Search results

Surveys 200 Malaysian students at a US midwestern university to investigate attitudes towards corporate social responsibility. Refers to previous studies exploring the link between corporate social responsibility and financial performance but asserts that there is little empirical evidence on corporate social responsibility and employee attitudes – hence this study. Describes how the survey was carried out (a questionnaire measured on a four‐point Likert scale). Uses t‐tests to evaluate the data. Aims particularly to establish whether or not individuals who value corporate social responsibility exhibit less tolerance of 17 identified counter productive behaviours (such as using organizational services for personal use, padding expense accounts and pilfering organizational supplies). Finds support for the notion that individuals who value corporate social responsibility rate the 17 behaviours as more unethical than individuals who do not especially value corporate social responsibility. Indicates, therefore, that these (more ethical) individuals are less likely to indulge in counter productive behaviour. Recommends ways to back up and extend this research.

This paper aims to correct some misconceptions about George Homans. Specifically, it clarifies the relationship between Homans and Malinowski, explains why Homans is rightfully considered the father of social exchange, shows Homans’ perspective on altruism and self-interest and analyses Homans’ place in management’s complex history.

This is a conceptual paper which synthesizes both primary and secondary sources on Homans, social exchange theory (SET), Malinowski and other Homans’ contemporaries and theories, which, in aggregate, help dispel some common misconceptions in the literature today.

This paper disperses several common misconceptions about Homans and his work. First, the findings show that beliefs that Homans was unaware of Malinowski are not justified, as Homans was not only aware of Malinowski but also significantly influenced by Malinowski’s work. Second, this manuscript clarifies that while Homans, for specific reasons, focussed on self-interest, his work accounted for altruism. Lastly, this paper also further cements Homans’ place in history as the father of social exchange.

Recent misconceptions have emerged in the literature calling to question not only Homans’ legitimacy as the father of social exchange but also some of his views on the theory itself. By clarifying these misconceptions, this paper enables scholars from a variety of management fields to better understand historical foundations of SET and its impact on current research.