- Email: [email protected]
Social responsibility goal perception
O",IEGA. The Int J[ of Mgmt Sci.. Vol. 6. No. 1. pp. 53--58. 197g. Pergamon Press. Printed in Great Britain
Social Responsibility Goal Perception HARVEY
KAHALAS
State University of New York at Albany ERNEST
B UHR
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Receiced January 1977; in reci.~ed ]orm August 1977}
The intent of this study is to distinguish areas of difference in the perception of organizational goals among managers, hourly workers, and graduate business students. The managers ~ere chosen to represent the present point of view of management, while the hourly workers were selected to be indicative of labor's viewpoint toward the goal selection of organizations. Students were chosen because they represent the potential transfusion into management. The tool used to solicit these responses was a questionnaire composed of twenty questions, with each question divided into two pans. The first part examined the way the individual perceived the achievement level of the organization ('is'), and the other half represented the level that the individual aspired for the organization to achieve in the future ('should he'). These two parts were quantified using a Likert scale ranging from I (of no importance) to 5 (of extremely high importance). The results indicate the similarities and differences between each of these three groups in terms of present perceptions and future expectations of these goals.
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY GOAL PERCEPTION
is subject to the internal actions of an individuars mind. Additionally, "the cognitive map of the individual is not a photographic representation of the physical world; it is, rather, a partial, personal construction in which certain objects, selected out by the individual for a major role, are perceived in an individual manner" [4, p. 20]. Furthermore, the perception process is not only a selective cognitive process by the individual, but also its results may differ significantly from reality. Nevertheless, since this process is viewed by the individual as reality, his actions and concepts will, to some extent, be based upon these factors. By aggregating the perceptual view of organizational goals by client groups, the hope would be that substantially deviant individuals would not significantly influence the results. One major factor which has an impact on individual perception is the particular organization and the level within that institution where the person is located [3]. This is particu-
FOR MANY years, organizational goals have been an area of interest and study for organization theorists. Within recent years, added attention has been given to the specific external goals as well as the internal goals of the business corporation. In viewing these goals, some writers have examined the various clients and future client groups of the business institution. An interesting examination of these individuals deals with their perceptions of the existing goals of the business firm. An additional step would include an examination of what the organizational goals should be, as perceived by these same client groups. PERCEPTION Perception of ideas, development and actions is a complicated cognitive process that 53
54
Kahalas, Uhr--Social Responsibility Goal Perception
larly important in the business firm where the superior and subordinate may very well have totally different perceptions of the environment [5, p. 355]. In fact. "'... the perceptual world of the subordinate is quite different from the perceptual world of the superior, and both may be very different from reality'" [6, p. 336]. In essence, individuals can perceive the same event in a different light from that of other persons observing the same event, and the perceptions of individuals or groups at one level may be different from individuals at other levels within or between organizations. ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS
In examining Cyert and March's It. pp. 39--43] and Perrow's [7. pp. 135-136] goal typologies, there seems to be some difficulty in attempting to quantify these goals. This is basically due to the inclusion of internally and externally generated goals under one broad heading. Because of this problem, it may be more beneficial to examine initially specific goals using a social (external) vs. organization (internal) dichotomy as the only classification device. Goals can no longer be depicted as broad generalizations, but must be more explicitly stated and identified to meet the internal and external demands made by the environmental coalitions. Although the typology of internal and external goals remains at the broad gener• alized level, the coalitions can at least recognize the area towards which action is directed while the subgoal depicts the explicit area toward which action is directed. This should aid organizations in their ability to communicate their goals to their internal and external environments. Numerous educational, social, and economic circumstances have arisen that have made it necessary for many businesses in America to reach clear, and often new, understandings about their goals. During the late 1960s, there were new demands for businesses to assume new roles and serve new interests. Now, in the 1970s, a widespread financial crisis is making it imperative for businesses to specify the objectives to which limited resources may be directed. Our work in this paper was developed as a tool to help the private sector delineate goals and establish priorities among them. The instrument does not tell us what to do in order to reach the goals. Instead, it provides a means by which many individuals and constituent groups can contribute their thinking about desired institutional goals. Summaries of the results of this thinking then provide a basis for reasoned deliberations toward attempting to define goals.
