On the Critical Role of Corporate Ethics in Organizational Success - Assignment Example

On the Critical Role of Corporate Ethics in Organisational Success: The Case of Xerox TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY page 3 Introduction 5 1. Problem Identification: The Xerox Scandal 5 1.2. Significance: Impact of the Scandal 7 2. Organisational Structure of Xerox Corporation in 2011 8 3. Analysis 10 4. Conclusion 17 5. Current Trend 19 6. Recommendations 19 BIBLIOGRAPHY 20 Executive Summary The global economy has become the fastest growing aspect of humanity. To this effect, entrepreneurs often rely on skill, hard work and even up to a certain extent, luck, to keep their corporations. Oftentimes, businessmen resort to the implementation of complex operational schematics and advance methods of marketing to sustain their existence. However, there are yet businessmen who resort to illegal means to keep their businesses alive. This is the case of the Xerox scandal. Xerox Corporation is an international business entity that specializes in document management and printer manufacturer. Xerox was founded in 1906 and came to fame with the introduction of the ‘Xerox 914.’ Years after, the company began to experience reverses. As such, other companies overtook Xerox and placed them in a relative limbo. In 1997, Paul A. Allaire held the top spot and he introduced reforms in the company and the company was able to regain much of its lost grandeur. Richard Thoman was next in line to Allaire and in 2000, Thoman became the top henchman of Xerox. However, a few months into his administration Xerox once again fell to the gutters. As a result, Xerox’s Board of Directors ousted Thoman and reinstated Allaire. With the collapse of Xerox was hanging close, Allaire undertook the implementation of illegal accounting actions to salvage the company. This step was allegedly performed with the knowledge of several key officers of the company. As such, when the breach was discovered in 2002, the SEC slapped Xerox and several of its key officers, including its auditor, KPMG with a multi-million dollar settlement cost. The fact remains that while the international market becomes more and more stringent and the players become more and more aggressive, businessmen must take into account that the end does not always justify the means. 1. Introduction From mans primitive beginnings in trade, todays globalized economy has indeed taken a fast-paced train to reach its current state. What started as a simple barter of goods, commerce has now advanced into multi-settings and several complex marketing schematics aimed at the attainment of an international foothold on the market. Among the advancements in the business setting is the re-invention of the terms “cost-efficiency” and “effectivity” of a business entity. That is, while profit and returns remain as the major determinants of success, issues such as the viability of command management, corporate cohesiveness and the existence of labor receptive policies became the order of the day. From a simple mastery in the exchange of goods, being the dominant player in the economy has evolved into a multi-faceted comprehension of business systems, marketing strategies, resource management and appropriate goal setting. In the race to becoming the corporate giant, an in-depth look at the company’s systemic structures, organisational structure and venture feasibility have likewise been vital. A profound understanding of the prevalent corporate culture must be gained so as to establish a viable avenue in concretizing executive mandate through labor management and performance. 1.1 Problem Identification: The Xerox Scandal In 2002, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) put forth a case against Xerox Corporation claiming several accounting irregularities that were found in their books for the years 1997 to 2000 (Owens, 2004). The SEC imputed Xerox with utilizing accounting schemes to deceive the public as to the authentic financial situation of the company (Kay, 2002). Also, the SEC has declared that the said accounting actions were even approved by a host of the senior executives of Xerox in hopes of distorting the operational activities of the company and present the public with an image that Xerox is doing better than it actually is (Kay, 2002). In line with this, SEC’s Director of Enforcement Stephen M. Cutler maintained that the accounting anomalies committed by Xerox appears to have been intended as a means to increase corporate revenue and boost profit (Ball, 2009). That is, after having presented the public with false belief of the competitiveness and advantage of preferring Xerox, investors would then be apt to maintain their holdings or even increase such as they see fit (Sonnetag & Ilies, 2011). The SEC alleged that Xerox violated a host of principles stated in the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) leading to the false recognition of Xerox’s revenue amounting to more than $3 billion and additional pre-tax