Why Marshall
Leadership
Dean Geoffrey Garrett
Dean's Cabinet
Boards
Real-World Learning
Human Leadership
Tech Fluency
Global Opportunities
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
Teaching + Innovation
Experiential Learning Center
Open Expression Statement
Programs
Undergraduate Programs
Admissions
Degrees
BS Business Administration (BUAD)
Business Emphases
BS Accounting (ACCT)
World Bachelor in Business (WBB)
BS Business of Cinematic Arts (BCA)
BS Artificial Intelligence for Business (BUAI)
Undergraduate Minors
Graduate Programs
MBA Programs
Full-Time MBA (FTMBA)
Executive MBA (EMBA)
Part-Time MBA (MBA.PM)
International MBA (IBEAR)
Online MBA (OMBA)
Specialized Masters
MS Business Administration (MSBUSAD)
MS Business Analytics (MSBA)
MS Entrepreneurship + Innovation (MSEI)
MS Finance (MSF)
MS Global Supply Chain Management (MSGSCM)
MS Marketing (MSMKT)
MS Social Entrepreneurship (MSSE)
Master of Business for Veterans (MBV)
Master of Management Studies (MMS)
Accounting Masters
Master of Accounting (MAcc)
Master of Business Taxation (MBT)
Master of Business Taxation for Working Professionals (MBT.WP)
PhD Program
Accounting
Data Sciences + Operations
Finance
Management + Organization
Marketing
Graduate Certificates
GC in Business Analytics
GC in Financial Analysis + Valuation
GC in Management Studies
GC in Marketing
GC in Optimization + Supply Chain Management
GC in Strategy + Management Consulting
GC in Sustainability + Business
GC in Technology Commercialization
GC in Library and Information Management – Online
Executive Education Redirect
Departments
Business Communication (BUCO)
Faculty
Data Sciences and Operations (DSO)
Finance + Business Economics (FBE)
Leventhal School of Accounting (ACCT)
Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies (BAEP)
Management and Organization (MOR)
Marketing (MKT)
Institutes + Centers
Peter Arkley Institute for Risk Management
Brittingham Social Enterprise Lab
Center for Investment Studies
Initiative on Digital Competition
Randall R. Kendrick Global Supply Chain Institute
Center for Effective Organizations
Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies
VanEck Digital Assets Initiative
Institute for Outlier Research in Business
Center for Global Innovation
Neely Center for Ethical Leadership and Decision Making
Trojan Network
Recruiting
Undergraduate
Graduate
Career Services
Giving + Support
Alumni Engagement + Resources
Student Organizations
Commencement
Erin Frey is an Assistant Professor in the Management and Organization Department at the Marshall School of Business at USC. She studies leadership following crises, scandals, and failures in organizations. Using a a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods, she examines how organizations and leaders respond to challenging situations and how they can give employees second chances. Her research has been published in outlets like Administrative Science Quarterly, Academy of Management Journal, and Social Psychological and Personality Science.
NEWS + EVENTS
Marshall Hires 18 Faculty Members
RESEARCH + PUBLICATIONS
When organizational members violate important organizational standards, they may face termination, or they may instead be retained by the organization and given a second chance. Retained transgressors experience the tension of liminality: they maintain their affiliation to the organization, making them structural insiders, but they have committed a transgression, making them moral outsiders. How might transgressors attempt to reintegrate and feel like full organizational insiders once again? And what makes transgressors feel more or less reintegrated? Previous work has studied reintegration from victims’ or observers’ perspectives, but little is known about transgressor reintegration. To build theory on transgressor reintegration, I studied transgressors at a military service academy. Through waves of qualitative data collection and inductive analyses, I find that transgressions threaten transgressors’ integration, leading transgressors to feel precarious in their perceptions of membership and their feelings of belonging. Transgressors attempt to restore both elements, but use distinct approaches for each. Because belonging restoration requires positive interactions with many organizational actors, transgressors can – and in my data, frequently do – experience restoration of membership but not belonging. Therefore it may be relatively rare for transgressors to feel highly reintegrated following transgressions, even in organizations that devote considerable resources to reintegration.
When employees commit transgressions, organizations often use tools of organizational control to prevent them from transgressing again. We investigate whether organizations can use transgression transparency to rehabilitate transgressors. Although making transgressions transparent—which may result in stigmatization or public shaming—is generally assumed to be purely punitive, we show when and how it can foster rehabilitation. We draw on a longitudinal, qualitative dataset of 23 similarly situated transgressors at a military academy that added transparency to traditional punishment by requiring transgressors to wear a pin that signaled their transgression. Data from transgressors and from other organizational members revealed that instead of prompting persistent stigmatization, social awareness of the transgression prompted others’ inquiry, gradually engaging transgressors in a coactive process to develop a mutually acceptable narrative of their transgression through a mechanism we call personal narrative control. For that personal narrative to endure, transgressors needed to exercise self-control and avoid further transgressions, as they did in our study even after the pin was removed, signaling rehabilitation. We induce four contextual conditions for transgression transparency to trigger personal narrative control and theorize how they might generalize to other organizations seeking to rehabilitate transgressors.
Though organizational scholars have studied punishment for decades, recent examples of punishment in organizations cannot be fully explained by the scholarly literature. This may be
because much of our prior understanding of punishment has been based on studies in highly
bounded organizations, but with the shift to remote work arrangements and contract or freelance
work, modern organizations are becoming increasingly boundaryless. Does punishment in
bounded organizations look different than punishment in boundaryless organizations? To
answer this question, we review and categorize the literature on punishment in organizations
according to the boundedness of the organization it examined. We find that though there are similarities in punishment in bounded and boundaryless organizations, punishment in boundaryless
organizations involves different actors, punishing different situations, for different reasons, using
different methods. However, many questions about punishment in boundaryless organizations
remain, including about the pervasiveness, motivations, and impacts that punishment has in
boundaryless organizations.
Although income is an important predictor of life satisfaction, the precise forces that drive this relationship remain unclear. We
propose that financial resources afford individuals a path to reducing the distressing impact of everyday hassles, thereby increasing one’s life satisfaction. More specifically, we hypothesize that financial scarcity is associated with greater distress intensity in
everyday life. Furthermore, we propose that lower perceived control helps explain why financial scarcity predicts higher distress
intensity and lower life satisfaction. We provide evidence for these hypotheses in a 30-day daily diary study (522 participants,
13,733 observations). A second study (N = 376) further suggests that, although everyone relies on social support to ease stress,
financial scarcity shrinks the sense one can use economic resources to reduce the adverse impact of daily hassles. Although
money may not necessarily buy happiness, it reduces the intensity of stressors experienced in daily life—and thereby increases
life satisfaction.
Employee misbehavior can be defined as transgressions that go beyond unintentional mistakes but do not rise to the level of criminal offenses. Managers are often given substantial discretion over how to handle such behavior, but they may be unsure about what their response should be or unaware of the extent to which others will care about their response. We offer a framework to help managers respond to misbehavior, particularly when firing the offender is not an option. We identify types of formal and informal responses that not only deter future offenses but also help to restore perceptions of justice within the organization. We also provide guidance on how managers should select and communicate these responses to other employees. Finally, we highlight two supplementary actions that managers can consider to restore perceptions of justice: victim restitution (that is, providing compensation to or otherwise helping to assuage the distress of the wronged party) and offender reintegration (that is, helping the wrongdoer get back to work within the organization).