Articles scientifiques

Better together: using meta-analysis to explore complementarities between ecological and institutional theories of organization


Organization Studies

A paraître

Départements : Management et Ressources Humaines, GREGHEC (CNRS)

Drift or alignment? A configurational analysis of law firms' ability to combine profitability with professionalism


Journal of Professions and Organization

A paraître

Départements : Management et Ressources Humaines, GREGHEC (CNRS)

Leadership and the Logic of Absurdity


Academy of Management Review

A paraître

Départements : Management et Ressources Humaines

Leaders are often thought to be instrumental to the performance of the organizations they lead. However, considerable research suggests that their influence over organizational performance might actually be minimal. These claims of leader irrelevance pose a puzzle: If leaders are relatively insignificant, why would someone commit to leading? Applying decision-making theory, this paper first considers justifying the decision to lead according to the Logics of Consequence and Appropriateness—the two principal decision-making logics underlying previous work on the motivation to lead. The paper then presents the Logic of Absurdity, a decision-making logic in which decision-makers knowingly choose to dedicate themselves to an irrational course of action. In terms of the decision to lead, a decision-maker employing the Logic of Absurdity acknowledges the likely futility of leading but decides to commit to leading, nonetheless. The paper concludes by considering when leaders are most likely to decide to lead according to the Logic of Absurdity and why doing so may result in leadership of exceptional originality, foolishness, intelligence, and madness

Towards an Integrated Framework of Professional Partnership Performance: the Role of Formal Governance and Strategic Planning


Human Relations

A paraître

Départements : Management et Ressources Humaines, GREGHEC (CNRS)

Who’s Watching? Accountability in Different Audit Regimes and the Effects on Auditors’ Professional Skepticism


Journal of Business Ethics

A paraître

Départements : Comptabilité et Contrôle de Gestion, GREGHEC (CNRS), Management et Ressources Humaines

Mots clés : Accountability Auditors Professional skepticism Joint audit Judgment Experiment Int

The European Commission has suggested that the use of joint audits should lead to improved auditor skepticism and—by extension—audit quality, throughincreased accountability. However, archival research does not find support for improved audit quality in a joint audit setting. To better understand the relationship between accountability in different review regimes and auditors’judgments, we examine the behavioral effect of implementing a joint audit relative to other review regimes based on a 1 9 3 experimental design. Forty-seven senior auditors and partners from a Big Four firm performed a goingconcern evaluation task under one of three review regimes: the joint audit, the internal review, and the no review regime. Notwithstanding the difference in the audiences to which auditors are accountable, there is no difference in thejudgment process. In terms of their judgment outcome, however, auditors in the joint audit setting were the least skeptical in their judgment of the going concern assumption. Overall, we suggest that the joint audit may lead tounintended behavioral consequences


Département Management et Ressources Humaines

Campus HEC Paris
1, rue de la Libération
78351 Jouy-en-Josas cedex



Management et Ressources Humaines

Voir le CV