How to talk to a company as a prospective contractor vs. employee?

Personal Loyalties vs. Institutional Loyalties and Organizational Behavior

• I'm doing a literature survey on what causes people to behave in certain ways when their loyalties conflict. I'm at a loss for literature on the subject so I'm asking for help finding online papers and dissertations on the subject. Basically personal loyalty is loyalty to a person or your own small group while insitutional loyalty is loyalty to the overall company or organization. For example, if a big mistake happens and the some big boss comes by and asks you why, you could tell the truth, which is that your department, or an individual in that department, screwed up, and thus, help the overall company make corrections to make things better. Or you can stay loyal to that friend or your department and cover up the mistake. Other situations include whistle-blower situations, favoritism vs. fairness, rivalries and politics between internal groups sabotaging the overall goals of the organization as a whole, cult-of-personalities, etc. etc. Basically, what I'm looking for are credible research papers that talk about how people become more or less loyal to the people around them. Apparently, there is lots of literature in the business world that discusses *institutional* loyalty, which include the usual things about employee benefits, salaries, retention issues, etc. I'm not looking for that. What I am looking for are studies and papers about *personal* loyalties, and how that is fostered, sometimes in conflict to institutional loyalty.

• Answer:

  Hello again, Jimmy. Thanks for getting back to me on this. Like I said earlier, there doesn't appear to be a huge body of literature that really hits the nail on the head in terms of your specific topic. But there's a lot written on corporate loyalty in general, and I've picked out a few articles to highlight below that seem particularly germane. Two articles struck me as especially apt, and I've also provided some excerpts from these so you can get a bit more of the flavor (I cant' reproduce them in full, obviously, since they are copyrighted). Before rating this answer, please let me know if you need any additional information. Just post a Request for Clarification and I'll be happy to assist you further. pafalafa-ga ========== Personal loyalty to superiors in public service. By: Souryal, Sam S.; McKay, Brian W.. Criminal Justice Ethics, Summer/Fall96, Vol. 15 Issue 2, p44, 19p [This was sumarized above...what follows are some excerpts from the paper] PERSONAL LOYALTY TO SUPERIORS IN PUBLIC SERVICE In 1993 the journal Criminal Justice Ethics took a major step toward clarifying a topic which, despite its deep roots, has proven conceptually elusive. In the journal's winter/spring issue, several scholars were engaged to reflect on the hermeneutics of loyalty developed in George P. Fletcher's book Loyalty: An Essay on the Morality of Relationships.[2] The symposium made a welcome contribution to our understanding of "the conceptual and moral underpinnings of loyalty, to whom it is owed, and at what price."[3] ....Yet there are several issues that the symposium ignored, or simply glossed over. First is the issue of workers' loyalty to superiors and administrators at the workplace. It was not made clear whether public servants owed any loyalty to the person of superiors and, if so, under what circumstances, and at what price. Second, the symposiasts repeatedly referred to loyalty and disloyalty as though they were antitheses. We do not agree, since a dichotomy in this context can exist only if two conditions are satisfied: (a) loyalty to the person of superiors is necessary within the broader subordinate-superior relationship (that is, without the former, the latter cannot be), and (b) workers are either legally or morally prohibited from being impartial--that is, neither loyal nor disloyal--with respect to the person of the superior. Third, with the exception of Richards' essay on "Loyalty and the Police," there was little mention of loyalty in an organizational context, arguably the one context that can most graphically expose the "conceptual and moral underpinnings" of loyalty in action. The core of this article comprises an examination of these and other issues relating to loyalty in the organizational context... ...Our intention is not to apply a wrecking ball to the ideal of loyalty--to God, country, family, spouse, friends, or even superiors if both parties agree to keep friendship or mentorship at the core of their relationship. Our intention, rather, is to call attention to the unique vulnerability of loyalty to the person of superiors in the organizational context. It is our contention that personal loyalty to superiors cannot be included in the same category as loyalty to God, to principles, to family and friends. We advance several reasons: (1) Workers have little, if any, choice in whom their superiors are; they consequently may have little, if any, personal feeling for them. (2) Many superiors in public agencies may not be worthy objects of loyalty; indeed some management styles are conducive to creating distrust and hostility. (3) Unquestioned