more organizations consider how to encour- age departments,
managers, and employees to enact their core organizational values, our research
should help guide these efforts and motivate researchers and practitioners
to further explore this critical topic.
837
Appendix
Portion of Values Enactment Measure
838
Notes
1. However, we thought
the relative standing of an individual on values enactment within his or her
department may also be important (although less so than absolute level); we agreed with assertions of methodologists that where cross-level interactions
are found in hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) using grand-mean centering,
these would be verified with group-mean centering analyses of the same interaction
(P. Bliese, personal communication, June 14, 2005; Enders & Tofighi,
2007; Hofmann & Gavin, 1998). Thus, our cross-level interaction found
under conditions of grand-mean centering (β = .06, t = 3.1238,
p < .01) was verified with group-mean centering procedures recommended
by Enders and Tofighi (2007) and Bliese (2005, Multilevel Modeling in R, 2.1).
When group-mean centering, we found the cross-level interaction remained
statistically significant (β = .13, t = 2.038, p < .05).
2. We also calculated another
mean for departmental values enactment that excluded the employee's values
enactment rating and the values enactment rating of the employee's manager.
This procedure of excluding the data 839from the focal employee and that
employee's manager allows for reduced circularity or dependence of the data
and provides another test of the impact of contextual or higher level constructs
(e.g., collective coworker values) on individual-level constructs (e.g., employee
values; Choi, 2003). In this case, the aim was to examine the effect of departmental-level
values on employee values enactment independent of the target employee's values
and his or her manager's values. This helped to verify the HLM findings for
Hypothesis 3. This computation of departmental values enactment follows the
same techniques used by other management researchers (Glomb & Liao, 2003; Glomb, Richman, Hulin, Drasgow, Schneider, & Fitzgerald, 1997; Richman-Hirsch
& Glomb, 2002; Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1998). When calculating
departmental values in this fashion, we found that the correlation between
departmental values enactment and individual values enactment was .26,
p < .001. Thus, circularity and dependence of data cannot be used to
explain the influence of departmental coworker values on the formation of
employee values within that department.
References
American Management Association. 2002. Corporate values survey. Retrieved August 15, 2007, from http://www.amanet.org/research/archive.htm
Anderson, C. 1997. Values-based management. Academy of Management
Executive, 11: 25-46.
Aquino, K.,
& Bommer, W.H. 2003. Preferential mistreatment: How victim status moderates
the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and workplace
victimization. Organization Science, 14: 374-385.
Arrow, H., McGrath, J.E.,
& Berdahl, J.L. 2000. Small groups as complex systems: Formation, coordination,
development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ashforth, B.E.,
& Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14: 20-39.
Bandura, A. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barber, D., Huselid, M.A.,
& Becker, B.E. 1999. Strategic human resource management at Quantum. Human Resource Management, 38: 321-328.
Bass, B.M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J.R., Humphrey, S.E., Moon, H., Conlon, D.E.,
& Ilgen, D.R. 2003. Cooperation, competition, and team performance: Toward
a contingency approach. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 572-590.
Bliese, P.D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability:
Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K.
J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski's
(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations:
Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 349-381. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bliese, P.D. 2005. Multilevel modeling in R (2.1): A brief introduction to
R, the multilevel package and the NLME package. Retrieved April 18, 2008, from http://cran.r-project.org/doc/contrib/Bliese_Multilevel.pdf
Bliese, P.D.,
& Hanges, P.J. 2004. Being both too liberal and too conservative: The perils
of treating grouped data as though they were independent. Organizational Research Methods, 7: 400-417.
Borman, W.C.,
& Motowidlo, S.J. 1993. Expanding the criterion domain
to include elements of contextual performance. In W. Borman & S. Schmitt (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations: 71-98. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
Bretz, R.D.,
& Judge, T.A. 1994. The role of human resource systems in job applicant decision
processes. Journal of Management, 20: 531-551.
Brown, M.E., Trevino, L.K.,
& Harrison, D.A. 2005. Ethical leadership: A social
learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97: 117-134.
Bryan, J.H.,
& Test, M.A. 1967. Models and helping: naturalistic studies in aiding behavior . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6: 400-407.
Calton, J.,
& Lad, L. 1995. Social contracting as a trust-building process of network
governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5: 271-295.
Camarillo, R.A. 2003. Worker-supervisor value congruence and its effects on
worker performance in a lean production system. University
of Southern California. Dissertation Abstracts International , 63: 12B.
840
Campbell, J.P. 1990. Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial
and organizational psychology. In M. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 1, 2nd ed.: 687-731. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Campbell, J.P., McCloy, R.A., Oppler, S.H.,
& Sager, C.E. 1993. A theory of performance. In W. Borman & S. Schmitt (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations: 35-70. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
Cha, S.E.,
& Edmondson, A.C. 2006. When values backfire: Leadership,
attribution, and disenchantment in a values-driven organization. Leadership Quarterly, 17: 57-78.
Chatman, J. 1989. Improving interactional research: A model of person-organization
interaction. Academy of Management Review, 14: 333-349.
Chatman, J.A. 1991. Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization
in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly , 36: 459-484.
Chattopadhyay, P. 1991. Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: The influence of
demographic dissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 273-287.
Choi, J.N. 2003. How does context influence individual behavior? Multilevel
assessment of the implementation of social innovations. Prevention
and Treatment, 6: n.p.
Choi, J.N., Price, R.H.,
& Vinokur, A.D. 2003. Self-efficacy changes in groups: Effects of diversity,
leadership, and group climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 24: 357-372.
Cohen, J.,
& Cohen, P. 1983. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the
behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Collins, J.C.,
& Porras, J.I. 1994. Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies . New York: HarperCollins.
Conway, J.M. 1999.Distinguishing contextual
performance from task performance of managerial jobs.Journal
of Applied Psychology84: 3-13.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D.E.,
& Byrne, Z.S. 2003. The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes,
job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 160-169.
Dale, L. 2004. Partnering with management to implement ergonomics in
the industrial setting. Work, 22: 117-124.
Decker, P.J. 1986. Social learning theory and leadership. Journal of Management Development, 5: 46-58.
Dickson, M.W., Smith, D.B.,
& Grojean, M.W. 2001. An organizational climate regarding ethics: The outcome
of leader values and the practices that reflect them. Leadership
Quarterly, 12: 197-217.
Diefendorff, M.M., Brown, D.J., Kamin, A.M.,
& Lord, R.G. 2002. Examining the roles of job involvement and work centrality
in predicting organizational citizenship behaviors and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 93-108.
Dukerich, J.M., Golden, B.R.,
& Shortell, S.M. 2002. Beauty is in the eye of the
beholder: The impact of organizational identification, identity, and image
on the cooperative behavior of physicians. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 47: 507-533.
Dutton, J.E., Dukerich J.M.,
& Harquail, C.V. 1994. Organizational images and
member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 239-263.
Enders, C.K.,
& Tofighi, D. 2007. Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel
models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods , 12: 121-138.
Fritz, J.M., Arnett, R.C.,
& Conkel, M. 1999. Organizational ethical standards and organizational commitment . Journal of Business Ethics, 20: 289-299.
Glomb, T.M.,
& Liao, H. 2003. Interpersonal aggression in work groups: Social influence,
