“真有之情”与“应有之情”：内部人身份感知对员工创新行为的双重影响机制

“内部人”或“自己人”是本土组织中较为常见的一种非正式身份划定。然而,“内部人”这种特殊身份往往因为其所蕴含的角色期待,而面临如何行使这一角色的尴尬。一方面,“内部人”跟组织和领导有了不同于“外部人”的关系,而对这一身份倍加珍视,并对组织形成了较为强烈的情感依附;另一方面,本土组织对“内部人”的角色要求达成了长久的共识,内部人必须付出更多以维护这一特殊身份,内部人的责任更大。针对上述现象,文章从角色认同和自我归类理论出发分析,内部人所表现出的员工创新行为究竟是“真有之情”还是“应有之情”在驱使,或是二者兼而有之。文章的基本假设是,“内部人”做出创新行为一个可能的选择不是简单地依靠情感,而是同时“无奈地”通过承担义务的方式来进行创新行为,这一组合机制是其面对自身身份以及身份本身蕴含的角色期望而构建的一种行为选择。这一研究从过去主要关注员工创新行为如何激发,转向对员工情感动机和义务动机组合与员工创新行为关系的研究。这一研究模型将内部人身份、情感承诺、感知义务与员工创新行为结合起来,拓展和深化了员工创新行为的研究。     

Whose “loyal agent”? Towards an ethic of accounting

In order to move towards an Ethic of Accounting, one must start by defining the function and role of the accountant. This in turn depends to a great extent on the identity of the “client” or whatever party the Accountant owes his “loyal agency” to. The issue is one of cardinal importance, and it is perceived as such by the accountants themselves. Loeb for instance says that the “client-identity issue is overriding importance now, and will become even more crucial in the immediate years ahead”. The question of what constitutes ethical behaviour on the part of the accountant will depend then upon the relation within which such ethical behaviour will have to be deployed. The main question raised in this paper will therefore be, is the accountant primarily engaged by one client (whether an individual or a corporation) to act as their “agent”, deal with their problems by loyally advancing their interests to the best of his professional competence, although within the limits imposed by law and morality? Or is the “public sector” to be considered the principal target of the accountant's resolute professionalism and unswerving loyalty? These problems and other related issues are here analyzed against the background of a recent (1984) case involving a Revenue Canada Auditor in the Kitchener-Waterloo area, which helps to bring out the almost paradoxical relation between accountant and client, and the difference between this relation and that of other professionals to their clients or patients.     

Toward a Common Good Theory of the Firm: The Tasubinsa Case

Tasubinsa is a “Special Employment and Occupational Center” constituted in accordance with Spanish Law where 90% of the workers have mental, sensorial or physical impairments of at least 30%. Its positive experience of more than 15 years provides entirely different responses from mainstream neoclassical theory (transaction cost theory, agency theory, and shareholder theory) to basic questions such as “What is a firm?”, “What is its purpose?”, “Who owns a firm?”, and “What do a firm’s owners seek?”. The article discusses how these different premises give rise to a distinctive corporate culture centered on the handicapped person.     

Amending China’s Notion of a “Consumer”: Lessons from Comparative Analysis of the PRC Consumer Protection Law

Who does the law treat as a “consumer” and why does it matter? How should China’s notion of a “consumer” best be articulated within the law and applied in practice? This article will attempt to answer these intriguing questions by first focusing on the approach taken to define a “consumer” in China’s Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests before examining the legal notion of a “consumer” in comparative perspective, in order to further understand the competing rationales behind the consumer protection law. This article will explore this Chinese definition of a “consumer” to propose how China’s vague and unworkable statutory definition of a ‘consumer’ should be amended in future.