submission to superiors can endanger the interests of third parties, in particular, segments of an unsuspecting public. (4) Loyalty to God, principles, family, and friends is considered essential for the maintenance of a good life, but personal loyalty to superiors is not particularly necessary to the achievement of public good. (5) The harm to society that results from loyalty to superiors is greater than the benefits gained from it since harm to society is likely to damage many people for a long period of time. For instance, supporting a mayor or a sheriff in formulating unfair policy, solely out of loyalty, may allow officials to inflict undue harm on an entire population of people (such as a class of citizens, an interest group, a profession, a district, or a precinct).... The Main Contention ...Our main contention is with the fallacious belief that subordinates, by virtue of their status, are naturally obligated, or otherwise compelled, to cater to the arbitrary desires of their superiors. Though we support institutional loyalty, especially Fletcher's notions of loyalty upon "entering the organization" by having to comply with its formal rules, and loyalty through "identification with the organization" by having to support its mission, we find loyalty to the person of superiors intrinsically alarming. Furthermore, we find it incongruous that civil servants in a democratic society are so unnerved that they willingly support such a baseless belief, and so defenseless that they are easily compelled if they resist.... The Culture of Personal Loyalty to Superiors ...Belief in personal loyalty to superiors is culturally embedded? It dates as far back as the inception of organized government. In modern-day institutions, the belief continues to be taken for granted. As a case in point, Kleinig reports a prominent New York City official declaring to middle-level city managers that when he makes an appointment he looks for two things: loyalty and competence, in that order. What was notable about that encounter, however, was not what he said, but that the statement was "not at all troubling to those who were present."[14] Its ethically problematic character seemed to escape their attention. Kleinig also reports the blunt reactions of a former assistant chief of the New York City Police Department: "When an organization wants you to do right, it asks for your integrity; when it wants you to do wrong, it demands your loyalty."[15] Reference to organizations in that context should by no means distract from our focus on personal loyalty since the former is the natural environment of the latter.... The Problematic Nature of Organizational Loyalty ...Understanding the concept of personal loyalty can be complex. Blamires likens loyalty to an intoxicant when he states, "we breathe the word loyalty and immediately a sentimental warmth floods our minds."[25] Fletcher stresses loyalty's natural bias since "by definition, [it] generates interest, partiality, an identification with the object of one's loyalty rather than with its competitors."[26] Furthermore, since personal loyalty in an organizational setting invariably takes place between individuals who must cooperate with one another on a temporary basis, we must assume that personal loyalty manifests itself in multiple configurations, simultaneous and changing. Moreover, because the number of loyalties any employee can have is limited (since the value of each loyalty may appreciate in proportion to its exclusivity), shifting loyalties at the workplace must be a practical necessity. ...Multiple personal loyalties at the workplace operate in configurations similar to those of a social physics. They constitute forces which form and reform, contingent on the extent of the sacrifices employees are willing to make and the gains they expect to realize by switching to other objects of loyalty. Sacrifices in this context are basically associated with job stability, positional power, and organizational convenience, and gains are in terms of autonomy, personal growth, and economic rewards. As in social physics, personal loyalty configurations at the workplace change in response to exogenous forces--for example, the hiring of a new boss, an agency reorganization plan, or a major policy update. ...The decision to switch personal loyalty is typically based on the employee's determination of what can be done to secure, to enhance, or to balance his/her standing with superiors and co-workers. This is especially so when "circumstances are too inconvenient, too costly, or contrary to some private vision of how things should be."