reciprocal, and individual effects. Academy of Management
Journal, 46: 486-496.
Glomb, T.M., Richman, W.L., Hulin, C.L., Drasgow, F., Schneider, K.T.,
& Fitzgerald, L.F. 1997. Ambient sexual harassment:
An integrated model of antecedents and consequences. Organizational
Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 71(3): 309-328.
Goldstein, A.P.,
& Sorcher, M. 1974. Changing supervisor behavior. New York : Pergamon.
Goodman, S.A.,
& Svyantek, D.J. 1999. Person-organization fit and
contextual performance: Do shared values matter? Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 55: 254-275.
Grojean, M.W., Resick, C.J., Dickson, M.W.,
& Smith, D.B. 2004. Leaders, values, and organizational climate: Examining
leadership strategies for establishing an organizational climate regarding
ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 55: 223-241.
Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H.,
& Bell, M.P. 1998. Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of
surface-and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 96-107.
841
Harrison, J.R.,
& McIntosh, P. 1992. Using social learning theory to manage organizational
performance. Journal of Managerial Issues, 4: 84-105.
Hewlin, P.F. 2003. And the award for best actor goes to…: Facades
of conformity in organizational settings. Academy of Management
Review, 28: 633-642.
Hofmann, D.A.,
& Gavin, M.B. 1998. Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications
for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24: 623-641.
Korsgaard, M., Schweiger, D.,
& Sapienza, H. 1995. Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic
decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice. Academy
of Management Journal, 38: 60-84.
Kouzes, J.M.,
& Posner, B.Z. 1987. The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things
done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J.M.,
& Posner, B.Z. 1993. Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people
demand it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
Kreft, I.G.G., De Leeuw, J.,
& Aiken, L.S. 1995. The effect of different forms of centering in hierarchical
linear models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30: 1-21.
Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D.,
& Johnson, E.C. 2005. Consequences of individuals' fit at work: A meta-analysis
of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit . Personnel Psychology, 58: 281-342.
Kronzon, S. 2002. The effects of formal policies and informal social learning
on perceptions of corporate ethics: Actions speak louder than words. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15: 43-80.
Latham, G.P.,
& Saari, L.M. 1979. The application of social learning theory to training
supervisors through behavioral modeling. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 64: 239-246.
Leapes, L.L.,
& Berwick, D.M. 2005. Five years after To Err Is Human: What have we learned ? Journal of the American Medical Association, 293(19): 2384-2390.
Lencioni, P.M. 2002. Make your values mean something. Harvard
Business Review, 80: 113-117.
Mathieu, J.E.,
& Kohler, S.S. 1990. A cross-level examination of group absence influences
on individual absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 217-220.
McCarthy, D.,
& Blumenthal, D. 2006. Stories from the sharp end:
Case studies in safety improvement. The Milbank Quarterly , 84(1): 165-200.
McEvily, B., Perrone,
V., & Zaheer, A. (Eds.). 2003. Trust in an organizational content [Special issue]. Organization Science, 14(1).
McGaw, N.,
& Fabish, L. 2006. Put your values to work. Harvard Management
Update, January: 3-4.
Meglino, B.N., Ravlin, E.C.,
& Adkins, C.L. 1989. A work values approach to corporate culture: A field test
of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes . Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 424-432.
Meyer, J.P.,
& Allen, N.J. 1991. A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1: 61-89.
Morgan, R.M.,
& Hunt, S.D. 1994. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing . Journal of Marketing, 58: 20-38.
Morgeson, F.P.,
& Hofmann, D.A. 1999. The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications
for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of
Management Review, 24: 249-265.
Motowidlo, S.J.,
& Van Scotter, J.R. 1994. Evidence that task performance
should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 79: 475-480.
Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W.,
& Steers, R.M. 1982. Employee-organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment,
absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.
Nelms, T.P., Jones, J.M.,
& Gray, D.P. 1993. Role modeling: A method for teaching caring in nursing
education. Journal of Nursing Education, 32: 18-23.
O'Reilly, C.,
& Chatman, J. 1986. Organizational commitment and psychological attachment:
The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 492-499.
O'Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J.,
& Caldwell, D.F. 1991. People and organizational
culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit . Academy of Management Journal, 34: 487-516.
Organ, D.W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior. Lexington, MA: D. C. Health.
Organ, D.W. 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up
time. Human Performance, 10: 85-97.
842
Organ, D.W.,
& Ryan, K. 1995. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional
predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel
Psychology, 48: 775-803.
Paine, L.S. 1994. Managing for organizational integrity. Harvard Business Review, 72: 106-117.
Paine, L.S. 1997. Leadership, ethics, and organizational integrity. Chicago: Irwin.
Paine, L.S. 2003. Value shift. New York: McGraw-Hill .
Pfeffer, J. 1982. Organizations and organizational theory. Mansfield, MA: Pitman.
Pfeffer, J. 1998. The human equation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Porras, J.J., Hargis, K., Patterson, K.J., Maxfield, D.G., Roberts, N.,
& Bies, R.J. 1982. Modeling-based organizational development: A longitudinal
assessment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18(4): 433-446.
Pratt, M.G. 1998. To be or not to be: Central questions in organizational
identification. In D. A. Whetten
& P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity
in organizations: 171-208. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pruzan, P. 1998. From control to values-based management and accountability . Journal of Business Ethics, 17: 1379-1394.
Richman-Hirsch, W.L.,
& Glomb, T.M. 2002. Are men affected by the sexual harassment of women: Effects
of ambient sexual harassment on men. In J.
M. Brett & F. Drasgow (Eds.), Psychology of work: Theoretically based empirical research: 121-140. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Robinson, S.L.,
& O'Leary-Kelly, A.M. 1998. Monkey see, monkey do:
The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 658-672.
Rosenhan, D.,
& White, G.M. 1967. Observation and rehearsal as determinants of prosocial
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5: 423-431.
Rosenthal, J.,
& Masarech, M.A. 2003. High-performance cultures:
How values can drive business results. Journal of Organizational
Excellence, 22: 3-18.
Schein, E.H. 1978. Career dynamics. Rading, MA Addison-Wesley .
Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology , 40: 437-453.
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H.W.,
& Smith, D.B. 1995. The ASA framework: An update. Personnel
Psychology, 48: 747-773.
Schneider, B., Smith, D.B.,
& Taylor, S. 1998. Personality and organizations: A test of the homogeneity
of personality hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 462-470.
Selznick, P. 1992. The moral commonwealth. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Shore, L.M., Barksdale, K.,
& Shore, T.H. 1995. Managerial perceptions of employee commitment to the organization . Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1593-1615.
Sitkin, S., Rousseau, D.
M., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (Eds.). 1998. Special
topic forum on trust in and between organizations [Special issue]. Academy of Management Review, 23(3).
Trevino, L.K., Hartman, L.P.,
& Brown, M. 2000. Moral person and moral manager: How executives develop
a reputation for ethical leadership. California Management
Review, 42: 128-142.
Van Scotter, J.R.,
& Motowidlo, S.J. 1996. Interpersonal facilitation
and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 525-531.
Van Lee, R., Fabish, L.,
& McGaw, N. 2002. The values of corporate values. Strategy+Business
Magazine, 39: 1-14.
Viswesvaran, C.,
& Ones, D.S. 2000. Perspectives on models of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8: 216-226.
Waddock, S.A. 2002. Leading corporate citizens: Vision, values, value added . Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Welch, J. 2005. Winning. New York: HarperCollins.
Wetlaufer, S. 1999. Organizing for empowerment: An interview with AES's Roger
Van Sant and Dennis Bakke. Harvard Business Review, 17: 110-123.
Wheeler, A.R., Gallagher, V.C., Brouer, R.L.,