One organizational factor which is part of an employee or future employee's perception is the goals of the employee's organization. According to Perrow, "Organizations are tools to achieve various goals. To understand them fully, one must understand the goals they pursue" [7, p. 133]. Cyert and March view organizations as coalitions of individuals [1, p. 27]. These individuals range from shareholders to members of society at large, and each has goals of his own. To reduce these individual goals into a common goal or goals, there must be some mechanism to facilitate the arrival at a common denominator. This device is bargaining within and between the coalitions. Further, this bargaining process is depicted as lying on a continuum from the entrepreneurial goal setting to consensual goal setting. Neither represents the real world solution, which lies somewhere in the gray area between the two extremes. As experience increases within a group coalition, demands calling for bargaining arise which change the texture of organizational goals. This bargaining has lead to a vast divergence of individuals' perceptions of organizational goals, which, in turn, has lead to an even louder disagreement in bargaining within and between coalitions. At the individual level, people's perceptions are changing to the point of view that organizations have a social obligation. At the same time, organizations claim that they either do not have the necessary SAMPLE, M E T H O D O L O G Y , AND resources or have no obligation to be socially RESULTS responsible. There seem to be distinct indicaIn the present investigation, the population tions that although organizations are reluctant, a trend is building toward a shift to socially re- under study consisted of three basic groups. sponsible actions by organizations [2, p, 321]. These three groups consisted of production
Omega, Vol. 6. No. 1
managers and hourly workers in the engine component industry in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and MBA students in a university in VirNnia. The members of each group were randomly selected_ The first group consisted of thirty production managers who had hourly paid workers reporting to them. In effect, they held lower level managerial (foremen) positions. All the subjects had been in these positions for a minimum of 5 years. The second group was composed of thirty hourly workers who reported to the above mentioned managers. All had worked in their positions for at least 5 years. Finally, the last group comprised of thirty MBA students currently enrolled in an educational program. These students were randomly selected from the group completing the graduate program that year. The questionnaire consisted of twenty questions dealing with possible organizational goals. The questions were designed to reflect perceptions about two types of goals. The internal goals consisted of those questions which attempted to examine direct impact upon employees. These questions ranged from general job satisfaction to those that attempted to ensure congruency between individual needs and organizational goals. The external goals were designed to examine the impact of the firm upon the society. These ranged from maximizing profits for stockholders to supporting community activities. Additionally, each question was dichotomized into 'is' and 'should be' factors. The former was designed to gain an understanding of perception about existing goals and the latter to provide information about desired institutional roles. The responses to the questions were on a Likert-type scale ranging from 'no importance' or 'not applicable' (I) to of'extremely high importance' (5). The subjects were asked to consider the business institution as a whole and not just their own firm. Furthermore, in giving 'should be' responses, they were instructed not to have their beliefs restrained by whether or not the goal, realistically, could ever be attained. Two levels of analysis were used for this investigation since there was interest in exploring differences between the three groups of respondents on an overall basis and on a question by question basis. It was felt that this approach
55
would yield greater interpretation possibilities and possibly provide increased insight into the situation under study. For the overall analysis, the questions were divided into internal and external sets as previously discussed. Individual respondent scores for 'internal is,' 'internal should be,' "external is,' and "external should be' question sets were determined by summing the appropriate individual question scores. These summed overall scores were then subjected to the KruskalWallis one-way analysis of variance by ranks test to determine if the differences among the samples signify genuine population differences [8, pp. 184-193]. This test is especially appropriate in this situation since the two assumptions of the test are that the variables under study have an underlying continuous distribution and that at least an ordinal measurement has been used to quantify the variables. A chi-square test was used for the individual question analysis to determine if the observed differences among samples signify population differences. When using this test, care was taken to insure that the minimum expected cell size was five, as required. In examining the results of the overall analysis of variance tests, the internal 'is' (H = 15.14, P > 0.001) and 'should be' (H = 22.44, P > 0.1001) questions were statistically significant at the 0.10 level. The external 'is' (H = 1.87, P ~ 0.4) summation was not statistically significant at the 0.10 level. The external 'should be' (H = 8.74, P ~ 0.013) was statistically significant at the 0.10 probability level. When the analysis was reduced to the individual questions, a number of variables were identified as statistically significant at the 0.10 level. For the internal questions, the eight statistically significant 'is' responses were numbers I, 7, 9, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, while the nine statistically significant 'should be' responses were questions 6, 7, 10, 11, 12. 13, 16, 17, 18. The only external question showing any statistically significant difference between the three various groups was question 5, 'should be.' The managers basically viewed the statistically significant 'is' questions as of medium importance. The exceptions were questions 1, 7, 12, 17 and 19, which were viewed as medium to high importance and question 18, which was evenly spread across all possible responses.