[27] In this sense, one worker's exhilaration in switching loyalty to a benevolent supervisor may be equal to another worker's relief in switching away from an enslaving one. A Final Word ...Until the issue of loyalty in the workplace is openly addressed, government ethics will continue to suffer and the newly instituted federal and state "ethics commissions" will remain largely symbolic. It borders on absurdity to believe that workers would choose to "faithfully uphold" an ethical standard if at the same time they recognize that no amount of ethical conduct could protect their careers against an arbitrary accusation of disloyalty. Such an accusation constitutes a coup de grace which renders any worker defenseless; it can be neither staved off nor appealed to a higher authority. Nevertheless, managerial myth continues to advocate that personal loyalty is an indisputable virtue, one that every employee must display or, at least, pretend to. ...It is our prediction that personal loyalty in the organizational context will continue as long as superiors cannot give up the mistaken premise that their survival hinges upon the protection that AIC offers them. In the meantime, moral workers will continue to suffer from a clash of loyalties that they never anticipated. Faced with a politicized environment and an adverse subculture, most public workers will eventually succumb to institutional desperation. Ironically, it may be just that sense of desperation combined, perhaps, with a faint trust in newly enacted whistle-blowing laws, which may empower workers publicly to expose the dilemma of personal loyalty to superiors in public service. We are equally concerned that intensified demands for personal loyalty at the workplace may irremediably stunt the conduct of good government. Such demands, we fear, will undermine the workers' sense of accountability and transform their moral sense into indifference and cynicism. [Some of the references cited in the above passages are]: 1 Max Weber, quoted in D. WRONG, MAX WEBER 3 (1970). 2 G. FLETCHER, LOYALTY (1991). 3 Kleinig, Symposium: Editor's Introduction, 12 CRAM. JUST. ETHICS, 34 (Winter/Spring 1993). 4 Pettit, The Paradox of Loyalty, 25 AM. PHIL. Q. 163 (1988). 5 Kleinig, Loyalty and Public Service, THE PUBLIC INTEREST 2 (1994 ========== Social Indentity And The Problem of Loyalty In Knowledge-Intensive Companies. Alvesson, Mats. Journal of Management Studies, Dec2000, Vol. 37 Issue 8, p1101 This paper treats the significance of organization-based social identity for loyalty versus exit reactions with special reference to knowledge-intensive companies. The centrality of network relations and close contact with clients in combination with the sometimes drastic consequences of knowledge workers defecting in many knowledge-intensive companies makes social identification and loyalty crucial themes for management. The paper discusses different kinds of and modes of accomplishing loyalty... ========== The Formation of Breakaway Organizations: Observations and a Process Model. Dyck, Bruno; Starke, Frederick A.. Administrative Science Quarterly, Dec99, Vol. 44 Issue 4, p792 Two qualitative studies examined the processes leading to the formation of breakaway organizations, which result when groups leave existing organizations to form new organizations. In the first study, analysis of interviews at 11 organizations in which group exit occurred revealed that the process unfolded in six stages: relative harmony, idea development, change, resistance, intense conflict, and exit. Five trigger events--introduction of conflicting ideas, legitimizing them, alarm, polarization of views, and justification--moved the participants through the group exit process... Implications for the exit/voice/loyalty/neglect paradigm, the group studies literature, and organization theory in general are discussed. ========== Dual Loyalty and Human Rights. Rubenstein, Leonard S.. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, Jul-Sep2003, Vol. 26 Issue 3, p270 Discusses issues concerning human rights and dual loyalty in the health care industry. Guidelines and institutional mechanisms for the prevention of complicity by health professionals in human rights violation; Lack of awareness of the relevance of human rights to clinical and community practice; Problem of dual loyalty at a systematic level ========== Exit, voice and loyalty in the course of corporate governance and counsel's changing role. Kostant. Journal of Socio-Economics, 1999, Vol. 28 Issue 3, p203 Striking changes in the norms and practices of corporate governance have occurred since the 1980s. Corporate directors have become more independent and diligent and institutional investors have become more activist. If we apply Albert O. Hirschman's insights about the interactions of exit, voice and loyalty, we find that over-reliance on exit as the remedy of choice of shareholders failed to discipline and educate managers effectively. After the wave of hostile takeovers, the extent of management failure became apparent and the increased power of voice was an important factor in accelerating changes in conduct and norms. The new Team Production Model is useful in describing how public corporations are increasingly being governed. The model helps to explain why corporate boards should function as independent arbitrators among the corporate constituents that have invested in the entity. Mechanisms to increase stakeholder voice and loyalty can help the board function effectively and may increase both efficiency and fairness.... The role of corporate counsel, as co-agent with corporate management, and having an independent fiduciary duty to the entity and not its management, is essential to assist the corporate board in meeting its obligations within the Team Production