& Sablynski, C.J. 2007. When person-organization
(mis)fit and (dis)satisfaction lead to turnover: The moderating role of perceived
job mobility. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22: 203-219.
Wicks, A.C., Berman, S.L.,
& Jones, T.M. 1999. The structure of optimal trust: Moral and strategic implications . Academy of Management Review, 24: 99-116.
Wood, R.,
& Bandura, A. 1989. Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review, 14: 261-384.
843
Yates, G.R., Bernd, D.L., Sayles, S.M., Stockmeier, C.A., Burke, G.,
& Merti, G.E. 2006. Building and sustaining a systemwide culture of safety . Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 31(12): 684-689.
Zimbardo, P.G.,
& Leippe, M.R. 1991. The psychology of attitude change and social influence . Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Biographical
Notes Melissa L. Gruys earned her PhD degree in human resources and industrial
relations from the University of Minnesota. She is an associate professor
in the Department of Management at Wright State University. Her research focuses
on counterproductive work behavior, employee selection, and performance management
topics. Susan M. Stewart earned her PhD degree in industrial and organizational
psychology from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. She is an associate
professor of management at Western Illinois University–Quad Cities
campus. Her research focuses on workplace aggression, personnel selection,
gender issues, and performance appraisal systems. Jerry Goodstein is a professor
of management and operations at Washington State University, Vancouver. He
received his PhD in management from the University of California, Berkeley
(1988). He studies ethics in organizations and serves on the editorial board
of Business Ethics Quarterly, and is associate editor at the Journal of Management.
Mark N. Bing is an assistant professor of management at the University of
Mississippi. Before coming to the University of Mississippi, he served as
director of psychological screening for the U.S. Navy's Submarine Force. He
received his PhD from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. His research
interests include personnel selec- tion, personality measurement, and research
methods. Andrew C. Wicks is an associate professor of business administration
and co-director of the Olsson Center for Business Ethics at The Darden School
of Business, University of Virginia. He has a PhD in religious ethics from
the University of Virginia. His research interests include stakeholder theory,
trust, stakeholder responsibility, and health care ethics.</meta-value>
</custom-meta>
</custom-meta-wrap>
</article-meta>
</front>
<back><notes><p><list list-type="order"><list-item><p>1. However, we thought the relative standing of an individual on values enactment within his or her department may also be important (although less so than absolute level); we agreed with assertions of methodologists that where cross-level interactions are found in hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) using grand-mean centering, these would be verified with group-mean centering analyses of the same interaction (P. Bliese, personal communication, June 14, 2005; Enders & Tofighi, 2007; Hofmann & Gavin, 1998). Thus, our cross-level interaction found under conditions of grand-mean centering (β = .06, <italic>t</italic>
 = 3.1238, <italic> p</italic>
 < .01) was verified with group-mean centering procedures recommended by Enders and Tofighi (2007) and Bliese (2005, Multilevel Modeling in R, 2.1). When group-mean centering, we found the cross-level interaction remained statistically significant (β = .13, <italic>t</italic>
 = 2.038, <italic>p</italic>
 < .05).</p>
</list-item>
<list-item><p>2. We also calculated another mean for departmental values enactment that excluded the employee's values enactment rating and the values enactment rating of the employee's manager. This procedure of excluding the data from the focal employee and that employee's manager allows for reduced circularity or dependence of the data and provides another test of the impact of contextual or higher level constructs (e.g., collective coworker values) on individual-level constructs (e.g., employee values; Choi, 2003). In this case, the aim was to examine the effect of departmental-level values on employee values enactment independent of the target employee's values and his or her manager's values. This helped to verify the HLM findings for Hypothesis 3. This computation of departmental values enactment follows the same techniques used by other management researchers (Glomb & Liao, 2003; Glomb, Richman, Hulin, Drasgow, Schneider, & Fitzgerald, 1997; Richman-Hirsch & Glomb, 2002; Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1998). When calculating departmental values in this fashion, we found that the correlation between departmental values enactment and individual values enactment was .26, <italic> p</italic>
 < .001. Thus, circularity and dependence of data cannot be used to explain the influence of departmental coworker values on the formation of employee values within that department.</p>
</list-item>
</list>
</p>
</notes>
<ref-list><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>American Management Association.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2002</year>
. <source>Corporate values survey</source>
. Retrieved August 15, <year>2007</year>
, from <uri xlink:type="simple">http://www.amanet.org/research/archive.htm</uri>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Anderson, C.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1997</year>
. <article-title>Values-based management</article-title>
. <source>Academy of Management Executive</source>
, <volume>11</volume>
: <fpage>25</fpage>
-<lpage>46</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Aquino, K.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Bommer, W.H.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2003</year>
. <article-title>Preferential mistreatment: How victim status moderates the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and workplace victimization</article-title>
. <source>Organization Science</source>
, <volume>14</volume>
: <fpage>374</fpage>
-<lpage>385</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Arrow, H.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>McGrath, J.E.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Berdahl, J.L.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2000</year>
. <source>Small groups as complex systems: Formation, coordination, development, and adaptation</source>
. <publisher-loc>Thousand Oaks, CA</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Sage</publisher-name>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ashforth, B.E.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Mael, F.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1989</year>
. <article-title>Social identity theory and the organization</article-title>
. <source>Academy of Management Review</source>
, <volume>14</volume>
: <fpage>20</fpage>
-<lpage>39</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bandura, A.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1977</year>
. <source>Social learning theory</source>
. <publisher-loc>Englewood Cliffs, NJ</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Prentice Hall</publisher-name>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bandura, A.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1986</year>
. <source>Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory</source>
. <publisher-loc>Upper Saddle River, NJ</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Prentice Hall</publisher-name>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Barber, D.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Huselid, M.A.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Becker, B.E.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1999</year>
. <article-title>Strategic human resource management at Quantum</article-title>
. <source>Human Resource Management</source>
, <volume>38</volume>
: <fpage>321</fpage>
-<lpage>328</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bass, B.M.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1985</year>
. <source>Leadership and performance beyond expectations</source>
. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Free Press</publisher-name>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Beersma, B.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Hollenbeck, J.R.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Humphrey, S.E.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Moon, H.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Conlon, D.E.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Ilgen, D.R.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2003</year>
. <article-title>Cooperation, competition, and team performance: Toward a contingency approach</article-title>
. <source>Academy of Management Journal</source>
, <volume>46</volume>
: <fpage>572</fpage>