Kahalas, Uhr--Social Responsibility Goal Perception
56
TABLE 1. QUESTIONS OF GOAL PERCEPTION Question 1.* 2.t 3." 4.* 5.t 6.* 7.* 8.t 9.* 10.* 11.*
12.* 13.* 14.'t" 15.t 16.* 17.* 18.* 19.* 20.*
to help employees gain job satisfaction. to maximize profits for stockholder. to help employees develop a sense of self-worth and self-confidence. to provide equal opportunity employment for all members of the society. to provide training for the disadvantaged members of the society. to provide recreational facilities for employees and their families. to provide method of improving job skills through continuing education. to minimize cost and pass saving on to consumers. to create an atmosphere where organizational goals and individual needs can be in harmony. to provide a safe and healthy environment for the employees. to promote growth to assure continuous employment for their employees. to encourage employee creativity and innovation. to upgrade present working conditions. to conform to government regulations. to actively support community activities. to punish employees who fail to perform effectively and efficiently. to allow employees to participate in decisions that directly affect their day-to-day job. to search for remedies to job frustration. to make promotions based on ability. to keep employees informed of their job performance.
* Internal type goal. t External type goal,
For all the statistically significant internal 'is' questions, hourly workers ranked the response as of low or no importance. The only exception was question 16, where the response was dichotomized between low importance and high importance. The MBAs' responses to the statistically significant internal 'is' questions were quite diverse. On questions 7, 16 and 19, the responses were medium to high importance, numbers 12 and 17 were viewed as low or no importance, the responses to questions 1 and 18 were evenly distributed, and question 9 was viewed as medium to low importance. When examining the results of the statistically significant internal 'should be' responses, hourly workers responded with high importance for all questions. These responses ranged from high for most responses to a question to almost complete agreement among the subjects for a high level response. The responses of the managers were more diverse. Questions 6 and 7 were ranked medium to low importance, questions 11, 13 and 17 of high to medium importance, and numbers 10, 12, 16 and 18 of high importance. The only statistically significant external question was number 5, 'should be,' which was ranked medium to low importance for managers and MBAs and high importance for hourly workers.