earnings of over $1.5 billion (Owens, 2004). As a result, Xerox was forced to pay $10 million in settlement with a special provision allowing the SEC access to its books and cause for the review of their existing accounting controls and policies (Kay, 2002). From the period 1997 to the year 2000, Xerox was under the helm of Paul A. Allaire (August 1, 1990 – April 6, 1999) and G. Richard Thoman (April 7, 1999 – May 10, 2000) (Peterson, 2007). A rather short stint was afforded to Thoman after he was unduly forced out of his position in May 2000 after then Chairman Allaire informed him that the board is no longer confident of his capabilities as Chief Executive Officer (Kay, 2002). As a result, Allaire took over and forged in innovative business machinations to revive the then slumping financial stability of Xerox (Tompkins, 2001). However, as it turned out, the brilliant strategies that were to be put in effect by Xerox was nothing short of fraud as several accounting irregularities and overt fraudulent actuations were seen in the accounting books of Xerox (Northcraft, Stroh & Neale, 2002). What then has led Xerox or its executives to employ these deceitful tricks? Were they drove by a deep urge to keep the company grasping for corporate survival or was it a deeper sense of wanting to get ahead in the competition? 1.2 Significance: Impact of the Scandal The settlement cost afforded to Xerox by the Securities and Exchange Commission was said to be the biggest settlement so far owing to initial refusal and apparent antagonism of the company to undergo the mandatory review relative to the complaint filed against them. SEC Director Cutler stated that the cost of settlement was set that high owing to the failure of Xerox to welcome the necessary auditing of their accounting books and auditing statements as part of the investigation being done against them (Owens, 2004). As a matter of policy, the accounting actions heeded by Xerox should be prevented and all stops must be placed so that other corporations will not attempt to follow suit (Kay, 2002). This then may be another cause for the rather pricey settlement cost charged against Xerox. After all, the investors and the public deserve to know the true financial standing of the company they wish to put their money into (Ermann, 2002). Fraudulent schemes and deceitful machinations must be penalized under the law and the perpetrators must be sanctioned heavily so as to preclude them from attempting the same in the future. 2. Organisational Structure of Xerox Corporation in 2011 Source: http://www.xerox.com/downloads/usa/en/x/Xerox_Corp_Org_Structure.pdf Xerox Corporation (Xerox) is an international document management company that specializes in manufacturing and selling a wide assortment of color and black-and-white printers, multifunction systems, photo copiers and digital production printing presses (Ellis, 2006). Xerox likewise provides consulting services in relation to the products they offer (Daft, 2009). However, despite the apparent financial promise that this sphere in technological trade offers, Xerox was not able to take full advantage of the Digitalization Era as they were left behind by their competitors. That is, by the 1982, Xerox began taking the backseat as companies such as Canon, have taken over the printing world (Kay, 2002). In1997, Xerox appeared to have regained their footing in the battle for supremacy in printing and copying with Paul Allaire at the helm as Chief Executive Officer. During Allaire’s administrations, the stock costs of Xerox went into a steady increase (Sonnetag & Ilies, 2011). But then again, this apparent improvement in financial condition of Xerox was due to the implementation of highly irregular and largely illegal accounting measures aimed at burying the real capacity of the company (Beal & Ghandour, 2011). In this move by Xerox, they were able to present the fact that there was only a minute and relatively insignificant gap between the projected income generated of the company from its actual target attainment (Lowenstein, 2004). As a result, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a complaint against Xerox in the Southern District of New York alleging Xerox’s usage of “accounting actions” leading to the abject distortion of earnings causing deception to its investors and the public as well (Kay, 2002). In an interview with SEC Director Cutler, he mentioned the fact that Xerox primarily employed two schemes to defraud the public (Niemeier & Berger, 2002). The first scheme was referred to as the “Cookie Jar” Method and the other is the acceleration of corporate revenues (Owens, 2004). The “Cookie Jar” Method is a scheme requires certain percentage of the income generated to be kept off the accounting ledgers and then be subsequently discharged during strategic periods so as to improvement the company’s performance during slump season (Beal & Ghandour, 2011). Director Cutler further mentioned that the Xerox Company largely attributed their “competitive financial