-<lpage>590</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bliese, P.D.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2000</year>
. <source>Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis</source>
. In <name name-style="western"><surname>K. J. Klein</surname>
</name>
 & <name name-style="western"><surname>S. W. J. Kozlowski's</surname>
</name>
 (Eds.), <source>Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 349-381</source>
. <publisher-loc>San Francisco</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Jossey-Bass</publisher-name>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bliese, P.D.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2005</year>
. <source>Multilevel modeling in R (2.1): A brief introduction to R, the multilevel package and the NLME package</source>
. Retrieved April 18, <year>2008</year>
, from <uri xlink:type="simple">http://cran.r-project.org/doc/contrib/Bliese_Multilevel.pdf</uri>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bliese, P.D.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Hanges, P.J.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2004</year>
. <article-title>Being both too liberal and too conservative: The perils of treating grouped data as though they were independent</article-title>
. <source>Organizational Research Methods</source>
, <volume>7</volume>
: <fpage>400</fpage>
-<lpage>417</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Borman, W.C.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Motowidlo, S.J.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1993</year>
. <source>Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance</source>
. In <name name-style="western"><surname>W. Borman</surname>
</name>
 & <name name-style="western"><surname>S. Schmitt</surname>
</name>
 (Eds.), <source>Personnel selection in organizations: 71-98</source>
. <publisher-loc>San Francisco</publisher-loc>
 : <publisher-name>Jossey-Bass</publisher-name>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bretz, R.D.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Judge, T.A.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1994</year>
. <article-title>The role of human resource systems in job applicant decision processes</article-title>
. <source>Journal of Management</source>
, <volume>20</volume>
: <fpage>531</fpage>
-<lpage>551</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Brown, M.E.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Trevino, L.K.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Harrison, D.A.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2005</year>
. <article-title>Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing</article-title>
. <source>Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes</source>
, <volume>97</volume>
: <fpage>117</fpage>
-<lpage>134</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bryan, J.H.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Test, M.A.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1967</year>
. <article-title>Models and helping: naturalistic studies in aiding behavior</article-title>
 . <source>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</source>
, <volume>6</volume>
: <fpage>400</fpage>
-<lpage>407</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Calton, J.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Lad, L.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1995</year>
. <article-title>Social contracting as a trust-building process of network governance</article-title>
. <source>Business Ethics Quarterly</source>
, <volume>5</volume>
: <fpage>271</fpage>
-<lpage>295</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Camarillo, R.A.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2003</year>
. <article-title>Worker-supervisor value congruence and its effects on worker performance in a lean production system</article-title>
. <publisher-name>University of Southern California</publisher-name>
. <source>Dissertation Abstracts International</source>
 , <volume>63</volume>
: <fpage>12B</fpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Campbell, J.P.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1990</year>
. <source>Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology</source>
. In <name name-style="western"><surname>M. Dunnette</surname>
</name>
 & <name name-style="western"><surname>L. M. Hough</surname>
</name>
 (Eds.), <source>Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology</source>
, Vol. 1, <edition>2</edition>
nd ed.: <fpage>687</fpage>
-<lpage>731</lpage>
. <publisher-loc>Palo Alto, CA</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Consulting Psychologists Press</publisher-name>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Campbell, J.P.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>McCloy, R.A.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Oppler, S.H.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Sager, C.E.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1993</year>
. <source>A theory of performance</source>
. In <name name-style="western"><surname>W. Borman</surname>
</name>
 & <name name-style="western"><surname>S. Schmitt</surname>
</name>
 (Eds.), <source>Personnel selection in organizations: 35-70</source>
. <publisher-loc>San Francisco</publisher-loc>
 : <publisher-name>Jossey-Bass</publisher-name>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Cha, S.E.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Edmondson, A.C.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2006</year>
. <article-title>When values backfire: Leadership, attribution, and disenchantment in a values-driven organization</article-title>
. <source>Leadership Quarterly</source>
, <volume>17</volume>
: <fpage>57</fpage>
-<lpage>78</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Chatman, J.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1989</year>
. <article-title>Improving interactional research: A model of person-organization interaction</article-title>
. <source>Academy of Management Review</source>
, <volume>14</volume>
: <fpage>333</fpage>
-<lpage>349</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Chatman, J.A.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1991</year>
. <article-title>Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms</article-title>
. <source>Administrative Science Quarterly</source>
 , <volume>36</volume>
: <fpage>459</fpage>
-<lpage>484</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Chattopadhyay, P.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1991</year>
. <article-title>Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: The influence of demographic dissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior</article-title>
. <source>Academy of Management Journal</source>
, <volume>42</volume>
: <fpage>273</fpage>
-<lpage>287</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Choi, J.N.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2003</year>
. <article-title>How does context influence individual behavior? Multilevel assessment of the implementation of social innovations</article-title>
. <source>Prevention and Treatment</source>
, <fpage>6</fpage>
: n.p.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Choi, J.N.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Price, R.H.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Vinokur, A.D.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2003</year>
. <article-title>Self-efficacy changes in groups: Effects of diversity, leadership, and group climate</article-title>
. <source>Journal of Organizational Behavior</source>
 , <volume>24</volume>
: <fpage>357</fpage>
-<lpage>372</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Cohen, J.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Cohen, P.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1983</year>
. <source>Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences</source>
 (<edition>2</edition>
nd ed.). <publisher-loc>Hillsdale, NJ</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Lawrence Erlbaum</publisher-name>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Collins, J.C.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Porras, J.I.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1994</year>
. <article-title>Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies</article-title>
 . <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>HarperCollins.</publisher-name>
</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Conway, J.M.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1999</year>
.<article-title>Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance of managerial jobs</article-title>
.<source>Journal of Applied Psychology</source>
<volume>84</volume>
: <fpage>3</fpage>
-<lpage>13</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Cropanzano, R.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Rupp, D.E.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Byrne, Z.S.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2003</year>
. <article-title>The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors</article-title>