When viewing the total internal responses, questions 7, 12, 17 and 18 were the only questions statistically significant on both the 'is' and 'should be' factors. Additionally, other trends existed with the significant internal 'is' questions. Here, the hourly workers never agreed with the managers, although on certain questions, the responses were similar to MBAs or were not similar to either of the other two groups. With the significant internal 'should be' questions, one trend which was identified was the lack of agreement between the MBAs and hourly workers. At no time did the results of these two groups agree on any significant question, although all other combinations could be identified. These two specific trends dealt with a lack of agreement between hourly workers and another group. IMPLICATIONS The implications of this study are quite significant for those studying organization goals. There are two factors which are observed immediately from the data analysis. The first deals with the almost nonexistent differences in the external questions. Only one question (question 5) was identified as being significantly different in terms of group perception of an organizational goal, and that existed only with the 'should be' portion. Basically, therefore,
Omega. Vol. 6. No. 1
these groups may be viewed as not perceiving any significant difference in the external dimension. For our sample of three groups-managers, hourly workers, and MBAs--they jointly perceive the business corporation operating in the same manner in this area. Additionally, each of the groups desires to have the corporation operating in the same way, Cyert and March suggest that to combine individual goals into common goals, bargaining within and between the various coalitions must occur. With the identified external goals being almost totally similar between managers and hourly workers, the needed bargaining may be perceived as having already occurred. The only factor which may not allow for this interpretation is the additional similarity of the MBAs. The three group similarity tends to suggest that these factors were bargained at a higher level in the society creating similar perceptions and values in various societal members. This agrees with previous suggestions that existing and desired organizational goals are, to some extent, determined by environmental pressures and social values. The second area of concern deals with the lack of similarity in the internal goals. This suggests areas beyond existing social values or an area where the society has established a zone of indifference. In effect, these factors are presently ones which the society is allowing each individual or organization to bargain according to their own desires and perceptions. Additionally, each group may be operating consistently with its own subgroup's values. This is a particularly likely interpretation if we accept the relationship between an overall system establishing value boundaries within which each subsystem or subgroup must operate. This approach only limits the subsystem's discretion only to a zone of decision making and not to a specific response to some organization goals. With these internal type questions, one factor concerns the dissimilarity between hourly workers and managers ('is') and MBAs ('should be'). The hourly workers never agree with managers on the statistically significant 'is' questions and never desire organizations to operate in the same manner as desired by MBAs. Therefore, the "is' portion may be identified as a perception factor with hourly workers and managers never perceiving the
57
operation of an organization in the same manner. Furthermore, the "should be' section of the question may be viewed as an expectation concept with hourly workers and MBAs' never agreeing on organizational expectations. Finally, when examining the four questions dealing with internal goals which indicate statistically significant differences between the three groups on both the 'is" as well as the 'should be' responses. (questions 7. 12, 17 and 18), three basic points emerge. The most obvious concerns the desire by all groups that the corporation should view each of these factors with greater importance. Additionally, with these four questions, the managers view the corporation as operating on a higher level than the other two groups for the "is' question while the hourly workers are the highest group for the 'should be" questions. This would tend to reinforce existing theories that managers view the corporation as doing a great deal in many job-related social responsibility areas such as continuing education for workers, allowing participation in decision making, and working to solve job frustration. On the other hand, hourly workers feel that these corporate responsibility factors should be at a level higher than the expectations of the other two groups. The findings of this study are a preliminary attempt to examine a number of factors simultaneously. The examination viewed three different groups and identified their perception and expectations with respect to organizational goals of both a market or traditional nature as well as those of a social or corporate responsibility complexion. Accordingly, the results show the similarities a n d differences with regard to perceptions and expectations of these goals and their importance in terms of desires by the groups. Additionally, they provide a basis for future studies in perception of organizational goals. Future studies should deal with expanding the sample size and refining the groups and types of questions to gain a better perspective of goals, perceptions, and social responsibility. REFERENCES 1. CYERT RM & MARCH JG (1963) .4 Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. 2. DAVIS K (1973) The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Acad. Mgmt i l 16, 312-322.
58
Kahalas. Uhr--Social Responsibility Goal Perception
3. DL, aORy~ DC & S~MOS HA (1958) Selective perception: a note on the departmental identification of executives. Sociometry "~1. [40-144. 4. KR~.CH D. CRLTCHFI~LD RS 8~; BALLACHEY EL (1962) Individual m Society. McGraw-Hill. New York. 5. L~z.,,,trr HJ i1950)Mana~ierial Psycholoyy. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. 6. Lt_rHays F (1973) Or~tani:ational Behm'ior. McGrawHill. New York.
7. PERROW C (19701 Oryanizationat Anal r.~is: A Socioloqical View. Wadsworth. Belmont. 8. SIEGEL S (1956)Nonparametric Statistics for the Behacioral Sciences. McGraw-HilL New York.
Professor Hart,ey Kahalas. School of Busi,ress Administratio~r. SUN Y-Albany. [400 Washinqton A~'enue. Albany. New York 12222. USA.