     

Corporate Legal Responsibility: A Levinasian Perspective

In this article I will look into Corporate Legal Responsibility taking into account Levinas’s notion of infinite responsibility, as well as his understanding of ethical language. My account of Levinas’s philosophy will show that it challenges – breaking down – deeply entrenched distinctions in the dominant strands of moral philosophy, within which the theory of individual responsibility is embedded, such as between:(1) duty to others on the one hand and supererogation on the other; (2) perfect duty to others on the one hand and imperfect duties to others on the other; (3) insiders and outsiders; kith and kin on the one hand and strangers on the other; Levinas’s moral vision is an inclusive one which embraces all of humanity (at least of those present today) irrespective of historical, linguistic, cultural differences and diversities. In other words, each has responsibilities for and duties towards all others. Of course, one might say that there is nothing new about a universalising ethics – after all Kantianism, liberalism as well as utilitarianism are well known instances. However, more crucially, all these traditional moral philosophies uphold the theory of individual responsibility, which is rooted in the philosophy of individualism. Such a philosophy can make sense only of the concept of individual moral/legal agency but not corporate agency. Therefore, in this article I will attempt to show that the Levinasian vision is able to help us change our view with respect to corporate responsibility.     

Beyond Legitimacy: A Case Study in BP’s “Green Lashing”

This paper discusses the issue of legitimacy and, in particular the processes of building, losing, and repairing environmental legitimacy in the context of the Deepwater Horizon case. Following the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe in 2010, BP plc. was accused of having set new records in the degree of divergence between its actual operations and what it had been communicating with regard to corporate responsibility. Its legitimacy crisis is here to be appraised as a case study in the discrepancy between symbolic and substantive strategies in corporate greening and its communication. A narrative analysis of BP’s “beyond petroleum”-rebranding and the “making this right”-campaign issued in response to the Gulf of Mexico disaster discusses their respective implications for (green) corporate change. Further, the question is addressed why BP’s green image endeavors were so widely accepted at first, only to find themselves dismissed as corporate greenwashing now. The study concludes that where a corporation’s “green narrative” consistently evokes established narratives, its legitimacy will be judged against narrative, rather than empirical truth. Thus, the narrative will be more willingly accepted as speaking for the issuing company’s legitimacy, irrespective of whether it reflects substantive greening or not.     

The influence of sharing versus self-use on the preference for different types of promotional offers

Sharing, which refers to giving something you have to someone else, is one of the most ubiquitous forms of human behavior in the world. Everyone experiences it in various situations, including buying food. Nonetheless, although buying something to share with others is quite common in our daily lives, most consumer research on buying focuses on the condition of “self-use” rather than “sharing.” The main purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of promotional offers on consumers' purchase decisions when buying food for self-use/sharing with others. The authors conducted four experiments to answer the main research questions. The results indicated that consumers prefer “price discounts” over “bonus packs” when the shopping task relates to self-use due to their concern about “loss reduction.” In contrast, they prefer bonus packs over price discounts when the shopping task relates to sharing with others because of their focus on “extra gains.” In addition, consumers’ perceived responsibility is a moderator. When perceived responsibility is low and the purchase is for self-use (sharing with others), price discounts (bonus pack) are favored over bonus packs (price discounts). However, when perceived responsibility is high, consumer preference to promotional offers are not significant different either in self-use or sharing with others condition. It seems that role of responsibility is influential when the shopping task relates to self-use. This study not only contributes to a deeper understanding of consumer psychology but will also be beneficial to practitioners in designing effective promotional strategies that consider motives for food shopping.     

Institutionalizing Ethical Innovation in Organizations: An Integrated Causal Model of Moral Innovation Decision Processes

This article answers several calls—coming as well from corporate governance practitioners as from corporate governance researchers—concerning the possibility of complying simultaneously with requirements of innovation and ethics. Revealing the long-term orientation as the variable which permits us to link the principal goal of organization, being “survival,” with innovation and ethic, the article devises a framework for incorporating ethics into a company’s processes and strategies for innovation. With the principal goal of organizations being “survival” in the long-term, it is assumed that innovation is necessary in order to realize a going concern. Firms that do not innovate and adapt to rapidly changing business environments are less likely to be sustainable. Thus, it is in a business’ best interests to adopt an innovation process for long-term success. We posit that there are two simultaneous sources of innovation and change that are unavoidable and embedded in the corporate landscape. First, we argue for genetically embedded, Darwinian explanations for adaptations that enable an entity’s survival. This view is combined with more conventional, social science explanations for change. Our new, comprehensive model of the governance of innovation processes hinges on the one hand on an organization’s long-term orientation, which we argue, is not possible without a consideration of an ethical dimension. On the other hand, the model employs, for the first time, the concept of duality, in order to make the positive coexistence of innovation and ethic analytically visible. Guided by this concept the roots of the ethic within innovation are traced from both natural science forces for change, and cultural pressures operating on members of an organization. We present our Integrated Causal Model of Innovation and propose theoretical relationships that will generate numerous avenues for future research in the field, and help managers to reorient their governance strategies.     