attainment” to the inordinate and unlawful acceleration of profits (Beal & Ghandour, 2011). SEC Associate Director of Enforcement Paul Berger likewise maintained that the Xerox Company organised a four-year conspiracy to conceal the real status of the company’s finances in hopes of giving them ample time to get back on their feet without anyone knowing of their period of slump (Niemeier & Berger, 2002). Also, SEC Chief Accountant for the Enforcement Division Charles N. Niemeier said that for the periods of 1997 to 2000, Xerox was operating on an illusion that the company is doing well when in fact, its finances are on shaky grounds (Niemeier & Berger, 2002). This then has been the cause of protests from a lot of Xerox’s investment and a factor as to why the SEC has launched an investigation against them. After all, as Cutler maintains, the SEC will not countenance illegal activities to defraud the investing public. The wrongdoers must be punished and their actions denigrated to the tune of penalties relative sanctions. 3. Analysis What then caused Xerox to employ such illegal means to boost their profit? Was Xerox faring that below par that they had to facilitate such illegal actuations so as to prevent their investors from leaving? In 1996, Xerox began to experience a slowdown in their growth. As a result, the company, then under CEO Paul Allaire decided to cut down on workforce by letting go of almost 10,000 personnel saving the company over $770 million (Owens, 2004). However, this massive lay-offs continued well into 1998 as another round of labor reduction policy was implemented costing the jobs of another 9000 people (Ellis, 2006). This apparent move by Xerox was in hopes of amassing capital by reducing operational costs and liquefying assets. As such, about $1 billion in usual expenditures was cut and an additional $2.4 billion worth of assets were sold (Owens, 2004). During this year, Allaire was replaced by Thoman as Chief Executive Officer. But despite the cost reduction strategies employed by Xerox, the company still suffered $257 million in losses in 2000. As CEO, Thoman immediately caused for the implementation of policies focusing on the industry targets and veering away from individual clients’ objectives (Tompkins, 2001). However, Thoman made certain that the clients were given high regard by incorporating programs highlighting the importance of communication between the staff and the customers (Bowen, 1997). But then again, the reorganisation plans and new corporate strategies spearheaded by Thoman appeared to be insufficient as the company began to spiral downwards (Cohen and Bennie, 2006). Allaire was then forced to dismiss Thoman banking on the unrest of the board and their obvious dismay over the downtrend (Bowen, 1997). As soon as Allaire stepped back into office as Chief Executive Officer, the fraudulent machinations began to happen (Tompkins, 2001). But the fact remains, was Thoman remiss in his duty? Was Allaire and the Board of Directors too hasty in their decision to fire Thoman without giving him sufficient time to construct the economic play of the company? In an interview with Susan Gibbons, Xerox’s former Senior Vice President for Finance, the ousting of Thoman appears to be premature (Kay, 2002). Gibbons believed that the policies implemented under the administration of Thoman were valid and seemingly beneficial at the time. After all, it has been approved by the entire board before its implementation. However, Gibbons blames the failure of the attainment of the company’s projected goals due to the inefficiency in executing the said policies (Kay, 2002). “There was a large gap between the executives and the staff. An order will be demanded to be followed and the personnel were expected to follow, without questions asked, without the benefit of training,” said Gibbons. To this, it was quoted to have resulted in the marginalization of the work force thereby leading to the failure in the optimization of performance and delivery (Cohen and Bennie, 2006). Gibbons also blamed the failure of the company to introduce training for sales representatives (Kay, 2002). “Due to the large lay-offs, a lot of the sales people were let go that caused the company to lose a limb,” Gibbons argued (Kay, 2002). As a result, Xerox was said to have “began to rely solely on the current clientele and the occasional trickle of new customers” which appeared to not be enough to sustain their operational costs (Ellis, 2006). Accordingly, the company then started to accept new personnel to act as sales representatives to increase the client base (Bowen, 1997). However, this step may have been an age too late. Susan Gibbons stated that the firing of personnel and the hiring of new ones only caused a chasm, “the new employees were made to work double time in order to fast track the activity.” Seemingly, this move of Xerox may have caused more harm than advantage. After all, the removal of relatively seasoned employees with knowledge as to how to perform their duties