PERCEPTIONS OF AUTHENTIZOTIC CLIMATES AND EMPLOYEE HAPPINESS: PATHWAYS TO INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE?1

We discuss how six dimensions of the authentizotic psychological climate explain stress and affective well-being at work, and how stress and affective well-being explain self-reported individual performance. The sample comprises 199 employees from 118 organizations. The findings indicate the good psychometric properties of the authentizotic climate measure, and suggest that (a) affective well-being, mainly enthusiasm and vigor, explain unique variance of selfreported performance and (b) the perceptions of authentizotic climates explain unique variance of stress, affective well-being and self-reported performance. A configurational approach is also presented for dealing with the ways people combine their perceptions of authentizotic climates, emotional states, stress and self-reported performance.

COMPLEXITY * SIMPLICITY * SIMPLEXITY

“In the midst of order, there is chaos; but in the midst of chaos, there is order”, John Gribbin wrote in his book Deep Simplicity (p.76). In this dialectical spirit, we discuss the generative tension between complexity and simplicity in the theory and practice of management and organization. Complexity theory suggests that the relationship between complex environments and complex organizations advanced by the well-known Ashby’s law, may be reconsidered: only simple organization provides enough space for individual agency to match environmental turbulence in the form of complex organizational responses. We suggest that complex organizing may be paradoxically facilitated by a simple infrastructure, and that the theory of organizations may be viewed as resulting from the interplay between simplicity and complexity. JEL codes:

Management ideologies and organizational spirituality: a typology

The topic of spirituality is gaining an increasing visibility in organization studies. It is our contention that every theory of organization is a theory of organizational spirituality. Based on Barley and Kundas 1992 Administrative Science Quarterly article, we discuss the evolution of management theories as spirituality theories. From such analysis, we suggest that there may be both a meaningful/liberating and an instrumental/exploitative side in the relationship between organizations and spirituality. Such a possibility is illustrated with a typology that advances four possible types of organizations regarding spirituality: the soulful organization, the holistic organization, the ascetic organization, and the professional organization. The expression of spirituality in each of these forms is discussed with the aim of contributing to a theoretically-based analysis of organizational spirituality.management ideologies, organizational spirituality, religion

ECOCENTRIC MANAGEMENT: AN UPDATE

In an article published in 1995, Paul Shrivastava coined the notion of an ecocentric management paradigm. The ecocentric paradigm provided an integrated and holistic view of the organization at peace with the natural environment. This paper updates the idea of ecocentricity and enriches it with facts and fears that have emerged since then. We suggest that Shrivastava’s original formulation was an improvement of the industrial paradigm, advance an alternative reconceptualization of ecocentricity, and discuss some of the possible obstacles to the emergence and adoption of ecocentric management.

As duas faces da mudanca organizacional: planeada e emergente

Este artigo argumenta que a analise da mudanga organizacional nco deve incidir apenas sobre a mudanga planeada (i.e., conduzida segundo um processo preestabelecido) mas tambim sobre a mudanga emergente (i.e., que se desenha de forma nco prevista, em resposta a problemas e especificidades locais). I a recorrente desatengco ` segunda componente que explica, por exemplo, a resistjncia em reconhecer `s mudangas improvisadas um papel central na renovagco organizacional. Este trabalho contrasta as vantagens e limitagues das duas formas de mudanga, e argumenta a necessidade de considerar o papel de ambas na gestco da mudanga organizacionalmudanga, planeamento, emergjncia, improvisagco

From “This Job Is Killing me” to “I Live in the life I Love and I Love the Life I Live”, or from Stakhanov to Contemporary Workaholics

F. W. Taylor is often celebrated as a founding father of organization and management theory, one whose commitment to efficiency is legendary. If we define efficiency in terms of maximizing output from a given – or lesser – number of workers it can be considered that, in some cases, Taylor’s science has achieved a remarkable success. Contemporary organizations managed to create such a state of commitment (be it spontaneous or imposed), that people have adopted excessive working as lifestyle. Life is organized around work, with work occupying more and more territory from the former private life. We discuss the notion of excessive working, present several forms of excessive working, contest the idea that excessive working is necessarily noxious, suggest a dynamic understanding of the different forms of excessive working, and challenge researchers critically to discuss their practical success. As the saying goes, there can be too much of a good thing.

Emergent Coordination Failures And Freelance Improvisation: Lessons From The \u201cRoad Of Death\u201d

Resilience is a capacity developed and deployed over time rather than an effective reaction to a single event (Hamel & V\ue4likangas, 2003; Reinmoeller & Baardwijk, 2005). Such a capacity can be expressed at different levels of aggregation, spanning from individuals to entire communities (e.g. Van Der Vegt et al., 2015). The brilliant examination of the Mann Gulch disaster conducted by Karl Weick (1993) shows that even organizations \u2013 and systems - which are designed to face risky situations can result vulnerable when exposed to the unexpected, while experiencing \u201cerosion of sense and structure\u201d (p. 638). As Weick (1993) anticipates, organizational improvisation (Cunha et al., 1999; Hadida et al., 2015) provides the means for exploration of alternatives (e.g. Hummels et al., 2014) to face the unpredictable. As in many artistic and emergent practices (e.g., Furu, 2013; Vera & Crossan, 2003), flexible, extemporaneous, improvised action stimulates learning from the unexpected (e.g. Miner et al., 2001), that complement what routines cannot prescribe (e.g. Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003). Hence organizational improvisation contributes to resilience as it turns resource constraints into opportunities, stimulating resourcefulness and imagination (Gibbert & V\ue4likangas, 2004), leveraging upon organizational ingenuity and imaginative recombination of resources (Dolmans et al., 2014; Korhohen & V\ue4likangas, 2014). The quest for resilience is particularly central in organizations and systems that are designed for high-reliability (e.g. Milosevic, Bass & Combs, 2015). Reality has proven, however, that even technologically sophisticated systems do fail. Failure occurs at the boundary of human and technology interactions in extreme environments. Among others, cases such as Mann Gulch or the AF447 flight (Oliver et al., 2017) show that surprises often creep through design, technology and coordination in unsuspecting manners. In line with previous work, we define surprises as events that happen unexpectedly or expected events that take unexpected shapes (Cunha et al., 2006). So, some question arises: How does the predictable become surprising for organizations designed to be resilient? How does such a design for resilience turn into vulnerability