Beyond the Blue Banana?

For centuries, the “Blue Banana” — a banana-shaped metropolitan axis running from London to Milan — has been Europe’s breeding place for innovation and growth. Recently, however, the “Sunbelt” from Milan to Valencia and the “Yellow Banana” from Paris to Warsaw have been identified as future European growth poles beside or even beyond the Blue Banana. How likely it is that the structure of Europe’s economic-geographical system will change in the next decades?     

On Explaining Individual and Corporate Culpability in the Global Climate Change Era

Humans are causing global climate change (GCC), and such climate change causes harms. Robin Attfield explained how individuals should be understood to be culpable for these harms. In this paper, I use a critical analysis of Attfield’s explanatory framework to explore further difficulties in accounting for corporate responsibility for these harms. I begin by arguing that there are some problems with his framework as it is applied to individuals that emit greenhouse gases (GHGs). I then show that it will be very difficult to extend this framework to corporations. This is not a criticism of Attfield’s work (as he does not discuss corporate responsibility for those harms associated with GCC), but it will serve to show the difficulty in philosophically explaining corporations’ moral culpability when it comes to these harms. In fact, one positive conclusion of this paper is that it highlights a new area of concern that has been ignored in discussions of corporate responsibilities—that of mediated responsibilities—which is how Attfield understands our responsibilities regarding GCC. The discussion of this concern will draw attention to another positive conclusion of this paper: the harms associated with CO₂ are very unlike the harms associated with other airborne-emitted substances, which will indicate that we will need new ways of understanding how individuals and corporations are philosophically responsible for these harms. The final positive conclusion of this paper will be a discussion of what the constraints should be on new approaches to explaining our culpability.     

Entrepreneurs: The world needs you

The way we see the role of business is changing dramatically. What have we learned from the recent and ongoing crises? Where does one look for guidance on the “right thing to do” now? In a world where we live on one globe, it is time to shift our energy to real responsibility and sustainability. This requires a new paradigm. As Albert Einstein said, “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” We are not separated from our environment, nature, and society; we are actually a part of it. Therefore, let us unleash entrepreneurship and the power of business in a way to serve us more holistically. This new type of thinking, this expanding consciousness, is giving birth to all the new concepts of social entrepreneurship, corporate social responsibility, corporate sustainability, inclusive business, conscious capitalism, and sustainable development. On the global level, there are increasing numbers of business‐oriented initiatives aimed at steering the power of business toward the public good such as the UN Global Compact and the Business Call to Action. Where to look for inspiration at the individual level? Within yourself. As Mahatma Gandhi said, “You have to be the change you want to see in the world.” © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

How does the negotiation between “me” and “we” in professional identity influence interpersonal horizontal knowledge sharing in multinational enterprises: A conceptual model

Professional identity is an identity that includes two aspects, the personal self (“me”) and the social self (“we”), which are in constant negotiation with each other. The interplay of these two aspects is important because it can shift identity-related motivation and behavior but has received relatively little attention in international business research to date. Recognizing identity dynamics can enrich our understanding of the motivations and behaviors of subsidiary employees in sharing knowledge with overseas colleagues. We develop a conceptual model to reveal the relationship between identity dynamics and interpersonal horizontal knowledge sharing in multinational enterprises. Specifically,- we propose that the different negotiation states between the personal self and the social self of professional identity are related to with whom an employee shares knowledge and what type of knowledge they share. Our article contributes to the knowledge sharing literature by uncovering the psychological mechanisms that influence the behavior of individuals in horizontal knowledge diffusion.     