were discounted and taken as mere superfluous operational cost (Kay, 2002). However, when clients began to look for other companies to provide their printing and copying need, Xerox then employed a great number of sales representatives to make them at par with the rest (Sonnetag & Ilies, 2011). But then again, this may have been possible had there been sufficient training programs to support the new hires. However, as Ms. Gibbons points out, there was less and less support for the new personnel. Trainings were not conducted and yet the new employees were expected to bring in numbers (Kay, 2002). “It’s like sending men to battle but arming them with nothing,” Gibbons commented. However, much of the failure or downtrend in Xerox’s performance may be attributed to other factors. Gibbons recounts several instances where Allaire, then President of Xerox, would interfere in the administration of Thoman (Owens, 2004). “Being older and Mr. Thoman’s predecessor, Mr. Allaire would meddle in the running of the company,” Gibbons said (Owens, 2004). Apparently, Allaire may have been unconsciously unwilling to let go of the corporate reigns as he continually impedes much of the business decisions made by Thoman. Allaire was even caused for the holding up of some business proposals and his reluctance to accede to the business judgment of Thoman. But then again, Thoman was not only made to face the stern opinion of Xerox’s former CEO. The rest of the Board of Directors were also a force to reckon with in Thoman’s case. “We in the executive offices feel resentment towards Mr. Thoman,” Ms. Gibbons commented (Owens, 2004). “It’s like they did not want him there [CEO’s office] at all.” As such, the inability of Thoman’s administration to elevate the financial condition of Xerox was thwarted by internal misgivings, power grabbing and peer mistrust which only lead to one conclusion – downfall (Tompkins, 2001). With the continued failure of the Thoman administration to meet expected results, the board, through Allaire voiced their decision to take the corporate reins away from him (Mills, 2003). Naturally, Allaire was the primal candidate to take over the position. Under the second term of Allaire, the performance of Xerox was at a comparative advantage, however illusory. When Thoman took over the CEO job, the Xerox stocks were selling at a record high of $64 a share (Kay, 2002). However, when Allaire re-took the title, the shares were down to $7 per share (Kay, 2002). The projected $38 billion losses in this discrepancy alone were enough to place Xerox on the brink of collapse (Carell, Jennings & and Heavrin, 1997). To this, Allaire and his alleged cohorts masterminded what amounts to accounting schemes that singlehandedly brought in the biggest fine the Securities and Exchange Commission has ever levied for accounting fraud (Ellis, 2006). The biggest mistake that Xerox made may have been the utilization of illegal accounting ploys. But their error cannot be limited to that single instance. The failure of Xerox to take advantage of the market during the early 80’s has provided the groundwork for their illegal actions a few years hence (Rothkopf, 2000). The fact is, Xerox was able to generate sufficient products for public offering but they have miserably failed to take full use of the said innovations. As a result, competitors such as Canon, was able to surge ahead of them leaving Xerox to grapple in the battle to digital dominance (Schermerhorn, 2004). The fact remains that while Xerox was continuing to produce their regular share of machines, other companies were beginning to develop technologies and upgrades in the current systems (Tompkins, 2001). Xerox largely failed to sustain their market offer resulting to staunch clients to transfer loyalties to better machines offering better features. What made matters worse is that the corporate culture existing in Xerox on the rank and file level was apparently in great shape (Mainiero, 1999). Susan Gibbons maintains that the employees were dedicated and that they work hard and bring in the numbers. Surprisingly, the problem lies in the higher echelons of the organisational hierarchy (Hummel, 2008). “There were poor decisions made or oftentimes, no decision was actually being made,” Gibbons commented. It seems that the sluggish development in Xerox is attributed to the silent war going on in the executive offices (Hummel, 2008). Who then benefited from the “accounting actions” employed by Xerox? Gibbons frankly state that it was the executives themselves who were enriched by this action (Mainiero, 1999). Seemingly, the compensation received by these top managers in Xerox was heavily dependent on the performance of the company. That is, the salaries of the high officials were computed on the base of the company’s target attainment and their ability to reach corporate goals (Mainiero, 1999). The SEC released a statement affirming the fact that almost $35 million of Xerox’s generated revenue was offered to fatten the pockets of the