No abstract

No abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this research is to understand why and under what conditions employees are likely to partake in a particular type of silence, known as the Hierarchical MUM Effect (HME). This phenomenon occurs when subordinates are reluctant to share bad news with their supervisors, which can lead to deleterious outcomes in organizations due to a lack of communication. The authors also seek to find which conditions minimize HME.Design/methodology/approachThe authors surveyed employees in a large healthcare organization across three weeks. The authors analyzed their results using the SPSS PROCESS macro.FindingsThe authors’ findings suggest one way to minimize a lack of upward communication is to empower employees, via a high-quality LMX relationship, and move away from a bottom-line mentality focus. Employees who are empowered show lower instances of withholding information via HME. A low bottom-line mentality enhanced this relationship.Originality/valueThe authors expand understanding of antecedents to a particular type of silence, the HME, defined as purposefully withholding information from a supervisor or sharing information in a way that silences the dirty details of a situation (i.e. equivocating). Although a wealth of research examines the deleterious consequences of a high BLM, the authors highlight the positive work outcomes associated with a low BLM.

This chapter examines previous research on tensions in HRM, focusing on the contributions and limitations of these perspectives for understanding and handling tensions. Second, it focuses on what characterizes the dynamics of coping with tensions. Here, paradox theory is drawn on to consider conditions for alternative response/coping strategies and processes that characterize reinforcing cycles. The chapter offers insights from the (limited) body of work in HRM that draws on paradox theory. Thirdly, the chapter offers a paradox framework to aid the study of HRM tensions. Finally, it concludes with suggestions for further HRM research on tensions and coping responses enriched by insights from a paradox perspective.

Organizational restructures have been occurring for decades but are often rife with problems. Although researchers have studied these restructures, many studies focus on financial, strategic, and integration aspects and are limited in addressing the human side of restructuring. In addition, there is little study of internal restructures involving the movement of divisions within one organization. In our inductive case study, we examine how organizational members’ identification perceptions evolve and impact an internal restructure at a large university. We present our emergent findings in a process model that illustrates how identification perceptions evolved, as well as triggers that impacted identifying and de-identifying processes. These triggers, which helped move members simultaneously from a state of identification with the former entity (pre-restructure) to both de-identification with the former entity and identification with the new one (post-restructure), included experiences and expectations involving resources, justice, and organization oneness.