ADDRESS FOIl CORRESPONDENCE:
Social Responsibility Goal Perception HARVEY
KAHALAS
State University of New York at Albany ERNEST
B UHR
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Receiced January 1977; in reci.~ed ]orm August 1977}
The intent of this study is to distinguish areas of difference in the perception of organizational goals among managers, hourly workers, and graduate business students. The managers ~ere chosen to represent the present point of view of management, while the hourly workers were selected to be indicative of labor's viewpoint toward the goal selection of organizations. Students were chosen because they represent the potential transfusion into management. The tool used to solicit these responses was a questionnaire composed of twenty questions, with each question divided into two pans. The first part examined the way the individual perceived the achievement level of the organization ('is'), and the other half represented the level that the individual aspired for the organization to achieve in the future ('should he'). These two parts were quantified using a Likert scale ranging from I (of no importance) to 5 (of extremely high importance). The results indicate the similarities and differences between each of these three groups in terms of present perceptions and future expectations of these goals.
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY GOAL PERCEPTION
is subject to the internal actions of an individuars mind. Additionally, "the cognitive map of the individual is not a photographic representation of the physical world; it is, rather, a partial, personal construction in which certain objects, selected out by the individual for a major role, are perceived in an individual manner" [4, p. 20]. Furthermore, the perception process is not only a selective cognitive process by the individual, but also its results may differ significantly from reality. Nevertheless, since this process is viewed by the individual as reality, his actions and concepts will, to some extent, be based upon these factors. By aggregating the perceptual view of organizational goals by client groups, the hope would be that substantially deviant individuals would not significantly influence the results. One major factor which has an impact on individual perception is the particular organization and the level within that institution where the person is located [3]. This is particu-
FOR MANY years, organizational goals have been an area of interest and study for organization theorists. Within recent years, added attention has been given to the specific external goals as well as the internal goals of the business corporation. In viewing these goals, some writers have examined the various clients and future client groups of the business institution. An interesting examination of these individuals deals with their perceptions of the existing goals of the business firm. An additional step would include an examination of what the organizational goals should be, as perceived by these same client groups. PERCEPTION Perception of ideas, development and actions is a complicated cognitive process that 53
54
Kahalas, Uhr--Social Responsibility Goal Perception
larly important in the business firm where the superior and subordinate may very well have totally different perceptions of the environment [5, p. 355]. In fact. "'... the perceptual world of the subordinate is quite different from the perceptual world of the superior, and both may be very different from reality'" [6, p. 336]. In essence, individuals can perceive the same event in a different light from that of other persons observing the same event, and the perceptions of individuals or groups at one level may be different from individuals at other levels within or between organizations. ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS
In examining Cyert and March's It. pp. 39--43] and Perrow's [7. pp. 135-136] goal typologies, there seems to be some difficulty in attempting to quantify these goals. This is basically due to the inclusion of internally and externally generated goals under one broad heading. Because of this problem, it may be more beneficial to examine initially specific goals using a social (external) vs. organization (internal) dichotomy as the only classification device. Goals can no longer be depicted as broad generalizations, but must be more explicitly stated and identified to meet the internal and external demands made by the environmental coalitions. Although the typology of internal and external goals remains at the broad gener• alized level, the coalitions can at least recognize the area towards which action is directed while the subgoal depicts the explicit area toward which action is directed. This should aid organizations in their ability to communicate their goals to their internal and external environments. Numerous educational, social, and economic circumstances have arisen that have made it necessary for many businesses in America to reach clear, and often new, understandings about their goals. During the late 1960s, there were new demands for businesses to assume new roles and serve new interests. Now, in the 1970s, a widespread financial crisis is making it imperative for businesses to specify the objectives to which limited resources may be directed. Our work in this paper was developed as a tool to help the private sector delineate goals and establish priorities among them. The instrument does not tell us what to do in order to reach the goals. Instead, it provides a means by which many individuals and constituent groups can contribute their thinking about desired institutional goals. Summaries of the results of this thinking then provide a basis for reasoned deliberations toward attempting to define goals.
