24

Neri, Chelsea Lyle V.

ABM 11 - H
References

Baillien, E., Camps, J., Van den Broeck, A., Stouten, J., Godderis, L., Sercu, M., & De Witte, H.

(2016). An Eye for an Eye Will Make the Whole World Blind: Conflict Escalation into

Workplace Bullying and the Role of Distributive Conflict Behavior. Journal of Business

Ethics, 137(2), 415–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2563-y

Farh, C. I. C. ( 1 ), & Chen, G. ( 2 ). (n.d.). Leadership and member voice in action teams: Test

of a dynamic phase model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(1), 97–110.

https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000256

Hazarika, A. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility and Workplace Democracy: Emerging

Issues and Perspectives. Journal of Management & Public Policy, 5(1), 27–40.

Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=95257199&site=eds-

live

Hielscher, S., Beckmann, M., & Pies, I. (2014). Participation versus Consent: Should

Corporations Be Run according to Democratic Principles? Business Ethics Quarterly,

24(4), 533–563. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq2014111919

Sherf, E. N. ( 1 ), Sinha, R. ( 2 ), Tangirala, S. ( 3 ), & Awasty, N. ( 4 ). (n.d.). Centralization of

member voice in teams: Its effects on expertise utilization and team performance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(8), 813–827. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000305

24
Neri, Chelsea Lyle V.
ABM 11 - H
The current study investigated how work-related disagreements-coined as conflicts-
relate to workplace bullying, from the perspective of the target as well as the perpetrator. We
hypothesized a positive indirect association between task conflicts and bullying through
relationship conflicts. This process accounted for both for targets and perpetrators of bullying.
Targets are distinguished from perpetrators in our assumption that this indirect effect is boosted
by distributive conflict behavior, being yielding for targets and forcing for perpetrators. Results in
a large representative sample of the Flemish working population ( N = 2,029) confirmed our
hypotheses. Additionally, our study also revealed a direct effect from task conflicts to bullying in
the analyses regarding the indirect as well as the conditional indirect effects. For perpetrators,
both the indirect and direct relationships are moderated by forcing, underlining the importance of
distributive conflict behavior particularly for the enactment of bullying behaviors.

Voice is an important way that members contribute to effective team functioning. And
yet, the existing literature provides divergent guidance as to how leaders can promote member
voice in action teams—a dynamic team context where eliciting voice may be difficult, due to
different task demands encountered in the preparation and action phases of task performance,
among members who may have little history of working together. Drawing on the employee
voice and team leadership literatures, we focus on three leader behaviors—directing, coaching,
and supporting—and employ a functional leadership perspective to assess whether certain
leader behaviors enhance voice in one phase of the performance episode versus the other. We
also assess whether these leadership-voice relationships are further contingent on team
members’ prior familiarity with one another. Observation and survey data from 105 surgical
team episodes revealed that leader directing promoted voice in both the preparation and action
phases. Coaching also facilitated voice in both phases, especially in the action phase for more
familiar teams. Surprisingly, supporting did not enhance voice in either phase, and in fact
exhibited negative effects on voice in the preparation phase of more familiar teams. Theoretical
and practical implications around how leaders can elicit voice in action teams are discussed.

Abstract Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is business having responsibility to

society, to its stakeholders. If one has to understand CSR from a historical perspective, it
evolved from a philanthropic exercise into a strategic activity of the firm. In order to strategic
CSR, the firm’s core mission and vision should provide a socially beneficial foundation for
enhanced economic growth. CSR represents the direct effort by a company to improve aspects
of society by the firm as compared with the integral responsibilities that every firm has with
respect to primary stakeholders such as employees, customers, investors and suppliers.
Workplace practices are integral part of the firm, and hence it is inevitable aspect of CSR.
Workplace practices too have evolved through different stages and became significant from the
beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Later on, with the growth of research policy making,
workplace practices became crucial for the growth in productivity and competitiveness of the
firm. This paper will examine the emerging issues of CSR and workplace democracy and its
impact. This work will examine the point of convergence between CSR and workplace
democracy. It will also evaluate the essential dynamics that rule in a workplace democratic
practice.
24
Neri, Chelsea Lyle V.
ABM 11 - H
The notion of "democracy" has become a much-debated concept in scholarship on
business ethics, management, and organization studies. The strategy of this paper is to
distinguish between a principle of organization that fosters participation (type I democracy) and
a principle of legitimation that draws on consent (type II democracy). Based on this distinction,
we highlight conceptual shortcomings of the literature on stakeholder democracy. We
demonstrate that parts of the literature tend to confound ends with means. Many approaches
employ type I democracy notions of participation and often take for granted that this also
improves type II democratic legitimation. We hold this to be a mistake. We provide examples of
the ambiguity of organizational procedures and show that under some circumstances a
decrease in the degree of participation may actually increase legitimation because a
governance structure that results in higher productivity can provide higher benefits for all parties
involved, serve their interests and therefore meet then agreement. Less type I democracy may
mean more type II democracy. We believe this to be an important insight for judging (and further
improving) the legitimacy of both capitalistic firms and competitive markets.

Voice, or the expression of work-related suggestions or opinions, can help teams access
and utilize members’ privately held knowledge and skills and improve collective outcomes.
However, recent research has suggested that sometimes, rather than encourage positive
outcomes for teams, voice from members can have detrimental consequences. Extending this
research, we highlight why it is important to consider voice centralization within teams, or the
extent to which voice is predominantly emanating from only a few members rather than equally
spread across all members. We argue that, under certain circumstances, voice centralization is
harmful to the utilization of members’ expertise in the team and, thereby, to team performance.
Specifically, we propose that voice centralization is likely to have negative effects when it occurs
around members who are more socially dominant or are less reflective. We find support for our
arguments in a sample of 78 teams (319 team members) working on graduate student projects
in a business school over a semester. Overall, through our theory and results, we showcase
why it is important for future studies to examine the distribution of voice among team members.