Model.... ========== Book Reviews. [A number of books reviewed regarding divided loyalties] Journal of Law & Society, Sep2003, Vol. 30 Issue 3, p453 Books reviewed: Jean L. Cohen, Regulating Intimacy: A New Legal Paradigm Robert A. Kagan, Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law John McLaren, Robert Menzies, and Dorothy E. Chunn (eds.), Regulating Lives Susan Shapiro, Tangled Loyalties: Conflict of Interest in Legal Practice ========== Ethical Beliefs and Management Behaviour: A Cross-Cultural Comparison. Jackson, Terence; Artola, Marian Calafell. Journal of Business Ethics, Aug97, Vol. 16 Issue 11, p1163 A cross-cultural empirical study is reported in this article which looks at ethical beliefs and behaviours among French and German managers, and compares this with previous studies of U.S. and Israeli managers using a similar questionnaire. Comparisons are made between what managers say they believe, and what they do... Significant differences are found, for both individual managers by nationality, and for companies by nationality of parents, in the area of 'organizational loyalty'... However, no significant differences are found for measures for 'group loyalty', 'conflict between organizational and group loyalty' and for 'conflicts between self and group/organization'. The findings have implications for cross-border management decision strategies regarding such issues as receiving and giving of gifts, and the management of relations between local employees and international organizations which may be affected by differences in attitude to corporate loyalty. ========== 'It's just like a family'--shared values in the family firm. Haugh, H.M.; McKee, L.. Community, Work & Family, Aug2003, Vol. 6 Issue 2, p141 This article uses the concept of organisational culture and shared values as a means of analysing the internal operating environment of four smaller firms, each of which has a family dimension to its ownership and management. The shared values of a sense of belonging, honesty, loyalty, trust and respect were pieced together from multiple data sources during a 12-month ethnographic study...The family culture was found to be universal in only one of the firms studied. In the other three firms, the alignment to the values of the family culture served to differentiate between an inner team and peripheral employees. The criteria for membership of the inner team is through alignment to the shared values of the family culture and in this way the inner team in each of the three firms includes family members, some (but not all) supervisory staff, and friends of other members. The contribution of the article is to identify specifically the shared values that underpin the family culture... ================== We Aren't All Free Agents. Samuelson, Robert J.. Newsweek, 06/14/99, Vol. 133 Issue 24, p47 Comments on corporate loyalty and the myth of its demise. Sociological theorizing that has accompanied popular culture acceptance of the concept of employees as free agents, including `The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism,' by Richard Sennett...Reasons why corporate loyalty seems dead ========== The logic and limits of `plant loyalty': Black workers, white labor, and corporate racial. Street, Paul. Journal of Social History, Spring96, Vol. 29 Issue 3, p659 Focuses on black workers' initial resistance to unionization in Chicago, Illinois, from 1916 to 1940. Consequence for both the labor movement and race relations; Experience, consciousness and self-activity of Black packinghouse workers; Discussion on the term plant loyalty... ========== Loyalty in the Age of Downsizing Stroh, Linda K.; Reilly, Anne H.. Sloan Management Review, Summer97, Vol. 38 Issue 4, p83 A disturbing trend taking place in many corporations involves the decline of employee loyalty associated with the dramatic downsizing... the psychological contract between manager and organization has been broken. No longer can organizations guarantee lifetime employment to committed managers. In response, many managers have adopted what's commonly called a 'free agent' strategy--employees taking personal responsibility for managing the terms of their future employment. Research suggests that managers who proactively manage their careers may advance more quickly and more adequately fulfill their career aspirations than managers who passively let their organizations manage their careers. The question then becomes does loyalty get transferred from one organization to another... ========== People and their organizations: Rethinking the assumptions. McKendall, Marie A.; Margulis, Stephen T.. Business Horizons, Nov/Dec95, Vol. 38 Issue 6, p21 Focuses on the relationship between people and organizations. Historical background; Loyalty and commitment [excerpts follow] PEOPLE AND THEIR ORGANIZATIONS: RETHINKING THE ASSUMPTIONS A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS ...The interaction of people and organizations has been a subject of writing and study for about 100 years. In the early twentieth century, the relationship was openly acknowledged to be utilitarian. The company's goal was to secure maximum work efficiency and profits; the worker's goal was to receive