One organizational factor which is part of an employee or future employee's perception is the goals of the employee's organization. According to Perrow, "Organizations are tools to achieve various goals. To understand them fully, one must understand the goals they pursue" [7, p. 133]. Cyert and March view organizations as coalitions of individuals [1, p. 27]. These individuals range from shareholders to members of society at large, and each has goals of his own. To reduce these individual goals into a common goal or goals, there must be some mechanism to facilitate the arrival at a common denominator. This device is bargaining within and between the coalitions. Further, this bargaining process is depicted as lying on a continuum from the entrepreneurial goal setting to consensual goal setting. Neither represents the real world solution, which lies somewhere in the gray area between the two extremes. As experience increases within a group coalition, demands calling for bargaining arise which change the texture of organizational goals. This bargaining has lead to a vast divergence of individuals' perceptions of organizational goals, which, in turn, has lead to an even louder disagreement in bargaining within and between coalitions. At the individual level, people's perceptions are changing to the point of view that organizations have a social obligation. At the same time, organizations claim that they either do not have the necessary SAMPLE, M E T H O D O L O G Y , AND resources or have no obligation to be socially RESULTS responsible. There seem to be distinct indicaIn the present investigation, the population tions that although organizations are reluctant, a trend is building toward a shift to socially re- under study consisted of three basic groups. sponsible actions by organizations [2, p, 321]. These three groups consisted of production
Omega, Vol. 6. No. 1
managers and hourly workers in the engine component industry in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and MBA students in a university in VirNnia. The members of each group were randomly selected_ The first group consisted of thirty production managers who had hourly paid workers reporting to them. In effect, they held lower level managerial (foremen) positions. All the subjects had been in these positions for a minimum of 5 years. The second group was composed of thirty hourly workers who reported to the above mentioned managers. All had worked in their positions for at least 5 years. Finally, the last group comprised of thirty MBA students currently enrolled in an educational program. These students were randomly selected from the group completing the graduate program that year. The questionnaire consisted of twenty questions dealing with possible organizational goals. The questions were designed to reflect perceptions about two types of goals. The internal goals consisted of those questions which attempted to examine direct impact upon employees. These questions ranged from general job satisfaction to those that attempted to ensure congruency between individual needs and organizational goals. The external goals were designed to examine the impact of the firm upon the society. These ranged from maximizing profits for stockholders to supporting community activities. Additionally, each question was dichotomized into 'is' and 'should be' factors. The former was designed to gain an understanding of perception about existing goals and the latter to provide information about desired institutional roles. The responses to the questions were on a Likert-type scale ranging from 'no importance' or 'not applicable' (I) to of'extremely high importance' (5). The subjects were asked to consider the business institution as a whole and not just their own firm. Furthermore, in giving 'should be' responses, they were instructed not to have their beliefs restrained by whether or not the goal, realistically, could ever be attained. Two levels of analysis were used for this investigation since there was interest in exploring differences between the three groups of respondents on an overall basis and on a question by question basis. It was felt that this approach
55
would yield greater interpretation possibilities and possibly provide increased insight into the situation under study. For the overall analysis, the questions were divided into internal and external sets as previously discussed. Individual respondent scores for 'internal is,' 'internal should be,' "external is,' and "external should be' question sets were determined by summing the appropriate individual question scores. These summed overall scores were then subjected to the KruskalWallis one-way analysis of variance by ranks test to determine if the differences among the samples signify genuine population differences [8, pp. 184-193]. This test is especially appropriate in this situation since the two assumptions of the test are that the variables under study have an underlying continuous distribution and that at least an ordinal measurement has been used to quantify the variables. A chi-square test was used for the individual question analysis to determine if the observed differences among samples signify population differences. When using this test, care was taken to insure that the minimum expected cell size was five, as required. In examining the results of the overall analysis of variance tests, the internal 'is' (H = 15.14, P > 0.001) and 'should be' (H = 22.44, P > 0.1001) questions were statistically significant at the 0.10 level. The external 'is' (H = 1.87, P ~ 0.4) summation was not statistically significant at the 0.10 level. The external 'should be' (H = 8.74, P ~ 0.013) was statistically significant at the 0.10 probability level. When the analysis was reduced to the individual questions, a number of variables were identified as statistically significant at the 0.10 level. For the internal questions, the eight statistically significant 'is' responses were numbers I, 7, 9, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, while the nine statistically significant 'should be' responses were questions 6, 7, 10, 11, 12. 13, 16, 17, 18. The only external question showing any statistically significant difference between the three various groups was question 5, 'should be.' The managers basically viewed the statistically significant 'is' questions as of medium importance. The exceptions were questions 1, 7, 12, 17 and 19, which were viewed as medium to high importance and question 18, which was evenly spread across all possible responses.
