Many organizations are drowning in a flood of corporate bullshit, and this is particularly true of organizations in trouble, whose managers tend to make up stuff on the fly and with little regard for future consequences. Bullshitting and lying are not synonymous. While the liar knows the truth and wittingly bends it to suit their purpose, the bullshitter simply does not care about the truth. Managers can actually do something about organizational bullshit, and this Executive Digest provides a sequential framework that enables them to do so. They can comprehend it, they can recognize it for what it is, they can act against it, and they can take steps to prevent it from happening in the future. While it is unlikely that any organization will ever be able to rid itself of bullshit entirely, this article argues that by taking these steps, astute managers can work toward stemming its flood.
In late September 2014, students in the Arnold School of Business (Arnold) full-time MBA program wrote an open-book managerial accounting exam. Immediately after the exam, one of the students, who was also vice-president academic of the Graduate Business Students Association (GBSA), was informed by a classmate that some students accessed the Internet for solutions during the exam. The GBSA representative knew she had to do something but was unsure how to proceed.<br><br>In part A of the case, the student representative consulted with her colleague, the GBSA president. The two considered four potential courses of action: (1) do nothing; (2) bring the issue to the entire GBSA council; (3) inform the course instructor; or (4) speak directly to the academic chair of the MBA program.<br><br>In part B of the case, the two student representatives speak with the academic chair, who explained that without any hard evidence of academic dishonesty, little could be done. The academic chair and GBSA representatives must decide how to resolve the issue when any solution is likely to disappoint some students and cause division, and possibly enmity, among classmates who are just one month into their MBA.
In late September 2014, students in the Arnold School of Business (Arnold) full-time MBA program wrote an open-book managerial accounting exam. Immediately after the exam, one of the students, who was also vice-president academic of the Graduate Business Students Association (GBSA), was informed by a classmate that some students accessed the Internet for solutions during the exam. The GBSA representative knew she had to do something but was unsure how to proceed. In part A of the case, the student representative consulted with her colleague, the GBSA president. The two considered four potential courses of action: (1) do nothing; (2) bring the issue to the entire GBSA council; (3) inform the course instructor; or (4) speak directly to the academic chair of the MBA program. In part B of the case, the two student representatives speak with the academic chair, who explained that without any hard evidence of academic dishonesty, little could be done. The academic chair and GBSA representatives must decide how to resolve the issue when any solution is likely to disappoint some students and cause division, and possibly enmity, among classmates who are just one month into their MBA.
Nick Barr was the Personnel Manager for National Processing Inc. -- an 80-year old company and one of Canada's leading industrial processors. Barr, a recent graduate in Industrial Relations Management with very little job experience, was hired to manage National's 530 unionized employees. In his first year on the job, Barr encounters a particularly challenging case involving a sexual harassment complaint. One day a young, male employee went to Barr's office and reported that his female co-workers were sneaking up behind him and grabbing his testicles. After learning about this concerning behavior, Barr must decide what to do. A number of things factor into his decision including the safety and psychological welfare of the employee and his co-workers as well as Barr's responsibilities to the company and his personal reputation and job security. In Case A, the employee's experience is described. In Case B, it is revealed that Barr decides to conduct an informal investigation and finds that the employees are playing a 'grabbing' game. Barr is shocked to learn this and has to decide how to proceed with the complaint.
In management literature, a psychological contract generally refers to an employee's beliefs about the reciprocal obligations that exist between him or her and an organization. Legal contracts, on the other hand, are agreements that create obligations between the parties that are enforceable by law. Psychological contracts are different from legal contracts in that they are characterized by the belief that both parties have entered into a set of mutual obligations. While marketing scholars and practitioners have largely overlooked the notion of psychological contracts, this article argues that a firm's customers might view the promises they believe a firm has made to them as psychological contracts. Psychological contracts are as relevant to marketing as they are to management. This article expands the notion of psychological contracts to marketing relationships and outlines internal and external strategies firms can employ to manage psychological contracts more effectively.
Although the protection of secrets is often vital to the survival of organizations, at other times organizations can benefit by deliberately leaking secrets to outsiders. We explore how and why this is the case. We identify two dimensions of leaks: (1) whether the information in the leak is factual or concocted and (2) whether leaks are conducted overtly or covertly. Using these two dimensions, we identify four types of leaks: informing, dissembling, misdirecting, and provoking. We also provide a framework to help managers decide whether or not they should leak secrets.
Many companies derive their competitive advantage from the use and protection of trade secrets. This means that if these companies' trade secrets are misappropriated, it can be extremely costly and even jeopardize their survival. In order to try to prevent employees from inappropriately divulging trade secrets, companies will often implement rules and procedures such as non-disclosure agreements that limit what employees are allowed to do with trade secrets. In spite of the prevalence of these procedures, billions of dollars in trade secrets are leaked and stolen every year, most often by companies' own employees. We argue that a key to the effective protection of trade secrets lies in the creation of positive secrecy climates, wherein keeping organizational secrets is strongly valued by employees and seen as a part of their formal role responsibilities. We explain how managers can develop positive secrecy climates in their organizations, and outline the risks and potential rewards of these climates.