Social Irresponsibility in Management



direction is in agreement with the previously cited evidence; younger managers tend to be more
irresponsible.

The Stakeholder Role: Consideration was given to ways in which the role perceptions of the subject
might be modified. The first step was to ask subjects about these perceptions. A “managerial orientation
questionnaire” (MOQ) was administered to a subset of the subjects both before and after the role-
playing exercise. The MOQ described the stockholder and stakeholder roles as they were presented in
the role-playing instructions. Before the role-playing, the subjects were asked. “Which of these
descriptions best represents the role which you feel that you would use as a manager?” The results
(summarized in Table 4) were inconsistent with the assumption that subjects would normally adopt the
stockholder role. Only 21% of the respondents said that they would use the stockholder role, while
76% said they would use the stakeholder role.

Table 4: “A Role That I Would Use”: Before Role-Playing of Panalba
(N = 268)

Stockholder

Undecided

Stakeholder

(-2)

(-1)

(0)

(1)

(2)

5%

16%

3%

62%

14%

After the role-playing, but before any discussion, the same subjects were given the same scale and
asked to “Mark the category that best represents how you feel that
you acted in this role-playing
case.” The responses are summarized in Table 5. All group’s averages moved toward the stockholder
end of the continuum, indicating that the respondents felt that their behavior in this case was more
oriented toward the stockholder role than were their attitudes. Note, however, that the change in the
stockholder version of the case was greater than that in the control group, which, in turn, was greater
than that in the two stakeholder versions. Although the role manipulations did have the intended effect,
the magnitude of the effect was not large. Subjects bring a perception of their role into the case that is
not easily changed.

Table 5: Perceived Behavior vs. Prior Attitude

Role Emphasis

Number of
Groups

Perceived Behavior
Minus Initial Rating

Final Rating

Stockholder (board agrees)

10

- 1.7

- 1.0

Control group

9

- 0.9

- 0.4

Stakeholder (board agrees)

13

- 0.1

+0.5

15



More intriguing information

1. The economic value of food labels: A lab experiment on safer infant milk formula
2. Altruism with Social Roots: An Emerging Literature
3. ¿Por qué se privatizan servicios en los municipios (pequeños)? Evidencia empírica sobre residuos sólidos y agua.
4. PROFITABILITY OF ALFALFA HAY STORAGE USING PROBABILITIES: AN EXTENSION APPROACH
5. Monopolistic Pricing in the Banking Industry: a Dynamic Model
6. Work Rich, Time Poor? Time-Use of Women and Men in Ireland
7. AN EXPLORATION OF THE NEED FOR AND COST OF SELECTED TRADE FACILITATION MEASURES IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WTO NEGOTIATIONS
8. Behavioural Characteristics and Financial Distress
9. Migration and Technological Change in Rural Households: Complements or Substitutes?
10. Natural hazard mitigation in Southern California
11. The name is absent
12. Globalization, Redistribution, and the Composition of Public Education Expenditures
13. The name is absent
14. Bidding for Envy-Freeness: A Procedural Approach to n-Player Fair Division Problems
15. Types of Cost in Inductive Concept Learning
16. Parent child interaction in Nigerian families: conversation analysis, context and culture
17. The Environmental Kuznets Curve Under a New framework: Role of Social Capital in Water Pollution
18. The name is absent
19. Washington Irving and the Knickerbocker Group
20. Monetary Policy News and Exchange Rate Responses: Do Only Surprises Matter?