Kahalas, Uhr--Social Responsibility Goal Perception
56
TABLE 1. QUESTIONS OF GOAL PERCEPTION Question 1.* 2.t 3." 4.* 5.t 6.* 7.* 8.t 9.* 10.* 11.*
12.* 13.* 14.'t" 15.t 16.* 17.* 18.* 19.* 20.*
to help employees gain job satisfaction. to maximize profits for stockholder. to help employees develop a sense of self-worth and self-confidence. to provide equal opportunity employment for all members of the society. to provide training for the disadvantaged members of the society. to provide recreational facilities for employees and their families. to provide method of improving job skills through continuing education. to minimize cost and pass saving on to consumers. to create an atmosphere where organizational goals and individual needs can be in harmony. to provide a safe and healthy environment for the employees. to promote growth to assure continuous employment for their employees. to encourage employee creativity and innovation. to upgrade present working conditions. to conform to government regulations. to actively support community activities. to punish employees who fail to perform effectively and efficiently. to allow employees to participate in decisions that directly affect their day-to-day job. to search for remedies to job frustration. to make promotions based on ability. to keep employees informed of their job performance.
* Internal type goal. t External type goal,
For all the statistically significant internal 'is' questions, hourly workers ranked the response as of low or no importance. The only exception was question 16, where the response was dichotomized between low importance and high importance. The MBAs' responses to the statistically significant internal 'is' questions were quite diverse. On questions 7, 16 and 19, the responses were medium to high importance, numbers 12 and 17 were viewed as low or no importance, the responses to questions 1 and 18 were evenly distributed, and question 9 was viewed as medium to low importance. When examining the results of the statistically significant internal 'should be' responses, hourly workers responded with high importance for all questions. These responses ranged from high for most responses to a question to almost complete agreement among the subjects for a high level response. The responses of the managers were more diverse. Questions 6 and 7 were ranked medium to low importance, questions 11, 13 and 17 of high to medium importance, and numbers 10, 12, 16 and 18 of high importance. The only statistically significant external question was number 5, 'should be,' which was ranked medium to low importance for managers and MBAs and high importance for hourly workers.