. <source>Journal of Applied Psychology</source>
, <volume>88</volume>
: <fpage>160</fpage>
-<lpage>169</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Dale, L.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2004</year>
. <article-title>Partnering with management to implement ergonomics in the industrial setting</article-title>
. <source>Work</source>
, <volume>22</volume>
: <fpage>117</fpage>
-<lpage>124</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Decker, P.J.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1986</year>
. <article-title>Social learning theory and leadership</article-title>
. <source>Journal of Management Development</source>
, <volume>5</volume>
: <fpage>46</fpage>
-<lpage>58</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Dickson, M.W.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Smith, D.B.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Grojean, M.W.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2001</year>
. <article-title>An organizational climate regarding ethics: The outcome of leader values and the practices that reflect them</article-title>
. <source>Leadership Quarterly</source>
, <volume>12</volume>
: <fpage>197</fpage>
-<lpage>217</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Diefendorff, M.M.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Brown, D.J.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Kamin, A.M.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Lord, R.G.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2002</year>
. <article-title>Examining the roles of job involvement and work centrality in predicting organizational citizenship behaviors and job performance</article-title>
. <source>Journal of Organizational Behavior</source>
, <volume>23</volume>
: <fpage>93</fpage>
-<lpage>108</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Dukerich, J.M.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Golden, B.R.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Shortell, S.M.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2002</year>
. <article-title>Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: The impact of organizational identification, identity, and image on the cooperative behavior of physicians</article-title>
. <source>Administrative Science Quarterly</source>
, <volume>47</volume>
: <fpage>507</fpage>
-<lpage>533</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Dutton, J.E.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Dukerich J.M.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Harquail, C.V.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1994</year>
. <article-title>Organizational images and member identification</article-title>
. <source>Administrative Science Quarterly</source>
, <volume>39</volume>
: <fpage>239</fpage>
-<lpage>263</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Enders, C.K.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Tofighi, D.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2007</year>
. <article-title>Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue</article-title>
. <source>Psychological Methods</source>
 , <volume>12</volume>
: <fpage>121</fpage>
-<lpage>138</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Fritz, J.M.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Arnett, R.C.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Conkel, M.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1999</year>
. <article-title>Organizational ethical standards and organizational commitment</article-title>
 . <source>Journal of Business Ethics</source>
, <volume>20</volume>
: <fpage>289</fpage>
-<lpage>299</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Glomb, T.M.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Liao, H.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2003</year>
. <article-title>Interpersonal aggression in work groups: Social influence, reciprocal, and individual effects</article-title>
. <source>Academy of Management Journal</source>
, <volume>46</volume>
: <fpage>486</fpage>
-<lpage>496</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Glomb, T.M.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Richman, W.L.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Hulin, C.L.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Drasgow, F.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Schneider, K.T.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Fitzgerald, L.F.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1997</year>
. <article-title>Ambient sexual harassment: An integrated model of antecedents and consequences</article-title>
. <source>Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes</source>
, <volume>71</volume>
(<issue>3</issue>
): <fpage>309</fpage>
-<lpage>328</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Goldstein, A.P.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Sorcher, M.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1974</year>
. <source>Changing supervisor behavior</source>
. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>
 : <publisher-name>Pergamon</publisher-name>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Goodman, S.A.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Svyantek, D.J.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1999</year>
. <article-title>Person-organization fit and contextual performance: Do shared values matter</article-title>
? <source>Journal of Vocational Behavior</source>
, <volume>55</volume>
: <fpage>254</fpage>
-<lpage>275</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Grojean, M.W.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Resick, C.J.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Dickson, M.W.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Smith, D.B.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2004</year>
. <article-title>Leaders, values, and organizational climate: Examining leadership strategies for establishing an organizational climate regarding ethics</article-title>
. <source>Journal of Business Ethics</source>
, <volume>55</volume>
: <fpage>223</fpage>
-<lpage>241</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Harrison, D.A.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Price, K.H.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Bell, M.P.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1998</year>
. <article-title>Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion</article-title>
. <source>Academy of Management Journal</source>
, <volume>41</volume>
: <fpage>96</fpage>
-<lpage>107</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Harrison, J.R.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>McIntosh, P.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1992</year>
. <article-title>Using social learning theory to manage organizational performance</article-title>
. <source>Journal of Managerial Issues</source>
, <volume>4</volume>
: <fpage>84</fpage>
-<lpage>105</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Hewlin, P.F.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2003</year>
. <article-title>And the award for best actor goes to…: Facades of conformity in organizational settings</article-title>
. <source>Academy of Management Review</source>
, <volume>28</volume>
: <fpage>633</fpage>
-<lpage>642</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Hofmann, D.A.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Gavin, M.B.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1998</year>
. <article-title>Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations</article-title>
. <source>Journal of Management</source>
, <volume>24</volume>
: <fpage>623</fpage>
-<lpage>641</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Korsgaard, M.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Schweiger, D.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Sapienza, H.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1995</year>
. <article-title>Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice</article-title>
. <source>Academy of Management Journal</source>
, <volume>38</volume>
: <fpage>60</fpage>
-<lpage>84</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kouzes, J.M.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Posner, B.Z.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1987</year>
. <source>The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organizations</source>
. <publisher-loc>San Francisco</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Jossey-Bass</publisher-name>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kouzes, J.M.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Posner, B.Z.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1993</year>
. <source>Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it</source>
. <publisher-loc>San Francisco</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Jossey-Bass</publisher-name>
 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kreft, I.G.G.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>De Leeuw, J.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Aiken, L.S.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1995</year>