maximum financial reimbursement. ...During the second half of the century, however, the role of the organization was redefined. Buoyed by an expansionist economy and encouraged by a growing attention to the psychology of employees, firms increasingly took on human characteristics. A great variety of benefits offered by U.S. corporations--including medical, dental, life, and retirement insurance--encouraged employees to view their firm as the Great Provider, and a strong element of paternalism emerged. Employees began to assume that, at least in part, the role of an organization was to take care of those it employed. In return, employees were to be trustworthy and reliable workers, placing corporate interests above personal ones when necessary. ...Encouraged by popular writers, and aided by peoples' natural needs and desires, the view of company as family, community, or benefactor continued largely unabated through the 1970s and 1980s. Corporate cultures built on the notion of a reciprocal personal relationship were designed to elicit emotional attachment to the firm. As one personnel manager stated, "My job is to marry them to the company" (Kunda 1992). Companies portrayed themselves as imbued with strong values and desirous of mutual caring, dependency, and respect with those they employed. To cement this bond, they began to employ a "language of loyalty," which included oft-heard metaphors of family, marriage, religion, team, partners, and associates. ...It was widely assumed that the commitment and loyalty employees felt toward their firms yielded universally positive outcomes. Managers were admonished to take a lesson from the Japanese and learn how to create "a strong tie that will bind an employee to his company" (Logan 1984). Lewicki (1981) offered a model of how to seduce organizational members into a commitment, declaring that "the more dedicated and loyal members are to an organization, the harder they are willing to work for it and the more stress they are willing to endure on its behalf." An article in Fortune heralded a "new age for business" in which the profit motive would no longer be paramount and corporations would be places full of "love and caring" (Rose 1990). THE BENEFITS OF LOYALTY AND COMMITMENT ...Organizational commitment and loyalty can produce important behavioral outcomes for firms. Although research results are complex, commitment has been cited as a correlate of a wide range of effective employee behaviors and is a mechanism through which employee behavior can be controlled. First--and most strikingly--studies have shown that organizational commitment is one of the strongest predictors of turnover and absenteeism. Committed people do not leave their organizations, either temporarily or permanently. ...Second, identifying with one's company is associated with high levels of organizational citizenship behavior. People who are committed to a firm give generously of themselves and are willing to engage in self-sacrifice on its behalf. Fostering commitment may therefore allow companies to demand extra effort from their employees more easily. THE PROBLEMS WITH LOYALTY AND COMMITMENT ...Though serving corporate purposes, envisioning a business organization as a human entity engaged in a reciprocally committed relationship with employees involves several mistaken notions. Consequently, it has created unintended consequences. ...The major problem with the notion of loyalty and commitment between organizations and their employees is that such an ideology ignores the reality of organizational purpose in a capitalistic society. Several decades ago, Etzioni differentiated between normative and utilitarian organizations. The latter, he said, are based on a remunerative arrangement, and the employees' response is generally instrumental or calculative. By contrast, normative organizations control their members by creating a moral orientation to the firm. It is not the employee's work or efforts but rite employee's self that is claimed in the name of the corporate interest. Although Etzioni categorized businesses as utilitarian, managing employees through value-laden corporate cultures and norms of reciprocity represents an attempt to elicit a moral and emotional commitment. ...Such a focus denies the purpose of a business. Corporations are not self-sacrificing entities whose role is to take care of and protect their "children." They are not human beings with hearts, minds, or souls, and although loyalty may be beneficial in social relationships, one cannot have a social relationship with an organization. The fact remains that corporations are artificial entities with utilitarian ends, no matter what values may be superimposed upon them. Their purpose is to produce a profit, their final responsibility is to their stockholders, and their survival rests on fulfilling those obligations. ========== I hope I have chosen wisely enough to meet your needs. As I said earlier, just holler if I can be of any further assistance. All the best, pafalafa-ga search strategy: Searched several academic literature databasess for: "institutional loyalty" and conflict and variations of the same, that substituted "company loyalty" and "corporate loyalty"