When viewing the total internal responses, questions 7, 12, 17 and 18 were the only questions statistically significant on both the 'is' and 'should be' factors. Additionally, other trends existed with the significant internal 'is' questions. Here, the hourly workers never agreed with the managers, although on certain questions, the responses were similar to MBAs or were not similar to either of the other two groups. With the significant internal 'should be' questions, one trend which was identified was the lack of agreement between the MBAs and hourly workers. At no time did the results of these two groups agree on any significant question, although all other combinations could be identified. These two specific trends dealt with a lack of agreement between hourly workers and another group. IMPLICATIONS The implications of this study are quite significant for those studying organization goals. There are two factors which are observed immediately from the data analysis. The first deals with the almost nonexistent differences in the external questions. Only one question (question 5) was identified as being significantly different in terms of group perception of an organizational goal, and that existed only with the 'should be' portion. Basically, therefore,
Omega. Vol. 6. No. 1
these groups may be viewed as not perceiving any significant difference in the external dimension. For our sample of three groups-managers, hourly workers, and MBAs--they jointly perceive the business corporation operating in the same manner in this area. Additionally, each of the groups desires to have the corporation operating in the same way, Cyert and March suggest that to combine individual goals into common goals, bargaining within and between the various coalitions must occur. With the identified external goals being almost totally similar between managers and hourly workers, the needed bargaining may be perceived as having already occurred. The only factor which may not allow for this interpretation is the additional similarity of the MBAs. The three group similarity tends to suggest that these factors were bargained at a higher level in the society creating similar perceptions and values in various societal members. This agrees with previous suggestions that existing and desired organizational goals are, to some extent, determined by environmental pressures and social values. The second area of concern deals with the lack of similarity in the internal goals. This suggests areas beyond existing social values or an area where the society has established a zone of indifference. In effect, these factors are presently ones which the society is allowing each individual or organization to bargain according to their own desires and perceptions. Additionally, each group may be operating consistently with its own subgroup's values. This is a particularly likely interpretation if we accept the relationship between an overall system establishing value boundaries within which each subsystem or subgroup must operate. This approach only limits the subsystem's discretion only to a zone of decision making and not to a specific response to some organization goals. With these internal type questions, one factor concerns the dissimilarity between hourly workers and managers ('is') and MBAs ('should be'). The hourly workers never agree with managers on the statistically significant 'is' questions and never desire organizations to operate in the same manner as desired by MBAs. Therefore, the "is' portion may be identified as a perception factor with hourly workers and managers never perceiving the
57
operation of an organization in the same manner. Furthermore, the "should be' section of the question may be viewed as an expectation concept with hourly workers and MBAs' never agreeing on organizational expectations. Finally, when examining the four questions dealing with internal goals which indicate statistically significant differences between the three groups on both the 'is" as well as the 'should be' responses. (questions 7. 12, 17 and 18), three basic points emerge. The most obvious concerns the desire by all groups that the corporation should view each of these factors with greater importance. Additionally, with these four questions, the managers view the corporation as operating on a higher level than the other two groups for the "is' question while the hourly workers are the highest group for the 'should be" questions. This would tend to reinforce existing theories that managers view the corporation as doing a great deal in many job-related social responsibility areas such as continuing education for workers, allowing participation in decision making, and working to solve job frustration. On the other hand, hourly workers feel that these corporate responsibility factors should be at a level higher than the expectations of the other two groups. The findings of this study are a preliminary attempt to examine a number of factors simultaneously. The examination viewed three different groups and identified their perception and expectations with respect to organizational goals of both a market or traditional nature as well as those of a social or corporate responsibility complexion. Accordingly, the results show the similarities a n d differences with regard to perceptions and expectations of these goals and their importance in terms of desires by the groups. Additionally, they provide a basis for future studies in perception of organizational goals. Future studies should deal with expanding the sample size and refining the groups and types of questions to gain a better perspective of goals, perceptions, and social responsibility. REFERENCES 1. CYERT RM & MARCH JG (1963) .4 Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. 2. DAVIS K (1973) The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Acad. Mgmt i l 16, 312-322.
58
Kahalas. Uhr--Social Responsibility Goal Perception
3. DL, aORy~ DC & S~MOS HA (1958) Selective perception: a note on the departmental identification of executives. Sociometry "~1. [40-144. 4. KR~.CH D. CRLTCHFI~LD RS 8~; BALLACHEY EL (1962) Individual m Society. McGraw-Hill. New York. 5. L~z.,,,trr HJ i1950)Mana~ierial Psycholoyy. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. 6. Lt_rHays F (1973) Or~tani:ational Behm'ior. McGrawHill. New York.
7. PERROW C (19701 Oryanizationat Anal r.~is: A Socioloqical View. Wadsworth. Belmont. 8. SIEGEL S (1956)Nonparametric Statistics for the Behacioral Sciences. McGraw-HilL New York.
Professor Hart,ey Kahalas. School of Busi,ress Administratio~r. SUN Y-Albany. [400 Washinqton A~'enue. Albany. New York 12222. USA.
ADDRESS FOIl CORRESPONDENCE: