Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Presently, the social responsibility literature is replete with the diverse ways in which work organizations and the regulatory nation states in which they are domiciled can improve the quality of their workers’ lives. But do workers themselves become motivated to contribute (i.e., give back) to society when they experience a work life of better quality than their peers? Specifically, which sectors of society do such workers contribute to? Through a questionnaire that was administered to a cross section of workers in the private sector of Nigeria, this study found out that quality of work life (QWL) correlates significantly and positively with workers’ motivation to contribute to society. However, workers were less motivated to contribute to Nigeria’s government sector that is globally known for corruption than making contributions to the piety and social infrastructural sectors. Results also revealed that both the paternalistic and consultative forms of social responsibility were positively related with QWL. These results imply that social responsibility should be seen as a veritable platform on which satisfied stakeholders of business organizations can reciprocally make their own contributions for the overall good of society. By virtue of stakeholders’ contributions, the benefits of corporate social responsibility can actually reverberate into other sectors of societal life (e.g., the piety sector) that were never thought of during the design phase of socially responsible programmes. Finally, the study’s findings give credence to Anil Sarin’s Contributory Theory of Existence which states that people who have once received help from a particular organ of society (e.g., educational system, health care system, etc.) will be motivated to contribute to that organ or other organs of society.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Boisvert, M. (1981). La Qualite de vie au travail. Montreal: Agence d’Arc.
Carroll, A. (1979). A three dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505.
Champoux, J. (1981). A sociological perspective on work involvement. International Review of Applied Psychology, 30, 65–86. CrossRef
Clarkson, M. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92–117.
Commons, J. (1931). Institutional economics. The American Economic Review, 21, 92–117.
Cooke, G., Donaghey, J., & Zeytinoglu, I. (2013). The nuanced nature of work quality: Evidence from rural Newfoundland and Ireland. Human Relations, 66(4), 503–526. CrossRef
Cornelius, N., Todres, M., Janjuha-Jivraj, S., Woods, A., & Wallace, J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and the social enterprise. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 355–370. CrossRef
Dupuis, G., Taillefer, C., Etienne, M., Fontaine, O., Boivin, S., & Von Turk, A. (2000). Measurement of quality of life in cardiac rehabilitation. In J. Maltais & P. Leblanc (Eds.), Advances in cardiopulmonary rehabilitation (pp. 247–273). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.
Efraty, D., & Sirgy, M. (1990). The effects of quality of working life (QWL) on employee behavioural responses. Social Indicators Research, 22(1), 31–47. CrossRef
Fitch, H. (1976). Achieving corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 1(1), 38–46. CrossRef
Fuentes-Garcia, F., Nunez-Tabales, J., & Veroz-Herradon, R. (2008). Applicability of corporate social responsibility to human resources management: Perspective from Spain. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 27–44. CrossRef
Garriga, E., & Mele, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1–2), 51–71. CrossRef
Gonzalez, M. (2010). Workers’ direct participation at the workplace and job quality in Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 20(2), 160–168. CrossRef
Goode, D. (1989). Quality of life, quality of work life. In W. Kiernan & R. Schalock (Eds.), Economics, industry and disability: A look ahead (pp. 66–73). Brookes: Baltimore.
Greening, D., & Turban, D. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business and Society, 39(3), 254–280. CrossRef
Greenwood, M. (2002). Ethics and human resource management: A review and conceptual analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(3), 279–290. CrossRef
Haigh, M., & Jones, M. (2006). The drivers of corporate social responsibility: A critical review. Business Review, 5(2), 245–251.
Hardigan, P., Lai, L., & Carvajal, M. (2001). The influence of positive and negative affectivity on reported job satisfaction among practising pharmacists. Journal of Pharmaceutical Marketing and Management, 13(4), 57–77. CrossRef
Jennings, P. (2003). Corporate social responsibility—New morals for business? In M. Sebastian (Ed.), Corporate social responsibility: Myth or reality? (Vol. 130, pp. 31–34)., Labour Education Geneva: International Labour Office.
Justice, D. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: Challenges and opportunities for trade unionists. In M. Sebastian (Ed.), Corporate social responsibility: Myth or reality? (Vol. 130, pp. 1–13)., Labour Education Geneva: International Labour Office.
Kiernan, W., & Knutson, K. (1990). Quality of work life. In M. Schalock & M. Begab (Eds.), Quality of life: Perspectives and issues. Washington, DC: American Association of Mental Retardation.
Kohl, M., & Schooler, C. (1982). Job conditions and personality: A longitudinal assessment of reciprocal effects. American Journal of Sociology, 87, 1257–1286. CrossRef
Lawler, E. (1982). Strategies for improving the quality of work life. American Psychologist, 37, 486–493. CrossRef
Martel, J., & Dupuis, G. (2006). Quality of work life: Theoretical and methodological problems, and presentation of a new model and measuring instrument. Social Indicators Research, 77(2), 333–368. CrossRef
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.
Meyer, J., Becker, T., & Van Dick, R. (2006). Social identities and commitments at work: Toward an integrative model. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 27(5), 665–683. CrossRef
Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1991). Institutional organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In P. DiMaggio & W. Walter (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 41–62). Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Nadler, D., & Lawler, E. (1983). Quality of work life: Perceptions and direction. Organizational Dynamics, 11(3), 20–30. CrossRef
North, D. (1992). Institutions and economic theory. American Economist, 36, 3–6.
Pallant, J. (2000). Development and validation of a scale to measure perceived control of internal states. Journal of Personality Assessment, 75(2), 308–337. CrossRef
Royuela, V., Lopez-Tamayo, J., & Surinach, J. (2008). The institutional vs. the academic definition of the quality of work life: What is the focus of the European Commission? Social Indicators Research, 86(3), 401–415. CrossRef
Ryder, G. (2003). The social responsibilities of business and workers’ rights. In M. Sebastian (Ed.), Corporate social responsibility: Myth or reality? (Vol. 130, pp. 21–24)., Labour Education Geneva: International Labour Office.
Sarin, A. (2009). Corporate strategic motivation: Evolution continues—Henry. A. Murray’s Manifest Needs to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to Anil Sarin’s Contributory Theory of Existence. Journal of American Academy of Business Cambridge, 14(2), 237–244.
Sebastian, M. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: Myth or reality? (Vol. 130, pp. 5–8)., Labour Education Geneva: International Labour Office.
Sirgy, J., Efraty, D., Siegel, P., & Lee, D. (2001). A new measure of quality of work life (QWL) based on need satisfaction and spillover theories. Social Indicators Research, 55(3), 241–302. CrossRef
Steers, R., Mowday, R., & Shapiro, D. (2004). The future of work motivation theory. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 379–387.
Swanson, D. (1999). Toward an integrative theory of business and society: A research strategy for corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 508–521.
Trevino, L., & Nelson, K. (2004). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Turcotte, P. (1988). QVT: La Qualite de Vie au Travail: Une Voie vers l’Excellence. Montreal: Agence d’ARC.
Tuzzolino, F., & Armandi, B. (1981). A need hierarchy framework for assessing corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 21–28.
Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. (2008). Ethics programs, perceived corporate social responsibility and job satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(2), 159–172. CrossRef
Wartick, S., & Cochran, P. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 758–769.
Winstanley, D., Woodhall, J., & Heery, E. (1996). The agenda for ethics in human resource management. Business Ethics: A European Review, 5(4), 187–194. CrossRef
Yu, X. (2009). From passive beneficiary to active stakeholder: Workers’ participation in CSR Movement against abuses. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(Supplement 1), 233–249. Supplement 1: Globalization and the Good Corporation. CrossRef
Zenisek, T. (1979). Corporate social responsibility: A conceptualization based on organizational literature. Academy of Management Review, 4(3), 359–368.
- Social Responsibility, Quality of Work Life and Motivation to Contribute in the Nigerian Society
Constantine Imafidon Tongo
- Springer Netherlands
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© BBL, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Neuer Inhalt/© hww, digitale Transformation/© Maksym Yemelyanov | Fotolia