IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v154y2019i1d10.1007_s10551-017-3487-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

People and Profits: The Impact of Corporate Objectives on Employees’ Need Satisfaction at Work

Author

Listed:
  • Bidhan L. Parmar

    (University of Virginia)

  • Adrian Keevil

    (University of Virginia)

  • Andrew C. Wicks

    (University of Virginia)

Abstract

For decades, scholars have debated the corporate objective. Scholars have either advocated a corporate objective focused on generating value for shareholders or creating value for multiple groups of stakeholders. Although it has been established that the corporate objective can shape many aspects of the corporation—including culture, compensation, and decision making—to date, scholars have not yet explored its psychological impact; particularly, how the corporate objective might influence employee well-being. In this article, we explore how two views of the corporate objective affect employee self-determination, a key component of overall psychological need satisfaction and well-being. We hypothesize that a corporate objective based on creating value for multiple stakeholders will increase employee psychological need satisfaction as compared to one focused on creating value for only shareholders. Across four experimental studies and one field survey, we find consistent support for our hypotheses and test three facets of a stakeholder-focused corporate objective. Theoretical implications and future research directions are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Bidhan L. Parmar & Adrian Keevil & Andrew C. Wicks, 2019. "People and Profits: The Impact of Corporate Objectives on Employees’ Need Satisfaction at Work," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 13-33, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:154:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s10551-017-3487-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-017-3487-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-017-3487-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-017-3487-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Horton & David Rand & Richard Zeckhauser, 2011. "The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 399-425, September.
    2. Michael Pirson & Deepak Malhotra, 2011. "Foundations of Organizational Trust: What Matters to Different Stakeholders?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 1087-1104, August.
    3. Robert H. Frank & Thomas Gilovich & Dennis T. Regan, 1993. "Does Studying Economics Inhibit Cooperation?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 159-171, Spring.
    4. Michael C. Jensen, 2010. "Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 22(1), pages 32-42, January.
    5. Guillermina Jasso, 2006. "Factorial Survey Methods for Studying Beliefs and Judgments," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 34(3), pages 334-423, February.
    6. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    7. Christopher C. Rosen & D. Lance Ferris & Douglas J. Brown & Yuanyi Chen & Ming Yan, 2014. "Perceptions of Organizational Politics: A Need Satisfaction Paradigm," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 1026-1055, August.
    8. Marens, Richard & Wicks, Andrew, 1999. "Getting Real: Stakeholder Theory, Managerial Practice, and the General Irrelevance of Fiduciary Duties Owed to Shareholders," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 273-293, April.
    9. Grant, Adam M. & Campbell, Elizabeth M. & Chen, Grace & Cottone, Keenan & Lapedis, David & Lee, Karen, 2007. "Impact and the art of motivation maintenance: The effects of contact with beneficiaries on persistence behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 53-67, May.
    10. Jonathan Haidt & J. Patrick Seder & Selin Kesebir, 2008. "Hive Psychology, Happiness, and Public Policy," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(S2), pages 133-156, June.
    11. Renneboog, Luc & Ter Horst, Jenke & Zhang, Chendi, 2011. "Is ethical money financially smart? Nonfinancial attributes and money flows of socially responsible investment funds," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 562-588, October.
    12. James P. Walsh, 2004. "Introduction to the “Corporate Objective Revisited” Exchange," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 349-349, June.
    13. Jensen, Michael C & Murphy, Kevin J, 1990. "Performance Pay and Top-Management Incentives," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(2), pages 225-264, April.
    14. Freeman, R. Edward, 1994. "The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions1," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 409-421, October.
    15. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    16. Bartkus, Barbara & Glassman, Myron & Bruce McAfee, R., 2000. "Mission statements: Are they smoke and mirrors?," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 23-28.
    17. Anant K. Sundaram & Andrew C. Inkpen, 2004. "Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”: A Reply," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 370-371, June.
    18. Douglas A. Bosse & Robert A. Phillips & Jeffrey S. Harrison, 2009. "Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 447-456, April.