. <article-title>The effect of different forms of centering in hierarchical linear models</article-title>
. <source>Multivariate Behavioral Research</source>
, <volume>30</volume>
: <fpage>1</fpage>
-<lpage>21</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kristof-Brown, A.L.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Zimmerman, R.D.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Johnson, E.C.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2005</year>
. <article-title>Consequences of individuals' fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit</article-title>
 . <source>Personnel Psychology</source>
, <volume>58</volume>
: <fpage>281</fpage>
-<lpage>342</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kronzon, S.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2002</year>
. <article-title>The effects of formal policies and informal social learning on perceptions of corporate ethics: Actions speak louder than words</article-title>
. <source>Performance Improvement Quarterly</source>
, <volume>15</volume>
: <fpage>43</fpage>
-<lpage>80</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Latham, G.P.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Saari, L.M.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1979</year>
. <article-title>The application of social learning theory to training supervisors through behavioral modeling</article-title>
. <source>Journal of Applied Psychology</source>
, <volume>64</volume>
: <fpage>239</fpage>
-<lpage>246</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Leapes, L.L.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Berwick, D.M.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2005</year>
. <article-title>Five years after To Err Is Human: What have we learned</article-title>
 ? <source>Journal of the American Medical Association</source>
, <volume>293</volume>
(<issue>19</issue>
): <fpage>2384</fpage>
-<lpage>2390</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Lencioni, P.M.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2002</year>
. <article-title>Make your values mean something</article-title>
. <source>Harvard Business Review</source>
, <volume>80</volume>
: <fpage>113</fpage>
-<lpage>117</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mathieu, J.E.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Kohler, S.S.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1990</year>
. <article-title>A cross-level examination of group absence influences on individual absence</article-title>
. <source>Journal of Applied Psychology</source>
, <volume>75</volume>
: <fpage>217</fpage>
-<lpage>220</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>McCarthy, D.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Blumenthal, D.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2006</year>
. <article-title>Stories from the sharp end: Case studies in safety improvement</article-title>
. <source>The Milbank Quarterly</source>
 , <volume>84</volume>
(<issue>1</issue>
): <fpage>165</fpage>
-<lpage>200</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">McEvily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. (Eds.). <year>2003</year>
. <article-title>Trust in an organizational content [Special issue]</article-title>
. <source>Organization Science</source>
, <volume>14</volume>
(<issue>1</issue>
).</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>McGaw, N.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Fabish, L.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2006</year>
. <article-title>Put your values to work</article-title>
. <source>Harvard Management Update</source>
, January: <fpage>3</fpage>
-<lpage>4</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Meglino, B.N.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Ravlin, E.C.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Adkins, C.L.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1989</year>
. <article-title>A work values approach to corporate culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes</article-title>
 . <source>Journal of Applied Psychology</source>
, <volume>74</volume>
: <fpage>424</fpage>
-<lpage>432</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Meyer, J.P.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Allen, N.J.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1991</year>
. <article-title>A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment</article-title>
. <source>Human Resource Management Review</source>
, <volume>1</volume>
: <fpage>61</fpage>
-<lpage>89</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Morgan, R.M.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Hunt, S.D.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1994</year>
. <article-title>The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing</article-title>
 . <source>Journal of Marketing</source>
, <volume>58</volume>
: <fpage>20</fpage>
-<lpage>38</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Morgeson, F.P.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Hofmann, D.A.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1999</year>
. <article-title>The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development</article-title>
. <source>Academy of Management Review</source>
, <volume>24</volume>
: <fpage>249</fpage>
-<lpage>265</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Motowidlo, S.J.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Van Scotter, J.R.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1994</year>
. <article-title>Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance</article-title>
. <source>Journal of Applied Psychology</source>
, <volume>79</volume>
: <fpage>475</fpage>
-<lpage>480</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mowday, R.T.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Porter, L.W.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Steers, R.M.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1982</year>
. <source>Employee-organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover</source>
. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Academic Press</publisher-name>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Nelms, T.P.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Jones, J.M.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Gray, D.P.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1993</year>
. <article-title>Role modeling: A method for teaching caring in nursing education</article-title>
. <source>Journal of Nursing Education</source>
, <volume>32</volume>
: <fpage>18</fpage>
-<lpage>23</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>O'Reilly, C.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Chatman, J.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1986</year>
. <article-title>Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior</article-title>
. <source>Journal of Applied Psychology</source>
, <volume>71</volume>
: <fpage>492</fpage>
-<lpage>499</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>O'Reilly, C.A.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Chatman, J.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Caldwell, D.F.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1991</year>
. <article-title>People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit</article-title>
 . <source>Academy of Management Journal</source>
, <volume>34</volume>
: <fpage>487</fpage>
-<lpage>516</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Organ, D.W.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1988</year>
. <source>Organizational citizenship behavior</source>
. <publisher-loc>Lexington, MA</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>D. C. Health</publisher-name>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Organ, D.W.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1997</year>
. <article-title>Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time</article-title>
. <source>Human Performance</source>
, <volume>10</volume>
: <fpage>85</fpage>
-<lpage>97</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Organ, D.W.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Ryan, K.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1995</year>
. <article-title>A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior</article-title>
. <source>Personnel Psychology</source>
, <volume>48</volume>
: <fpage>775</fpage>
-<lpage>803</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Paine, L.S.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1994</year>
. <article-title>Managing for organizational integrity</article-title>
. <source>Harvard Business Review</source>
, <volume>72</volume>
: <fpage>106</fpage>
-<lpage>117</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Paine, L.S.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1997</year>
. <source>Leadership, ethics, and organizational integrity</source>
. <publisher-loc>Chicago</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Irwin</publisher-name>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"> 
               <name name-style="western"><surname>Paine, L.S.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2003</year>
. <source>Value shift</source>
. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>McGraw-Hill</publisher-name>
 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Pfeffer, J.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1982</year>
. <source>Organizations and organizational theory</source>
. <publisher-loc>Mansfield, MA</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Pitman</publisher-name>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Pfeffer, J.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1998</year>
. <source>The human equation</source>
. <publisher-loc>Boston</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Harvard Business School Press</publisher-name>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Porras, J.J.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Hargis, K.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Patterson, K.J.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Maxfield, D.G.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Roberts, N.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Bies, R.J.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1982</year>
. <article-title>Modeling-based organizational development: A longitudinal assessment</article-title>
. <source>Journal of Applied Behavioral Science</source>
, <volume>18</volume>
(<issue>4</issue>
): <fpage>433</fpage>
-<lpage>446</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Pratt, M.G.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1998</year>
. <source>To be or not to be: Central questions in organizational identification</source>
. In <name name-style="western"><surname>D. A. Whetten</surname>
</name>
 & <name name-style="western"><surname>P. C. Godfrey</surname>
</name>
 (Eds.), <source>Identity in organizations: 171-208</source>
. <publisher-loc>Thousand Oaks, CA</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Sage</publisher-name>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Pruzan, P.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1998</year>
. <article-title>From control to values-based management and accountability</article-title>
 . <source>Journal of Business Ethics</source>
, <volume>17</volume>
: <fpage>1379</fpage>
-<lpage>1394</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Richman-Hirsch, W.L.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Glomb, T.M.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2002</year>
. <source>Are men affected by the sexual harassment of women: Effects of ambient sexual harassment on men</source>
. In <name name-style="western"><surname>J. M. Brett</surname>
</name>
 & <name name-style="western"><surname>F. Drasgow</surname>
</name>
 (Eds.), <source>Psychology of work: Theoretically based empirical research: 121-140</source>
. <publisher-loc>Mahwah, NJ</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Lawrence Erlbaum</publisher-name>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Robinson, S.L.</surname>
</name>
, & O'<name name-style="western"><surname>Leary-Kelly, A.M.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1998</year>
. <article-title>Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees</article-title>
. <source>Academy of Management Journal</source>
, <volume>41</volume>
: <fpage>658</fpage>
-<lpage>672</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Rosenhan, D.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>White, G.M.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1967</year>
. <article-title>Observation and rehearsal as determinants of prosocial behavior</article-title>
. <source>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</source>
, <volume>5</volume>
: <fpage>423</fpage>
-<lpage>431</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Rosenthal, J.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Masarech, M.A.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2003</year>
. <article-title>High-performance cultures: How values can drive business results</article-title>
. <source>Journal of Organizational Excellence</source>
, <volume>22</volume>
: <fpage>3</fpage>
-<lpage>18</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Schein, E.H.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1978</year>
. <source>Career dynamics. Rading, MA</source> 
               <publisher-name>Addison-Wesley</publisher-name>
 .</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Schneider, B.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1987</year>
. <article-title>The people make the place</article-title>
. <source>Personnel Psychology</source>
 , <volume>40</volume>
: <fpage>437</fpage>
-<lpage>453</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Schneider, B.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Goldstein, H.W.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Smith, D.B.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1995</year>
. <article-title>The ASA framework: An update</article-title>
. <source>Personnel Psychology</source>
, <volume>48</volume>
: <fpage>747</fpage>
-<lpage>773</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Schneider, B.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Smith, D.B.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Taylor, S.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1998</year>
. <article-title>Personality and organizations: A test of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis</article-title>
. <source>Journal of Applied Psychology</source>
, <volume>83</volume>
: <fpage>462</fpage>
-<lpage>470</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Selznick, P.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1992</year>
. <source>The moral commonwealth</source>
. <publisher-loc>Berkeley</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>University of California Press</publisher-name>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Shore, L.M.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Barksdale, K.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Shore, T.H.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1995</year>
. <article-title>Managerial perceptions of employee commitment to the organization</article-title>
 . <source>Academy of Management Journal</source>
, <volume>38</volume>
: <fpage>1593</fpage>
-<lpage>1615</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">Sitkin, S., Rousseau, D. M., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (Eds.). <year>1998</year>
. <article-title>Special topic forum on trust in and between organizations [Special issue]</article-title>
. <source>Academy of Management Review</source>
, <volume>23</volume>
(<issue>3</issue>
).</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Trevino, L.K.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Hartman, L.P.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Brown, M.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2000</year>
. <article-title>Moral person and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership</article-title>
. <source>California Management Review</source>
, <volume>42</volume>
: <fpage>128</fpage>
-<lpage>142</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Van Scotter, J.R.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Motowidlo, S.J.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1996</year>
. <article-title>Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance</article-title>
. <source>Journal of Applied Psychology</source>
, <volume>81</volume>
: <fpage>525</fpage>
-<lpage>531</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Van Lee, R.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Fabish, L.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>McGaw, N.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2002</year>
. <article-title>The values of corporate values</article-title>
. <source>Strategy+Business Magazine</source>
, <volume>39</volume>
: <fpage>1</fpage>
-<lpage>14</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Viswesvaran, C.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Ones, D.S.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2000</year>
. <article-title>Perspectives on models of job performance</article-title>
. <source>International Journal of Selection and Assessment</source>
, <volume>8</volume>
: <fpage>216</fpage>
-<lpage>226</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Waddock, S.A.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2002</year>
. <source>Leading corporate citizens: Vision, values, value added</source>
 . <publisher-loc>Boston</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>McGraw-Hill</publisher-name>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Welch, J.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2005</year>
. <source>Winning</source>
. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>HarperCollins</publisher-name>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Wetlaufer, S.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1999</year>
. <article-title>Organizing for empowerment: An interview with AES's Roger Van Sant and Dennis Bakke</article-title>
. <source>Harvard Business Review</source>
, <volume>17</volume>
: <fpage>110</fpage>
-<lpage>123</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Wheeler, A.R.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Gallagher, V.C.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Brouer, R.L.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Sablynski, C.J.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2007</year>
. <article-title>When person-organization (mis)fit and (dis)satisfaction lead to turnover: The moderating role of perceived job mobility</article-title>
. <source>Journal of Managerial Psychology</source>
, <volume>22</volume>
: <fpage>203</fpage>
-<lpage>219</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Wicks, A.C.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Berman, S.L.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Jones, T.M.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1999</year>
. <article-title>The structure of optimal trust: Moral and strategic implications</article-title>
 . <source>Academy of Management Review</source>
, <volume>24</volume>
: <fpage>99</fpage>
-<lpage>116</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Wood, R.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Bandura, A.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1989</year>
. <article-title>Social cognitive theory of organizational management</article-title>
. <source>Academy of Management Review</source>
, <volume>14</volume>
: <fpage>261</fpage>
-<lpage>384</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Yates, G.R.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Bernd, D.L.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Sayles, S.M.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Stockmeier, C.A.</surname>
</name>
, <name name-style="western"><surname>Burke, G.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Merti, G.E.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>2006</year>
. <article-title>Building and sustaining a systemwide culture of safety</article-title>
 . <source>Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety</source>
, <volume>31</volume>
(<issue>12</issue>
): <fpage>684</fpage>
-<lpage>689</lpage>
.</citation>
</ref>
<ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Zimbardo, P.G.</surname>
</name>
, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Leippe, M.R.</surname>
</name> 
               <year>1991</year>
. <source>The psychology of attitude change and social influence</source>
 . <publisher-loc>Philadelphia</publisher-loc>
: <publisher-name>Temple University Press</publisher-name>
.</citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>
</istex:document>
</istex:metadataXml>
<mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Values Enactment in Organizations: A Multi-Level Examination</title>
</titleInfo>
<titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>Values Enactment in Organizations: A Multi-Level Examination</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Melissa L.</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Gruys</namePart>
<affiliation></affiliation>
<affiliation>E-mail: melissa.gruys@wright.edu</affiliation>
<affiliation>Department of Management, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435-0001, melissa.gruys@wright.edu</affiliation>
<role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Susan M.</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Stewart</namePart>
<affiliation>Department of Management, Western Illinois University-Quad Cities, Moline, IL 61265-5881</affiliation>
<affiliation>Department of Management, Western Illinois University-Quad Cities, Moline, IL 61265-5881</affiliation>
<role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Jerry</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Goodstein</namePart>
<affiliation>Department of Management and Operations, Washington State University-Vancouver, Vancouver, WA 98686-9600</affiliation>
<affiliation>Department of Management and Operations, Washington State University-Vancouver, Vancouver, WA 98686-9600</affiliation>
<role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Mark N.</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Bing</namePart>
<affiliation>Department of Management, University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677-1848</affiliation>
<affiliation>Department of Management, University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677-1848</affiliation>
<role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Andrew C.</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Wicks</namePart>
<affiliation>The Darden School of Business, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22906-6500</affiliation>
<affiliation>The Darden School of Business, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22906-6500</affiliation>
<role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</genre>
<originInfo><publisher>SAGE Publications</publisher>
<place><placeTerm type="text">Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA</placeTerm>
</place>
<dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2008-08</dateIssued>
<copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2008</copyrightDate>
</originInfo>
<language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm>
<languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm>
</language>
<abstract lang="en">Business writers and practitioners recommend that core organizational values be integrated into employee work life for enhanced organizational productivity, yet no published studies have empirically examined the antecedents and outcomes of values enactment. Using longitudinal data on 2,622 employees, hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) results revealed that tenure and department-level values enactment were significant predictors of individual values enactment. Furthermore, employees who demonstrated high levels of values enactment were less likely to leave, and employees of high or low levels of values enactment in departments whose levels of values enactment matched their own were the most likely to be promoted.</abstract>
<subject><genre>keywords</genre>
<topic>values</topic>
<topic>values enactment</topic>
<topic>organizational values</topic>
<topic>values-based performance</topic>
<topic>performance</topic>
<topic>promotion</topic>
<topic>voluntary turnover</topic>
</subject>
<relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of management</title>
</titleInfo>
<genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre>
<identifier type="ISSN">0149-2063</identifier>
<identifier type="eISSN">1557-1211</identifier>
<identifier type="PublisherID">JOM</identifier>
<identifier type="PublisherID-hwp">spjom</identifier>
<part><date>2008</date>
<detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption>
<number>34</number>
</detail>
<detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption>
<number>4</number>
</detail>
<extent unit="pages"><start>806</start>
<end>843</end>
</extent>
</part>
</relatedItem>
<identifier type="istex">E75EBE587781D480F016CA3CEFB752D57216C14E</identifier>
<identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/M70-59979Z48-G</identifier>
<identifier type="DOI">10.1177/0149206308318610</identifier>
<identifier type="ArticleID">10.1177_0149206308318610</identifier>
<recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-0J1N7DQT-B">sage</recordContentSource>
</recordInfo>
</mods>
<json:item><extension>json</extension>
<original>false</original>
<mimetype>application/json</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/E75EBE587781D480F016CA3CEFB752D57216C14E/metadata/json</uri>
</json:item>
</metadata>
<serie></serie>
</istex>
</record>

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 007289 | SxmlIndent | more

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 007289 | SxmlIndent | more

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri

{{Explor lien
   |wiki=    Wicri/Santé
   |area=    EdenteV2
   |flux=    Istex
   |étape=   Corpus
   |type=    RBID
   |clé=     ISTEX:E75EBE587781D480F016CA3CEFB752D57216C14E
   |texte=   Values Enactment in Organizations: A Multi-Level Examination
}}

This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32.
Data generation: Thu Nov 30 15:26:48 2017. Site generation: Tue Mar 8 16:36:20 2022

	Serveur d'exploration sur le patient édenté
	Attention, ce site est en cours de développement ! Attention, site généré par des moyens informatiques à partir de corpus bruts. Les informations ne sont donc pas validées.

Serveur d'exploration sur le patient édenté

Values Enactment in Organizations: A Multi-Level Examination

Values Enactment in Organizations: A Multi-Level Examination

Source :

English descriptors

Abstract

Links to Exploration step

Le document en format XML

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri