Suchergebnisse

The project investigated the power dynamics in preexisting corporate research and development teams using a network-based methodology. Emerson's (1962) exchange-based power-dependence theory was used to formulate guiding hypotheses. In addition, Thompson's (1967) typology of organizational interdependence was used to differentiate between types of task interdependence. Power was operationalized as the amount of influence each member exerted about decisions regarding coworkers and/or the team. Heightened task dependence was expected to negatively affect personal power The different kinds of task interdependence were found to have very different power implications. Thompson's distinction between sequential and reciprocal task interdependence was necessary to untangle the underlying power-dependence processes. Furthermore, the findings leave much to be explained and might suggest the need to consider additional interdependence dynamics and/or alternative exchange frameworks to more accurately accountfor the personal power dynamics in the collective context offormal organizations.

Treating students like customers undermines their education. Catering to their every need and desire in an effort to delight the customer robs students of an active role in their own education. Instead of "Nordstromizing" education, we should adopt a different guiding metaphor: the fitness center, casting students as partners in the development of character.

When one considers the role that spirituality plays in management practice and pedagogy, a more fundamental issue begs to be investigated: What is spirituality? The impact spirituality has depends on how one conceives it. The authors present a two-dimensional framework that differentiates between various worldview perspectives based on divergent metaphysical and epistemological assumptions. They show how each worldview has a different conception of spirituality. Implications of worldview for management practice and pedagogy are developed. Emphasis is given to how spirituality rooted in the Christian tradition can influence management education, and examples from a private, Christian university are provided.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explain people's divergent perceptions of companies' corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities in order to help organizations strategically manage their global responsibilities.Design/methodology/approachCombining institutional theory and role‐theory, the authors examine how people's expectations for the role of business (RoB) in society define the standard by which corporate activities are judged. Where conformity to institutional models confers "legitimacy" and compliance to social scripts constitutes "appropriate" behavior, the authors contend that congruence with RoB expectations is what defines corporate responsibility. This research utilized a quasi‐experimental method to explore the effects of stakeholder status and individuals' RoB expectations on their assessments of CSR activities.FindingsSignificant differences were found between stakeholder groups on all but one of the CSR activities scales. Of substantially more impact, subjects' RoB expectations were found to significantly shape their assessment on all CSR activities scales. A factor analysis of the RoB items identified five dimensions to the role business plays in society, which together define a holistic model for global responsibility.Research limitations/implicationsSubjects were recruited by convenience and randomly assigned to the four experimental conditions, so they are not representative of the general population. Future research would benefit from cross‐cultural, longitudinal and qualitative explorations into people's RoB expectations.Practical implicationsThe five RoB components provide managers with a tool to strategically manage a multi‐dimensional portfolio of corporate CSR activities.Originality/valueThis research applies role‐theory concepts to the study of CSR, thereby introducing some emergent, situational, negotiated and idiosyncratic dynamics to our understanding of global responsibility.