    19. R. Edward Freeman & Andrew C. Wicks & Bidhan Parmar, 2004. "Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 364-369, June.
    20. Jeffrey S. Harrison & Douglas A. Bosse & Robert A. Phillips, 2010. "Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 58-74, January.
    21. Wicks, Andrew C. & Gilbert, Daniel R. & Freeman, R. Edward, 1994. "A Feminist Reinterpretation of The Stakeholder Concept," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 475-497, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. C. B. Bhattacharya & Sankar Sen & Laura Marie Edinger-Schons & Michael Neureiter, 2023. "Corporate Purpose and Employee Sustainability Behaviors," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(4), pages 963-981, April.
    2. Esmee M. Veenstra & Naomi Ellemers, 2020. "ESG Indicators as Organizational Performance Goals: Do Rating Agencies Encourage a Holistic Approach?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-15, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Liliana Hawrysz & Jolanta Maj, 2017. "Identification of Stakeholders of Public Interest Organisations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-13, September.
    2. Carlos Ferro-Soto & Luz Amparo Macías-Quintana & Paula Vázquez-Rodríguez, 2018. "Effect of Stakeholders-Oriented Behavior on the Performance of Sustainable Business," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-27, December.
    3. Silke Machold & Pervaiz Ahmed & Stuart Farquhar, 2008. "Corporate Governance and Ethics: A Feminist Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 665-678, September.
    4. Kirsten Martin & Robert Phillips, 2022. "Stakeholder Friction," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 177(3), pages 519-531, May.
    5. Michael Pirson & Kirsten Martin & Bidhan Parmar, 2017. "Formation of Stakeholder Trust in Business and the Role of Personal Values," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 1-20, September.
    6. Lamin B. Ceesay, 2020. "Exploring the Influence of NGOs in Corporate Sustainability Adoption: Institutional-Legitimacy Perspective," Jindal Journal of Business Research, , vol. 9(2), pages 135-147, December.
    7. Samantha Miles, 2017. "Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 437-459, May.
    8. Richard A. Wolfe & Daniel S. Putler, 2002. "How Tight Are the Ties that Bind Stakeholder Groups?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(1), pages 64-80, February.
    9. Oluyomi A. Osobajo & David Moore, 2017. "Who is Who? Identifying the Different Sub-groups of Secondary Stakeholders within a Community: A Case Study of the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria Communities," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(9), pages 188-209, September.
    10. Naeem Tabassum & Satwinder Singh, 2020. "Corporate Governance and Organisational Performance," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-030-48527-6, December.
    11. Heino, Noora & Tuominen, Pasi & Jussila, Iiro, 2020. "Listed Family Firm Stakeholder Orientations: The Critical Role of Value-creating Family Factors," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 11(4).
    12. Allen Kaufman & Ernie Englander, 2011. "Behavioral Economics, Federalism, and the Triumph of Stakeholder Theory," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 421-438, September.
    13. Dejun Deng & Yi Wu & Linyi Qin, 2023. "CSR preference, market competition, and corporate financial performance," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(3), pages 1396-1409, April.
    14. Jonathan Bundy & Ryan M. Vogel & Miles A. Zachary, 2018. "Organization–stakeholder fit: A dynamic theory of cooperation, compromise, and conflict between an organization and its stakeholders," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 476-501, February.
    15. André Laplume & Kent Walker & Zhou Zhang & Xin Yu, 2021. "Incumbent Stakeholder Management Performance and New Entry," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 174(3), pages 629-644, December.
    16. Daryl Koehn & Maria Goranova, 2018. "Do Investors See Value in Ethically Sound CEO Apologies? Investigating Stock Market Reaction to CEO Apologies," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 152(2), pages 311-322, October.
    17. Lara Penco & Giorgia Profumo & Roberta Scarsi, 2017. "Stakeholder Orientation in Cruise Lines’ Mission Statements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-24, November.
    18. Yafet Yosafet Wilben Rissy, 2021. "The stakeholder model: its relevance, concept, and application in the Indonesian banking sector," Journal of Banking Regulation, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(3), pages 219-231, September.
    19. Joseph Heath, 2011. "Business Ethics and the ‘End of History’ in Corporate Law," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 5-20, March.
    20. John R. Boatright, 2006. "What's Wrong—and What's Right— with Stakeholder Management," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 22(Spring 20), pages 106-130.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:154:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s10551-017-3487-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.