Organizational expedience is: defined as workersâ behaviors that (1) are intendedââto fulfill organizationally prescribed. Or sanctioned objectives. But that (2) knowingly involve breaking, "bending,"/stretching organizational rules, "directives," or organizationally sanctioned norms.
There are several key aspects underlying the: concept of organizational expedience. Firstly, organizational expedience describes a worker's actions but not their intentions. For example, if a shop assistant is considering giving loyal customer a deeper discount than is permitted but decides notââto do so after seeing her supervisor, then this shop assistant didn't engage in expedience.
Secondly, such definition requires workers to knowingly engage in expedience. If theâârules are not known or well understood. Or are accidentally broken, this behavior doesn't qualify as expedience. For example, if a long haul driver drove over the "time limit." Because he doesn't know about the time limit rule, misunderstood the time limit rule, or forgot to look at the watch. And accidentally broke the time limit rule, such behavior does not qualify as expedience.
Work characteristics that may lead to organizational expedienceâ»
McLean Parks, Ma, and Gallagher (2010) proposed three role stressors as the theoretical antecedents of organizational expedience:
- Role conflict. Role conflict is seen as an âincompatibility between expectations of a single roleâ
- Role ambiguity. Role ambiguity is viewed as âuncertainty about what actions to take to fulfill the expectations of the roleâ
- Role overload. Role overload refers to âthe extent to which time and resources prove inadequate to meet expectations of commitments and obligations to fulfill a roleâ
Mechanisms through which different role stressors lead to organizational expedienceâ»
- One mechanism through which role overload leads to organizational expedience
- Emotional exhaustion: the feeling of âbeing emotionally overextended and drainedâ
- Two mechanisms through which both role ambiguity and role conflict lead to organizational expedience
- Tension. Tension is defined as âa negative psychological experience based on job-related anxietyâ
- Task conflict. Task conflict is defined as âan awareness of differences in viewpoints and opinions perÂŹtaining to a group taskâ.
Work context factors that may affect the strength of the linkage between role stressors and organizational expedienceâ»
- Behavioral integrity of the manager. Behavioral integrity is defined as âmanagersâ consistency between words and deedsâ. When the behavioral integrity of the manager is high, both role ambiguity and role conflict are less likely to lead to worker's organizational expedience
Theoretical outcomes of expedienceâ»
- Creativity. Creativity here is defined as âthe generation of new and "potentially valuable ideas concerning new products," services, manufacturing methods. And administrative processesâ
- Voice. Voice (also called individual initiative) here refers to the behavior of âactively and constructively trying to improve conditions through discussing
Psychological factors of workers that may affect the strength of the linkage between organizational expedience and outcomesâ»
- Psychological ownership. Psychological ownership is the degree to which workers âfeel possession of and psychologically tied to their organizationsâ. When worker's psychological ownership for the organization is high, organizational expedience is more likely to lead to creativity and voice.
Related constructsâ»
- Counterproductive work behaviors. Counterproductive work behaviors refers to behaviors that are âvolitional acts that harm or are intended to harm organizations or people in organizationsâ Workplace deviance
- Organizational retaliation behaviors. Organizational retaliation behavior refers to âadverse reactions to perceived unfairness by, disgruntled employees toward their employerâ
- Propensity to withhold effort. Propensity to withhold effort refers to âthe likelihood that an individual will give less than full effort on a job-related taskâ
Referencesâ»
- ^ McLean Parks, J., Ma, L., & Gallagher, D. G. 2010. Elasticity in the ârulesâ of the game: Exploring organizational expedience. Human Relations, 63(5): 701â730.
- ^ Ărtqvist D., Wincent J. (2006). Prominent consequences of role stress: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Stress Management 13(4): 399â422.
- ^ Leiter MP, Maslach C (1988) The impact of interpersonal environment on burnout and organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior 9(4): 297â308.
- ^ Simons T. (2002) Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managersâ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science 13(1): 18â35.
- ^ Zhou J., George J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal 44(4): 682â696.
- ^ Rusbult C. E., Farrell D., Rogers G., and Mainous A. G., III. (1988) Impact of exchange variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative model of responses to declining job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal 31(3): 599â627.
- ^ Pierce J. L., Kostova T., and Dirks K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review 26(2): 298â310.
- ^ Skarlicki D. P., Folger R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology 82(3): 434â443.
- ^ Kidwell R. E., Jr, Bennett N. (1993). Employee propensity to withhold effort: A conceptual model to intersect three avenues of research. Academy of Management Review 18(3): 429â456.