The sociology of knowledge: Toward an existential view of business ethics

Business ethics is the study of ethics as it applies to a particular sphere of human activity. As such, business ethics presupposes a difference between an individual's experience within a business organization and his or her experience outside the organization. But how do we examine this difference? How do we discuss an individual's experience of “everyday reality”? What processes create and sustain this reality, and how does one's version of “reality” affect what is, and what is not, ethical? This paper outlines an approach to these questions based on theory from the sociology of knowledge, an approach which makes some progress towards making business ethics more existential. The sociology of knowledge, and particularly the social constructionist perspective, is concerned with how an institution creates “knowledge” and how this “knowledge” affects the cognitive processes of the individuals who make up the institution. The dialectic nature of the interdependent processes which shape both the individual and the organization are important in understanding how business ethics, as one kind of social knowledge, are enacted. Examining these processes leads to several interesting hypotheses about the nature of both the study and practice of business ethics. XXX“Only individuals have a sense of responsibility.” — Friedrich Nietzsche     

Politicising Government Engagement with Corporate Social Responsibility: “CSR” as an Empty Signifier

Governments are widely viewed by academics and practitioners (and society more generally) as the key societal actors who are capable of compelling businesses to practice corporate social responsibility (CSR). Arguably, such government involvement could be seen as a technocratic device for encouraging ethical business behaviour. In this paper, we offer a more politicised interpretation of government engagement with CSR where “CSR” is not a desired form of business conduct but an element of discourse that governments can deploy in structuring their relationships with other social actors. We build our argument through a historical analysis of government CSR discourse in the Russian Federation. Laclau and Mouffe's (Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics, Verso Books, London, 1985) social theory of hegemony underpins our research. We find that “CSR” in the Russian government’s discourse served to legitimise its power over large businesses. Using this case, we contribute to wider academic debates by providing fresh empirical evidence that allows the development of critical evaluation tools in relation to governments’ engagement with “CSR”. We find that governments are capable of hijacking CSR for their own self-interested gain. We close the paper by reflecting on the merit of exploring the case of the Russian Federation. As a “non-core”, non-western exemplar, it provides a useful “mirror” with which to reflect on the more widely used test-bed of Western industrial democracies when scrutinising CSR. Based on our findings, we invite other scholars to adopt a more critical, politicised stance when researching the role of governments in relation to CSR in other parts of the world.

     

The Brand Personality of Nonprofit Organizations and the Influence of Monetary Incentives

This article contributes to the limited literatures on small- and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) and corporate social responsibility (CSR). Using an institutional theoretical framework, we analyzed fieldwork interviews with twenty SMEs and perspectives of 165 SME managers and workers in textiles, garment, and footwear industries, the most important wage-earning sector in Vietnam. Having understood in the context of a developing “market economy with socialist orientation” (thus a “Southern perspective”), we find that socially responsible practices and expectations developed long before the arrival of CSR as a western concept and an MNC agenda. While identifying and contributing ideas concerning forms of “informal” CSR practices—influenced by social and cultural expectations—to the CSR/SME literature, we are conscious of the mixed effects of these practices and the ongoing nuanced negotiations between workers and managers in these SMEs. In our research, we found that it takes both domestic and international stakeholders to improve labor conditions in Vietnam under the banner of CSR.     

Rethinking managership,leadership, followership,and partnership

Organizations underperform, or fail, when members avoid partnering with managers—whether through subtle resistance, disagreement, protest, or walkout—to achieve common purpose. Managers should boost partnering not by affecting a pretense of leadership but through a nuanced balance of managerial authority and understanding of members’ points of view. The objective of this article is to sharpen attention on the concept of partnership with organization members and how it relates to some of the important previous literature. We also argue that some of the previous scholarly work contributes to misconceptions related to these concepts. Our work is forward-looking in that it is motivated by the dangerous societal and cultural differences evident in the world, differences that surround management’s decisions and that may induce an overuse of authority to quash disquiet. Using our experiences in both industry and academia, we argue that the crucial link between managers and members is leadership—not leadership thought of as directional and inspirational, but leadership as building a relationship toward common purpose through partnership. “Lead” and “leader” are sorely misused terms, and worse, substituting “leader” for “manager” is just plain wrong. We believe that managers become leaders only when followers agree to follow, not when the managers simply step forward energetically with direction. Managers are cheated by mistaken definitions. Reviewing past perspectives about what makes good leaders and managers, we rethink ways to enhance organizational harmony through a clearer understanding of managership, leadership, followership, and partnership. Only by thinking and acting as partners in common purpose can managers and members form the core of success in organizational endeavors.     

