Framing Intro



Framing in Organizations: Overview, Assessment, and Implications

C. W. Von Bergen*

John Massey Professor of Management

Management & Marketing Department

Southeastern Oklahoma State University

P.O. Box 4109

Durant, OK 74701-0609,

Phone: 580-745-2430

Fax: 580-745-7485

E-mail: cvonbergen@sosu.edu

John A. Parnell

Belk Distinguished Professor of Management

School of Business

University of North Carolina at Pembroke

PO Box 1510

Pembroke, NC 28372

Phone: (910) 521-6465

Email: john.parnell@uncp.edu

*corresponding author

Framing in Organizations: Overview, Assessment, and Implications

Abstract

Individuals frame their perceptions in many ways. This phenomenon is common in organizations and can influence the quality of managerial decisions. Small changes in information framing can influence decision makers and subsequent action. Managers should not only know how to utilize the technique in a positive manner, but also how to prevent others from using the approach to distort the decision-making process. This paper discusses the organizational ramifications of framing, along with its implications for managers.

Framing in Organizations: Overview, Assessment, and Implications

A couple was asked by their therapist how often they made love.

“Hardly ever,” said the man, “No more than three times a week.”

The woman, on the other hand, indicated, “Constantly, at least

three times a week.” —Woody Allen’s film, Annie Hall

Any gesture, remark, or act among people can have multiple interpretations. In the above example, while the couple agreed that they made love three times a week, the meaning suggested by the man indicated that this was insufficient while the woman implied that this number was burdensome. The same experience may be labeled spontaneous or impulsive; frank or rude; thrifty or stingy; consistent or rigid; serious or grim; or trusting or gullible. Individuals may define the same vocational tasks as their job, calling, or passion. There can be as many interpretations as there are observers (Boje, Oswick, & Ford, 2004). Each interpretation is a framework from which one interprets experience. Framing is the topic of this paper, with emphases on ramifications in organizations and for managers.

Framing Described

The nature of framing can be illustrated by the anecdote of two stonecutters working on a cathedral in the middle ages (Conger, 1991). When asked what they were doing one said, “Cutting stone, of course.” The other replied, “Building the world’s most beautiful temple to God.” Each was doing the same job but framed their activities differently. Contemporary examples of framing might involve Internet service providers restating their work from “making sales” to “connecting those who would otherwise be left behind in the information revolution” (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001, p. 181) and public defenders claiming that they are “protecting the constitutional rights of all citizens to a fair trial—not helping criminals avoid condemnation” (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999, p. 421). The meaning of work in these scenarios, that is, individuals’ understandings of the purpose of their jobs, or what they believe is achieved (Brief & Nord, 1990) is reflected in how they frame their work. In turn, “…such meanings shape work motivation and performance” (Roberson, 1990, p. 107). Framing in its various formats is done by everyone, knowingly or not, when individuals wish to influence others and themselves.

Framing is a process involving selecting and highlighting certain aspects of a topic while excluding or downplaying others. When individuals share their frames with others, they “render events or occurrences meaningful’’ (Keck & Sikkink, 1998, p.17) because they assert that their interpretations are “reality” and should be credited over other possible interpretations. This is consistent with the view of Gamson (1992) who construed a frame as an organizing mechanism that enables communicators to provide meaning to experience. Moreover, framing processes not only give meaning but ‘‘function to organize experience and guide action, whether individual or collective’’ (Snow, Rochford, Worden, & Benford, 1986, p. 464). Thus, a frame ‘‘provides a perspective from which an amorphous, ill-defined and problematic situation can be made sense of and acted upon” (Rein & Schön, 1991, p. 263) and opportunities seized (Joachim 2003).

Because much organizational behavior occurs in complex, chaotic, and uncertain environments, there is considerable maneuverability with respect to shaping or framing “the facts.” Cues from the environment are often ambiguous and people establish meaning as they experience the surrounding world, creating the reality to which they respond. Hence, language and discourse do not merely “name” or passively describe reality, but create and shape it (Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996). Thus, framing promotes particular attitudes and behaviors and discourages others and has been viewed as incorporating an agenda-setting mechanism (McCombs, 2005). Indeed, Republican pollster and political media consultant, Frank Luntz (2007), argues persuasively that human communication is about delivering messages that are effective for a given audience and claims that the way messages were framed by the Republican party helped secure the presidential election for George Bush in 2004.

Framing and Reality

All frames are perceptually based. Ones perspective determines ones frame of reference. Each person considers their own perspective to be a correct and adequate representation of reality. However, many things influence perception, including past learning and what one expects to see or find. Also, such things as emotional state and lack of information can affect ones view of reality and the subsequent frame.

An account of a typical auto accident demonstrates how reality and ones frame of it can differ. Consider, during an accident investigation it was noted that one of the vehicles involved was in the middle of an intersection facing south. This was a perception of reality that no one on the scene questioned. The reality of exactly how the vehicle got there was a different matter. Those claiming to be eye-witnesses to the accident were interviewed and gave different accounts of the same occurrence. One such “witness” adamantly claimed to have seen the southern-facing vehicle run a stop-light while approaching from the north and strike the other vehicle. However, a video camera mounted to record traffic offenses at the intersection clearly showed the vehicle under consideration had entered from the east, traveling west. It ended up pointed south as a result of being hit by the other car, being knocked 90 degrees counter clock-wise from its route. Under the emotionally-charged, split-second incident some witnesses modified their understandings of reality, or their frames, to fit what they thought had happened based on incomplete information (i.e., the final locations of the crashed vehicles) and other noted variables. Hence, all perception involves framing to help organize experience and aid in understanding and interpretation of complex reality.

Framing in Practice

Historically, framing has been cast as a perceptual or decision-making error that distorts an objective, rational view of the world (Champoux, 2003). However, framing may be considered as an opportunity for individuals to exert influence by selectively emphasizing preferred alternatives. Because language and actions are interrelated, language may define certain actions as “legitimate, necessary, and may be even…the only ‘realistic’ option for a given situation” (Dunford & Palmer, 1996, p. 97). People “do not use language primarily to make accurate representations of perceived objects, but, rather to accomplish things” (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2000, p. 137) and to “…mobilize potential adherents and constituents, to garner bystander support, and to demobilize antagonists” (Snow & Benford, 1988, p. 198).

A number of examples of framing can be cited. One such illustration is found on Boston’s Freedom Trail—a part of the historic city that highlights key events of the colonial period. At one stop on the Trail the famous Boston Massacre is highlighted, a site where five Americans were killed. Although any loss of life is regrettable, the term “massacre” is likely overstated. Rather, Samuel Adams had effectively framed the incident to impel action leading to the Declaration of Independence and the subsequent Revolutionary War. Similarly, Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of Labor, provides an example of successful framing. Gompers managed to shift discourse about work hours in the 1920s. Union organizers seeking 8-hour workdays were portrayed as anarchists and immoral radicals by opponents (Martorana & Hirsch, 2001), but Gompers replaced that frame with one of fairness and decency. Long working hours were said to result in more accidents and illnesses due to fatigue and exhaustion (Sparks, Cooper, Fried, & Shirom, 1997). Emphasizing safety, health, and working conditions became economic justifications for the passage of reduced workweek legislation culminating in the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938 (Schuster & Rhodes, 1985). Research has also called attention to ways in which social movements (e.g., animal rights and gay/lesbian rights) identify victims of a given injustice and amplify their victimization by reframing in order to inspire and legitimatize movement activities (Weed, 1997).

Framing in Organizations

Within the organizational context, framing is a key tool used (knowingly or not) to persuade and influence others. Dutton, Ashford, O’Neill, and Lawrence (2001) portray an organization as a “pluralistic marketplace of ideas in which issues are ‘sold’ via persuasive efforts of managers and ‘bought’ by top managers who set the firm’s strategic direction” (p. 716). This is sometimes called “issues selling” (Dutton & Ashford, 1993). Issue selling is described as the process by which individuals affect others attention to and understanding of events, developments, and trends that have implications for organizational performance. Issue sellers attempt to effectively frame their positions to ensure that their reality or view is accepted over competing realities.

Individuals also frame reality for not only themselves, but others. Photographers provide their view of the world through their pictures as they capture a viewpoint for others to appreciate. Sales persons translate product or service features into benefits that address customer needs. Politicians cast their messages so as to connect with their electorate’s needs and desires. Reporters construct stories in ways that promote one viewpoint over another (Shah, Kwak, Schmierbach, & Zubric, 2004). Parents transmit “facts” to their children, religion conveys “truths,” and effective business leaders communicate to employees their reality of the world.

Effective leaders are excellent at communication and use this resource to get others to act in accordance with their mental models (Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996). Leaders construct social reality for their followers through framing techniques that present purposes and missions in ways that energize followers. Gardner and Alvolio (1998) indicate that in framing their visions, charismatic leaders choose words that amplify audience values, stress importance and efficacy, and if necessary, denigrate their opponents (e.g., competitors). Leaders’ communications lead supporters to see opportunities where others perceive constraints and roadblocks. Virtually all behavior can be cast in a negative or a tolerable or justifiable light and framing is a key process used to do so.

Framing Types

Levin, Schneider, and Gaeth (1998) identified several kinds of frames that cast the same information in either a positive or a negative perspective: attribute framing, goal framing, and risky choice framing. Each of these categories involves distinct, independent processes.

Attribute framing

Attribute framing represents the simplest and most widely understood case of framing. Recent examples of attribute framing involve consumer judgment or other forms of item evaluation. A study by Levin and Gaeth (1988) showed that perceptions of the quality of ground beef depended on whether the beef was labeled as 75 percent lean or 25 percent fat. They found that a sample of ground beef was rated as better tasting and less greasy when it was labeled in the positive light (percent lean) rather than in the negative. Another common application of attribute framing involves describing situations in terms of success rates versus failures. In all cases, the same alternative was rated more favorably when described positively than when described negatively. The literature abounds with similar results in varying contexts (e.g., Bandura, 1993).

Goal framing

In goal framing an issue is structured to focus attention on its potential to provide benefits or gains (positive frame) or on its potential to prevent or avoid loss (negative frame). A feature of goal framing is that both framing conditions promote the same act. The question of interest is which frame, positive or negative, will have the greater impact. There are at least two ways in which message frames can be manipulated. The first concerns whether benefits deriving from a goal may or may not be attained. Here, gain information is framed in terms of benefits from a goal being attained, whereas loss information is framed in terms of benefits not being attained. A second way to manipulate message frames involves whether negative outcomes may or may not be avoided. Here, gain information refers to the negative outcome not being attained, and loss information refers to the negative outcome being attained. Thus, gain-framed messages may focus on attaining a positive or not attaining a negative outcome, whereas loss-framed messages may focus on attaining a negative or not attaining a positive outcome.

Specifically, Lee and Aaker (2004) found that a gain frame is more effective when the message highlights promotion concerns (strategies emphasizing the pursuit of gains or the avoidance of nongains and aspirations toward ideals), whereas a loss frame is more persuasive when the message emphasizes prevention concerns (strategies emphasizing the avoidance of losses or the pursuit of nonlosses and the fulfillment of obligations). When the content of a message (i.e., whether it focuses on promotion or prevention concerns) is compatible with the message frame, the message “feels right” to the recipients. More specifically, high-fit messages match how people naturally think about promotion concerns (with eagerness) and prevention concerns (with vigilance) and thus are conceptually more fluent than low-fit messages.

Research also supports the views that messages emphasizing losses associated with inaction are generally more persuasive than messages emphasizing gains associated with action (Ganzach & Karsahi, 1995).

Risky choice frames

Risky-choice framing is most closely associated with the term “framing” in the decision-making literature. With this type of framing outcomes of a potential choice involving options differing in risk level are described in varying ways. For example, Tversky and Kahneman (1981) examined choices between two strategies for dealing with an emergency situation in which a number of lives would be lost unless one of the strategies would be adopted. Choices differed depending on whether strategies were described in terms of how likely a given number of lives would be saved or how likely a given number of lives would be lost with each strategy. The objective information was the same in each case, the only difference being how the options were worded. People are risk averse when a decision is formulated in terms of gain and risk-prone when put in terms of loss. As with other kinds of framing, additional studies support and amplify these results (Neale & Bazerman, 1985).

Implications for Managers

Framing deals with how the presentation of information influence audience interpretations and represents a useful means of presenting ones perspective, with an eye toward persuading others. While there is nothing inherently right or wrong about framing which involves conveying information (although some argue that framing is essentially spinning or deception and has no place in “honest” communication, Nanopublic, 2007), framing can ultimately distort facts and perceptions surrounding a situation, resulting in poor decisions. Within this context, the notion of framing provides a number of managerial implications.

First, utilize framing techniques to your advantage. If one desires a favorable judgment, decision, or behavior related to a topic, one would focus on desirable characteristics (e.g., “winning” or “percent of goal attained”). If one desires a negative evaluation then one should focus on undesirable features (e.g., “losing” or “percent of goal shortfall”). The development of influence skills has been said to be “…absolutely critical to job and career success in organizations today” (Ferris, Perrewe, Anthony, & Gilmore, 2000, p. 29). If correct, it may behoove women and minorities to pay particular attention to issue framing as an approach to enhance their influence. Added to this recommendation would be for the less adept at organizational influence to consider enhancing their language skills through more effective framing.

Second, watch for and neutralize others attempts to frame a situation. For example, managers should take notice of any communication that appears to emphasize one portion of a whole while deemphasizing another (i.e., if a supplier boasts a 90 percent customer satisfaction rate, one might ask why the other 10 percent were not satisfied). Such responses encourage a balanced treatment of facts before decisions are made.

Third, anticipate opportunities for framing by others and take steps to avoid them. When prospective solutions to an organizational problem are to be discussed, ponder the likely perspectives of the participants and consider assigning counter positions in advance. For example, if a sales manager and a production manager are called to a meeting to discuss lagging sales of a new product, one could ask the sales manager to open the meeting with a discussion of ways in which the product could be presented more effectively to prospective customers. The production manager could then lead a discussion of how potential changes in the product or improvements in its quality might make it easier to sell. Thus, “Situations and problems can be framed and reframed in different ways allowing new kinds of solutions to emerge” (Morgan, 1986, p. 337).

Fourth, resist the temptation to overly frame a situation. Framing is a useful technique for presenting a perspective on a particular issue. Overuse of the approach, however, can raise “red flags” among those to whom one is communicating. This can lead to reduced credibility of the framer, and ultimately a loss of power and influence. Framing only works if there is some substance behind the term. Garbage collectors can call themselves “sanitation engineers,” but this title change never caught on in public discourse—in fact, it is mostly associated with late night TV jokes. Why? Because no one believes the framing behind it, namely, that these folks are as highly trained professionals as those individuals who build suspension bridges and automobiles. Similarly, some may wish to frame certain individuals as having an “enlarged physical condition caused by a completely natural genetically-induced hormone imbalance” instead of fat, while others may wish to frame ugly people as appearance challenged and criminals as behaviorally challenged (Politically Incorrect Dictionary, n. d.). It is doubtful that such seemingly nice catchphrases will ever be adopted as a realistic alternative. They are simply foolish because they are trying to create a frame that simply does not exist and has little chance of ever existing. Such framing or reframing invites ridicule and hinders serious discourse.

Fifth, consider if there is any other way to interpret an upsetting situation or thing so that you or othres can feel differently about it. Psychologists call this “reframing” (Arterburn, 2007; Kerber, & Buono, 2005). A classic example of this is the roller coaster ride and how a person looks at it. One person may look at it as a source of distress, while another may see it as a source of excitement and fun. A roller coaster is a roller coaster. But the effect it has on a person is a function of how one thinks about it (Health and Age, 2006).

Supervisors and managers wear many hats and sometimes a counseling orientation is called for—for the manager himself or herself or for others, and reframing can be helpful. For example, reframing is a useful way of dealing with the anxiety that might accompany a medical procedure such as a colonoscopy. For Mark, going for a colonoscopy was a big source of distress. His physician recommended it as a part of his check up, but Mark was worried about what might turn up during the examination. As a result, he kept postponing the necessary appointment. In contrast, although Jerry did not look forward to the procedure, he thought about how relieved he would feel upon hearing that the procedure produced negative results. He too was afraid that the colonoscopy might uncover something. But rather than seeing it only that way, he thought instead about the benefits of early detection of cancer. By reframing the procedure in this way, he was able to focus on the beneficial elements rather than the fearful elements of a colonoscopy. Similarly, managers can be more effective if they can reframe goals for employees as difficult but attainable as opposed to goals that are perceived as impossible, as initially believed by workers.

Finally, educate others in the organization on the merits and concerns associated with framing. Organizational members who question frames presented by colleagues ultimately develop more balanced perspectives of important issues, enabling them to make more effective decisions.

Conclusion

Framing is a language tool generally considered secondary in importance to action. Language, discourse, and talk are often depicted within organizations as “stepchildren” to action (Oswick, Keenoy, & Grant, 1997, p. 5). Doing appears to be more highly valued than talking. Consequently, the role of discourse, particularly framing, in management has been consistently understated and undervalued (Oswick et al., 1997). This is unfortunate since small changes in framing can substantially influence decision making (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981).

It should be acknowledged, however, that some question the appropriateness of teaching framing and influence skills. The relatively benign notion of organizational influence discussed in this paper is a central fact of life in modern organizations. Many people direct a great deal of time and effort to persuading others to accept their views or recommendation. Nevertheless, influence can be viewed or framed as manipulation with a negative connotation involving increased deception, lying, and intimidation (Champoux, 2003). Machiavellian personalities are especially well adapted to using such techniques. Indeed, their resistance to social influence, lack of ethical concerns, and use of deception and manipulative tactics has been noted (Wilson, Near, & Miller, 1996). They are willing to lie, cheat, play “dirty tricks,” or engage in virtually any action that helps them achieve their goals (Christie & Geis, 1970). They are skilled manipulators of other people, relying on their persuasive abilities and political maneuvers, such as forming coalitions with others which Dutton & Ashford (1993) have found, in addition to framing, contribute to successful issue selling in organizations.

These concerns notwithstanding, framing is a key component of language and expression within organizational contexts. Managers should master framing as a means of presenting their perspectives to others inside and outside the organization, while seeking to reduce the gratuitous and deceptive use of the technique by others. In summary, when framing is properly used in organizations, it can create clear visual images and strong support for a course of action. When it is improperly utilized, however, it can result in an inaccurate presentation of the facts surrounding a situation, and ultimately poor decision making. Astute managers learn to distinguish between the two extremes.

References

Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2000). Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research:

Challenges, responses, consequences. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36, 136-158.

Arterburn, S. (2007). Reframe your life: Transforming your pain into purpose.

Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (1999). How can you do it?: Dirty work and the challenge of

constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review, 24, 413-434.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.

Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.

Boje, D. M., Oswick, C., & Ford, J. D. (2004). Language and organization: The doing of

discourse. Academy of Management Review, 29, 571-577.

Brief, A. P., & Nord, W. R. (1990). Meanings of occupational work: A collection of essays.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Champoux, J. E. (2003). Organizational behavior: Essential tenets (2nd ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western.

Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.

Conger, J. A. (1991). Inspiring others: The language of leadership. Academy of Management

Executive, 3, 31-45.

Dunford, R. W., & Palmer, I. C. (1996). Metaphors in popular management discourse: The case

of corporate restructuring. In D. Grant & C. Oswick (Eds.), Metaphors and organizations (pp. 95-109). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. (1993). Selling issues to top management. Academy of

Management Review, 18, 397-428.

Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O’Neill, R. M., & Lawrence, K. A. (2001). Moves that matter: Issue selling and organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 716-736.

Fairhurst, G. T., & Sarr, R. A. (1996). The art of framing: Managing the language of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ferris, G. R., Perrewe, P. L., Anthony, W. P., & Gilmore, D. C. (2000). Political skill at work.

Organizational Dynamics, 28, 25-37.

Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Ganzach, Y., & Karsahi, N. (1995). Message framing and buying behavior: A field experiment.

Journal of Business Research, 32, 11-17.

Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical

perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 32-58.

Health and Age. (2006). Caregivers’ Center. Retrieved October 17, 2007, from .

public/health-center/40/article/1006/What-can-I-do-when-I-find-myself-getting-upset.html

Joachim, J. (2003). Framing issues and seizing opportunities: The UN, NGOs, and women’s

rights. International Studies Quarterly, 47, 247-274.

Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in

international politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Kerber, K., & Buono, A. F. (2005). Rethinking organizational change: Reframing the challenge

of change management. AddedOrganization Development Journal, 23, p23-38,

Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit

on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 351-369.

Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). Framing of attribute information before and after consuming

the product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 374-378.

Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149-188.

Luntz, F. (2007). Words that work: It’s not what you say, it’s what people hear. NY: Hyperion.

Martorana, P. V., & Hirsch, P. M. (2001). The social construction of “overtime.” Research in the Sociology of Work: The Transformation of Work, 10, 165-187.

McCombs, M. (2005). A look at agenda-setting: Past present and future. Journalism Studies, 6,

543-557.

Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Beverly Hilly, CA: Sage.

Nanopublic. (2007, February 3). Why Framing Matters: Frank Luntz on “Words that Work.”

Retrieved October 15, 2007, from

matters-frank-luntz-on.html

Neale, M. A., & Bazerman, M. H. (1985). The effects of framing and negotiator overconfidence

on bargaining behaviors and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 34-49.

Oswick, C., Keenoy, T., & Grant, D. (1997). Managerial discourses: Words speak louder than

actions? Journal of Applied Management Studies, 6, 5-12.

Politically Incorrect Dictionary (n. d.). Retrieved May 1, 2007, from

ns-pi.html

Rein, M., & Schön, D. (1991). Frame-reflective policy discourse. In P. Wagner, C. Hirschhorn,

B. Weiss, & H. Wallmann (Eds.), Social sciences and modern states: National experiences and theoretical crossroads (pp. 262–289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Roberson, L. (1990). Functions of work meanings in organizations: Work meanings and work

motivation. In A. P. Brief & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Meanings of occupational work: A collection of essays (pp. 107-134). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Schuster, M., & Rhodes, S. (1985). The impact of overtime work on industrial accident rates.

Industrial Relations, 24, 234-246.

Shah, D. V., Kwak, N., Schmierbach, M., & Zubric, J. (2004). The interplay of news frames on

cognitive complexity. Human Communication Research, 30, 102-120.

Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D., (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization.

International Social Movement Research, 1, 197-218.

Snow, D. A., Rochford, Jr., E. B., Worden, S. K., & Beneford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment

processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51, 464–481.

Sparks, K., Cooper, C., Fried, Y., & Shirom, A. (1997). The effects of hours of work on health:

A meta-analytic review. Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 391-408.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.

Science, 211, 453-458.

Weed, F. J. (1997). The framing of political advocacy and service responses in the crime victim

rights movement. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 24, 43-61.

Wilson, D. S., Near, D., & Miller, R. R. (1996). Machiavellianism: A synthesis of the

evolutionary and psychological literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 285-289.

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active

crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, 179-201.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download