Search results

The aim of this paper is to examine the development of the social responsibility (SR) of business concept and related management philosophies through the history‐of‐management‐thought perspective.

The history‐of‐management‐thought approach to social responsibility (SR) is grounded in the paradigm of continuing progress exemplified by the contributions of great management thinkers (e.g. Fayol, Taylor, Follett, Barnard). A historical evolution of the SR concept is provided, together with tracing the development of stakeholder theory in its attempt to depict the relationship between stakeholder management and SR.

Three management philosophies (recognition of the external environment, a need for collaboration, and a need for a shared understanding) emerge from both classical and modern management thinkers. Recent conceptualizations have added depth by clarifying the meaning of social responsibility and in addition, detailing the nature of firm‐stakeholder relationships. Despite voluminous literature, achieving collaborative integration between firms and stakeholders in practice appears elusive.

These management philosophies can help organizations navigate the intertwined relationship between business and society. Business leaders need to consider the vital role of trust in building more collaborative relationships.

The unique contribution of this paper is to provide the first history‐of‐management‐thought perspective on the social responsibility of business by tracing changes in the conceptualization of this concept, including the related stakeholder paradigm, to their roots in the works of renowned management thinkers.

The aim of this study is to outline principles for the writing of management history. First, it is argued that if management history is to advance, pessimism of both purpose and intellect must be dispelled. Authors must bring with them a sense of how their research leads to better organisations, institutions, workplaces, economies and social relationships. Second, it holds that the utilisation of the scientific method, based around the testing of research theses, drawn from our existing knowledge and contributing to that knowledge, is management history’s methodological bedrock.

Much opposition to scientific methods in historical research, most notably from postmodernists and poststructuralists, is based on false premises. Drawing on Poincare’s La Science et L’Hypothese (1902), this paper notes that there are no fundamental differences between research in the natural and historical sciences. All studies are conditional.

This editorial recommends five steps in writing management history. First, know how your sources were put together, by whom, for what purposes, what they sought to record and what they did not. Second, use multiple sources. Third, keep your research questions in mind, modifying them as evidence demands. As E.H. Carr observed, research theses are “the indispensable tools of thought”. Fourth, understand the social, intellectual and economic contexts of the study. Context is the key to understanding change. The more severe the restraint on change, the more significant is any change that breaks these bonds. Finally, use numbers as numbers count in history. While statistics must be subordinate to the theses, they allow more complex stories, be they of a society or micro-events within a firm.

The growth of postmodernist and poststructuralist research paradigms has created uncertainty with regards to both methods and purpose among management and business historians. This editorial includes a defence of the values of empirically based scientific research.

The Adult Asperger Assessment (AAA), comprising the Autism Questionnaire, the Empathy Quiotient and the Relatives Questionnaire is a commonly used screening tool designed to identify adults who may benefit from a further clinical assessment for autism spectrum disorder. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the usefulness of this screening measure in a clinical setting.

This retrospective cohort study comprised of 192 service users referred for diagnostic assessment of Autism by a specialist service of the National Health Service. The authors evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the AAA by investigating if the Autism Questionnaire, the Empathy Quiotient and the Relatives Questionnaire were able to predict the diagnostic outcome of Autism in a clinical setting.

Scores from the Relatives Questionnaire can accurately predict diagnostic outcome. No evidence of accuracy for the Autism Questionnaire or the Empathy Quotient was apparent. Based on the findings, the authors recommend clinicians are cautious when interpreting results of the AAA.

It should be acknowledged that the results may not be generalisable to whole populations. Also, the authors used the full item versions of the scales; therefore, the findings are most applicable to studies which did similar.

This study highlights the need for investigation into the lack of validation of commonly used screening measures in autistic populations.