Using Sartre’s Critique of Dialectical Reason for Managerial Decision-Making

This article will offer an alternative understanding of managerial decision-making drawing from Sartre’s Critique of Dialectical Reason rather than simply Being and Nothingness. I will begin with a brief explanation of Sartre’s account of freedom in Being and Nothingness. I will then show in the second section how Andrew West uses Sartre’s conception of radical freedom from Being and Nothingness for a managerial decision-making model. In the third section, I will explore a more robust account of freedom from Sartre’s Critique of Dialectical Reason. I will attempt to show that freedom is not simply a matter of choosing (or not choosing) to perform an action, but entails external constraints—including other people. Finally, I will provide the implications of this account of freedom for managerial decision-making. I will show that it’s unreasonable to place full responsibility and/or blame on managers given their constraints. This does not absolve them from responsibility, but better accounts for the way in which we ought to hold them responsible.     

Accountable to Whom? Rethinking the Role of Corporations in Political CSR

According to Palazzo and Scherer, the changing role of business corporations in society requires that we take new measures to integrate these organizations into society-wide processes of democratic governance. We argue that their model of integration has a fundamental problem. Instead of treating business corporations as agents that must be held accountable to the democratic reasoning of affected parties, it treats corporations as agents who can hold others accountable. In our terminology, it treats business corporations as “supervising authorities” rather than “functionaries.” The result is that Palazzo and Scherer’s model does not actually address the democratic deficit that it is meant to solve. In order to fix the problem, we advocate removing business corporations from any policymaking role in political CSR and limiting participation to political NGOs and other groups that meet the standards we set out for a politically representative organization (PRO).     

Ethical Customer Value Creation: Drivers and Barriers

There is a long-standing discussion on the positive interactions between enterprise value creation and business competitiveness. The corporate value can be seen as being created from three major sources within the cycle – from employees, from processes, and from customers or investors through reinvestment. To achieve competitive advantages, a firm must create more value than its competitors in the industry. Emphasizing that, firms should explore the positive drivers of customer value creation, allowing for a true value creation that will lead to increments in competitiveness. In reality, however, there are also barriers that hinder customer value creation. Targeting the above issues that have not yet been explored or analyzed, we have collected related literature at the first stage. Based on these presumable assumptions, this paper then conducts an empirical study by surveying and analyzing the relevance given by the investigated leading machinery measuring equipment firms in Taiwan, regarding the concerns as drivers and barriers in relation to customer value creation. This paper especially aims to answer several key questions: What drivers revolving around employees and processes can facilitate the organization to create more value for its customers? Conversely, what barriers block the organization from creating value for customers in examining the same dimensions? Does value creation direct an organization’s profitability and competitiveness? Our questionnaire survey results show that the most recognized and agreed drivers of customer value creation in consideration of employees are “distinctive skills”, “personal experience”, “learning and training”, and “team work”; and, in regard to the firm’s processes, the key drivers are “innovation and evolution”, “R&;D capability”, and “capability for differentiation”. Conversely, the most recognized and agreed barriers to customer value creation in relation to employees are a “distrustful environment” and “inadequate knowledge”; and, in terms of processes, they are “short of core technology”, “poor resource support”, and “bad services and attitudes”. Furthermore, our in-depth interview outcomes reveal that “capital sufficiency” and “mergers and acquisitions” are in practice considered to be other important customer value creation drivers; in contrast, “cultural and structural barriers” and “short of mechanisms to measure customer value creation effectively” are viewed as additional critical barriers to customer value creation.     

In defense of social responsibility

Recent journalistic criticism of the concept of corporate social responsibility rests on the assertion that social responsibility adds nothing to corporate profits. Hence, inclusion of the motion in the business vocabulary amounts to nothing more than “double talk.”The author of an influential 1953 book on the topic took another look at social responsibility twenty-five years later and found “few gains in the quality of business stewardship over that time.” The idea “remains peripheral to the mainstream of economic thought.”Corporate social responsibility involves more than simply being a law-abiding corporate citizen. It reaches into these decision-making areas where perfectly legal choices may have harmful social consequences. As evidence of social harm amounts, society has to define and defend the ground on which it requires an appropriate response from the business corporation. Society will get the response it demands.