Unfinished business: integrating individual decision-makers' experience and incentives to organizational performance feedback theory

In this study, we analyze the role of individual decision-makers in organizational decision-making that is described by the Carnegie perspective. In particular, building on the Behavioral Theory of the Firm, we analyze the influence of decision-makers on organizational responses to performance feedback. Managers in organizations can influence the performance feedback process through their individual experiences. Moreover, they are motivated and controlled by incentives, which is another mechanism by which organizational decision-making can be influenced by individuals. While the Carnegie perspective acknowledges that decision-makers interpret performance feedback and initiate organizational responses, individuals are not as closely integrated to the organizational performance feedback process as some other-mostly organizational-conditions. Recently, several intriguing empirical studies have addressed the role of experience and incentives in the performance feedback process. However, their cumulative effect remained impossible to assess. We meta-analytically review 205 BTOF studies to test our hypotheses on the influence of decision-makers' experience and incentives on organizational responses to performance feedback. We show that decision-makers' job experience and domain expertise influence organizational responses to performance below aspirations, while incentives and compensation become relevant when performance is above aspirations. These results highlight the importance of individual decision-makers in explaining variations in organizational performance feedback decisions, offering exciting venues for psychology scholars to contribute to the Carnegie perspective.

Public Opinion and Impression Management in the Communication of Performance During the Second Iraq War

Although studies show that organizations engaged in controversial actions often aim to minimize the release of threatening information, scholars know relatively little about what may prompt organizations to increase transparency in these situations. In this study, we focus on support from public opinion as a condition that may influence the disclosure of sensitive performance information to the public. Using the second Iraq War as an empirical context, we focus on the extent to which public officials—Pentagon spokespersons—release and frame information about war performance. This outcome is critical because the way in which organizations communicate their performance to outsiders has often been regarded as a key defensive impression management tactic. We hypothesize that high public support for the war will increase the likelihood that Pentagon officials release information about sensitive combat performance indicators in their press briefings and identify contingencies, such as adversity and organizational spokespersons’ power, that moderate this relationship. We also explore whether high public support decreases the strategic use of alternate performance frames that emphasize metrics that signal progress toward a desirable end state. Using a unique data set based on the coding of press briefings, public opinion data, and other public sources, we find support for several of our hypotheses. We discuss implications for understanding the relationship between public opinion and impression management and highlight the importance of extending this research to nongovernmental organizations.