Punishment is fundamental to the evolution of cooperative norms in teams, organizations, and societies. Based on findings that people are faster when punishing others (relative to when withholding punishment), dual-process theories of punishment assert that humans have an intuitive tendency to punish, which requires effortful deliberation to overcome. Here, we propose an alternative single-process theory that models punishment decisions as a sequential sampling process. We provide supporting evidence for this theory using a public goods game experiment that experimentally manipulates the (...) cost–benefit tradeoff across the game. We show that people are not systematically faster when punishing (versus withholding) across tradeoffs. We also find an inverted-U-shaped relationship between response times and the strength of preferences for punishing, and a negative association between punishment rates and the relative speed of punishment across individuals. Further computational analysis using the drift–diffusion model (DDM) reveals that, on average, people exhibit a pre-disposition to withhold punishment. Our study provides a unified single-process framework for studying the micro-foundations of punishment and integrating process measures to better describe and predict behavior. (shrink)

Supervisors regularly make disciplinary decisions in organizations, and some supervisors may choose to act leniently. While research on supervisor discipline has shown its impact on transgressing employees, less is understood about how third-party observers interpret and react to supervisor leniency. To address this lack of knowledge, we utilize motive attribution theory and the literature on gender norms, and adopt a mixed methods design to investigate how third-party employees morally evaluate supervisor leniency based on their motive attributions of supervisor leniency, as (...) well as the consequences associated with such moral evaluations. Study 1 first uses a micro-narrative procedure and an inductive analysis to demonstrate varied altruistic (e.g., empathy, punishment calibration, etc.) and instrumental motives (e.g., image maintenance, easier than punishment, etc.) that observing employees attribute to supervisor leniency. Based on this finding, we predict that perceived altruistic (instrumental) motives are associated with lower (higher) immorality evaluations, leading to more (less) supervisor-directed OCB and less (more) gossip, and these effects are contingent on supervisor gender such that these relationships are stronger for female supervisors. The results of Study 2 (i.e., a vignette-based experiment) and Study 3 (i.e., an event-contingent survey study) provide support for our predictions. Our findings contribute to the literature of supervisor leniency by highlighting the roles of motive attribution and supervisor gender in determining employee moral evaluations of leniency and the downstream consequences of such evaluations. (shrink)

Studying and discussing boundary violations between people is important for potentially averting future harm. Organizations typically respond to boundary violations in retributive ways, by punishing the perpetrator. Interestingly, prior research has largely ignored the impact of sexual boundary violations and retributive dynamics on teams. This is problematic as teams provide an obvious setting not only to detect and discuss troubling behavior by peers, but also for learning how to prevent future harm. Therefore, in this study we explore team-level experiences regarding (...) sexual boundary violations and organizational responses to these incidents. Drawing on an in-depth case study, our findings shed light on the profound negative consequences of a retributive organizational response to sexual boundary violations. Additionally, our findings show how a restorative approach, inviting teams to reflect on the violations and their impact, can help teams to recover. Our main contribution involves a model that demonstrates how the interplay between sexual boundary violations, retributive, and restorative organizational responses affects teams. This model shows how combining these responses can acknowledge distress within teams, heal relationships between team members through dialogue, and open up the possibility to learn from these events. This model extends prior research focusing on individual actions and outcomes regarding violations. Additionally, by combining retributive and restorative organizational responses in one model, we extend the literature on restorative organizational responses to boundary violations. (shrink)