Dysfunctional Executive Behavior
Business Horizons (2010) 53, 581—590
www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor
Dysfunctional executive behavior: What can organizations do?
James K. Summers a,*, Timothy P. Munyon b, Alexa A. Perryman c, Gerald R. Ferris d
Foster College of Business Administration, Bradley University, 1501 West Bradley Avenue, Peoria, IL 61625, U.S.A. b College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816-1991, U.S.A. c Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX 76129, U.S.A. d College of Business, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1110, U.S.A. a KEYWORDS
CEO dysfunctional behavior; Work design; Job design; Accountability; Discretion; Work relationships; Executive governance
Abstract Much has been made of dysfunctional executive behavior in recent years. As such, the purpose of this article is to assist organizations in the design of executive work. To better construct a work environment that diminishes self-serving and unethical behavior, we propose that organizations structure an executive’s work around three factors: the accountability environment, managerial discretion, and relationship composition. These factors are used to describe how organizations can better design executives’ work so as to promote more desirable executive behavior. We describe how these factors should be calibrated, as well as how they affect each other. # 2010 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. All rights reserved.
1. Bad executive! Bad executive!
A cursory review of the local, national, and international news tends to highlight the now commonplace occurrence of corporate scandal, dealing with what may be euphemistically termed dysfunctional’ executive behavior. When reviewing the actions of former corporate leaders such as Skilling, Lay, ‘
* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: jsummers@bradley.edu (J.K. Summers), tmunyon@bus.ucf.edu (T.P. Munyon), a.a.perryman@tcu.edu (A.A. Perryman), gferris@cob.fsu.edu
www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor
Dysfunctional executive behavior: What can organizations do?
James K. Summers a,*, Timothy P. Munyon b, Alexa A. Perryman c, Gerald R. Ferris d
Foster College of Business Administration, Bradley University, 1501 West Bradley Avenue, Peoria, IL 61625, U.S.A. b College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816-1991, U.S.A. c Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX 76129, U.S.A. d College of Business, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1110, U.S.A. a KEYWORDS
CEO dysfunctional behavior; Work design; Job design; Accountability; Discretion; Work relationships; Executive governance
Abstract Much has been made of dysfunctional executive behavior in recent years. As such, the purpose of this article is to assist organizations in the design of executive work. To better construct a work environment that diminishes self-serving and unethical behavior, we propose that organizations structure an executive’s work around three factors: the accountability environment, managerial discretion, and relationship composition. These factors are used to describe how organizations can better design executives’ work so as to promote more desirable executive behavior. We describe how these factors should be calibrated, as well as how they affect each other. # 2010 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. All rights reserved.
1. Bad executive! Bad executive!
A cursory review of the local, national, and international news tends to highlight the now commonplace occurrence of corporate scandal, dealing with what may be euphemistically termed dysfunctional’ executive behavior. When reviewing the actions of former corporate leaders such as Skilling, Lay, ‘
* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: jsummers@bradley.edu (J.K. Summers), tmunyon@bus.ucf.edu (T.P. Munyon), a.a.perryman@tcu.edu (A.A. Perryman), gferris@cob.fsu.edu
References: Breaux, D. M., Munyon, T. P., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2009). Politics as a moderator of the accountability - job satisfaction relationship: Evidence across three studies. Journal of Management, 35(2), 307—326. Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 339—365. Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). The separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301—325. Finkelstein, S., Cannella, A. A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2009). Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams and boards. New York: Oxford University Press. Freeman, L. C. (1978). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215—239. Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 393—417. Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. In A. P. Brief & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in