company’s high ranking officers (Northcraft, Stroh & Neale, 2002). Likewise, the Board of Directors of Xerox failed in containing the effects of this scandal (Peterson, 2007). Steps could have been made to contain the spillage of the black mark by possibly releasing press releases maintaining the contrary or just plainly having the fortitude to admit lack in judgment (Ott, Parks & Simpson, 2008). But the better decision for the board could have been to prevent the utilization of those unlawful means. Could the board just be as desperate as Allaire to go back in time? But the fact remains that Xerox committed a grave offense in employing illegal accounting means to present their company with an apparent clothe of resiliency and viability. Fraudulent actuations must be meted with harsh penalties as public trust has been dragged down to the dirt. This then has caused the company several millions in profit along with their good name and consummate brand recall. The future then seems bleak for the company that was once the leader in innovative printing and copying. 4. Conclusion For the years 1997 to 2000, Xerox submitted financial reports and auditing statements illustrating a seemingly stable financial condition (Chesbrough, 2002). In 2002, the SEC filed a case against Xerox for having caused the submission of fraudulent documents stating false information (Owens, 2004). The violation of Xerox largely consists in adopting measures to balloon their income in hopes of maintaining their current corporate status without the corresponding effects attributable to fledgling corporations (Owens, 2004). Allaire, Xerox Corporation’s CEO and several high ranking officers of Xerox were named in the complaint alleging their overt participation in committing the offenses. These include: Barry D. Romeril, former chief financial officer; Philip D. Fishbach, former controller; Daniel S. Marchibroda, former assistant controller; and Gregory B. Tayler, former director of accounting policy (Berger & Cutler, 2003). In 2002, the SEC announced that the six men settled the civil suit with a $22 million payment that encompasses penalties and profit forfeiture, although they did not admit to or deny the allegations (Berger & Cutler, 2003). KPMG, the auditing firm handling the affairs of Xerox was similarly fined (Buckley, 2003). In 2005, the KPMG was compelled to pay $22.5 million as settlement to SEC pertaining to the charges filed against Xerox (Buckley, 2003). While the case of Xerox provides the public with an example as to how far a corporate leader would take his battle for economic dominance, it should not serve as concrete maps to be followed by other entrepreneurs. While Allaire and the rest of the executives in Xerox may be lauded for their zeal in salvaging what could have been a corporation taking its final breath, the measures they have taken appear to have been too far out of the zone of normalcy and outside the bounds of law. 5. Current Trend In 2001, Anne Mulcahy was heralded as Xerox’s CEO and went on to transform the company from a losing entity into a competitive player once again (Ellis, 2006). Mulcahy addressed the Xerox scandal issue head on stating their renewed commitment to provide the top printing and copying machines yet incorporating innovative upgrades and that the black days of the scandal will be left as lessons learned from judgment errors (Ellis, 2006). 6. Recommendations Success can be found by being the dominant market player as much as it can be seen in efficient operational mandate. Profit can be taken from ventures as much as capital can be produced by liquidating assets. Efficiency can be measured by target attainment as much as effectivity can be felt through brand recall. Loyalty to an occupation may be illustrated by exercising a conscious regard to the well-being of the company and upholding current business practices for sustainability. These are all true as much as success may be denoted by a competitive balance sheet. Profit may be taken to mean as the apparent superiority of cash in to corporate expenses. Efficiency may be referred to as the capability of the corporation to continue on for more years than was originally expected of them. Loyalty may be demonstrated by a peculiar actuation meant to better the company. But as much of these are true, some of them may not be prudent. In the case of Xerox, the thin line separating their decline was engorged by an illusion of corporate resiliency and remarked growth. Even in the corporate setting, the principle of ‘taking things too far’ is applicable. A wise businessman must always keep in mind that all corporate decisions must be done within the bounds of law and inside the boundaries of corporate ethics. 7. Bibliography Ball, R. (2009). Market and political/regulatory perspectives on the recent accounting scandals. Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 47, No. 2. pp. 277-323. Beal, D. and Ghandour, L. (2011). Stability, change and the stability of change in daily workplace. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 32(4), 526-546. Berger, P. and Cutler, S. (2003). SEC charges KPMG and four KPMG partners with fraud in connection with audits of Xerox; SEC seeks injunction, disgorgement and penalties. [Online] Available at: www.sec.gov. Bowen, D. (1997). Experiences in management and organisational behaviour. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New Jersey. Buckley, J. (2003). Letter to colleagues. Montvale, NJ. Carell, M., Jennings, D. and Heavrin, C. (1997). Fundamentals of organisational behaviour. Prentice Hall, Inc., New Jersey. Chesbrough, H. (2002). Graceful exits and missed opportunities: Xeroxs management of its technology spin-off organizations. The Business History Review. Vol. 76, No. 4. pp. 803-837. CIOL.com. (2003). Xerox legacy stained by SEC settlement. [Online] Available at: http://www.ciol.com/content/news/2003/103060704.asp. CNN.com. (2002). Xerox charged with fraud Copier maker to pay $10M penalty to settle fraud complaint filed by the SEC. [Online] Available at: http://money.cnn.com/2002/04/11/technology/xerox_fraud/index.htm. Cohen, J. and Bennie, N. (2006). The applicability of a Contingent Factors Model to accounting ethics research. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 68, pp. 1-8. Daft, R. (2009). Organisation theory and design. South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason, OH. De Filippi, R., Grabher, G. and Jones, C. (2007). Managerial and organisational challenges in the cultural economy. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 28(5), 511-521. Ellis, C. (2006). Joe Wilson and the creation of Xerox. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey. Ermann, D. (2002). Corporate and governmental deviance: Problems of organisational behaviour in contemporary society. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hummel, R. (2008). Bureaucratic experience: The post-modern challenge. M. E. Sharpe, Inc., New York. Kay, J. (2002). Xerox restates billions in revenue: yet another case of accounting fraud. [Online] Available at: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jul2002/xero-j01.shtml. Lowenstein, R. (2004). Origins of the crash: The great bubble and its undoing. The Penguin Press, New York. Mainiero, L. (1999). Developing managerial skills in organisational behaviour: Exercises, cases and readings. Prentice Hall, Inc, New Jersey. Maletz, M. (1990). KBS Circles: A technology transfer initiative that leverages Xeroxs "Leadership Through Quality Program." MIS Quarterly. Vol. 14, No. 3. pp. 323-329. Mills, D. (2003). Wheel, deal, and steal: Deceptive accounting, deceitful CEOs, an ineffective reforms. Financial Times Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Miller, J. (1973). Xerox builds a new university. Business History Review. Vol. 4, No. 10. pp. 40-41. Mislennikova, I. and Foley, D. (2000). Xeroxs approach to sustainability. Interfaces. Vol. 30, No. 3. pp. 226-233. Nelson, D. (1997). Organisational behaviour: Foundations, realities and challenges. West Publishing Co., Minnesota. Niemeier, C. and Berger, P. (2002). Xerox settles SEC enforcement action charging company with fraud. [Online] Available: www.sec.gov. Nixon, A. (1976). The Xerox case. Science News. Vol. 109, No. 16. p. 243 Northcraft, G., Stroh, L. and Neale, M. (2002). Organisational behaviour: A management challenge. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Philadelphia. Ott, S., Parks, S. and Simpson, R. (2008). Classic readings in organisational behaviour. Wadsworth, Inc, England. Owens, D. (2004). Copies in seconds: How a lone inventor and an unknown company created the biggest communication breakthrough since Gutenberg - Chester Carlson and the birth of the Xerox machine. Simon & Schuster, New York. Peterson, M. (2007). Organisational behaviour in multinational organisations. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 28(3), 261-279. Rothkopf, M. (2000). Under the Mike-R-Scope: What happened at Xerox PARC? Interfaces. Vol. 30, No, 6. pp. 91-94. Schermerhorn, J. 2004. Core concepts in organisational behaviour. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey. Scott, J. (1976). Review: Copies in Seconds: How a Lone Inventor and an Unknown Company Created the Biggest Communication Breakthrough since Gutenberg—Chester Carlson and the Birth of the Xerox Machine by David Owen. The Wilson Quarterly. Vol. 28, No. 4. pp. 114-115. Seaberg, R. and Seaberg, C. (1973). Computer based decision systems in Xerox corporate planning. Management Science. Vol 20, No. 4. pp. 575-584. SEC.gov. (2002). Securities and Exchange Commission complaint against Xerox Corporation. [Online] Available at: http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/complr17465.htm. Sonnetag, S. and Ilies, R. (2011). Intra-individual processes linking work and employee well-being. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 32(4), 521-525. Tompkins, T. (2001). Cases in management and organisational behaviour. Prentice Hall, Inc., New Jersey. Read More