Identity in corporate america final

Running head: IDENTITY IN CORPORATE AMERICA: THE INDIVIDUAL IN 1

Identity in Corporate America: The Individual in the Collective

Chad Watson

Grand Canyon University: PSY 530

March 19, 2013

IDENTITY IN CORPORATE AMERICA: THE INDIVIDUAL IN 2

Identity in Corporate America: The Individual in the Collective

Abstract

A discussion of how organizational citizenship behaviors, corporate culture, corporate social

responsibility, and corporate citizenship work together to enhance corporate productivity was

examined in depth. Evidence demonstrated that solid employer-employee relationships led to

solid corporate-clientele relationships. Alignment of values between employer and employee

strengthened internal perceptions of corporate citizenship that led to increased company

productivity, while communication of corporate values to the public via employees led to a

stronger corporate image, strengthening the corporate-clientele relationship.

Keywords: corporate culture, corporate social responsibility, corporate citizenship, relationship

management


As the nature of business and competition changes over time, it is essential that business

leaders continuously explore innovative ways to grow and prosper. Remaining corporately

flexible is a key factor to an organization’s longevity. Not only does domestic competition keep

Corporate America on its figurative toes, global competition has become a relevant factor as

well, all of which affects the corporate bottom-line. The recognition of what is known as

organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) and how they are implemented in the corporate

culture has decidedly come to the forefront as a way to create the edge that a competitive

company seeks. As such, corporate citizenship is a facet of OCB that is being specifically

investigated and employed by many progressive corporations. Thus far, many positive effects

have come from creating and cultivating corporate citizenship, which has been found to be a

factor that leads to a more efficient and functional organization overall. Ultimately, as Corporate

America progresses in further refining its relationship with its clientele, it must also refine the

relationship that is has with its employee base both by defining and instilling a sense of this

corporate citizenship. Evidence within this paper will be examined to further explore the

paradoxical relationship that exists between the employer-employee relationship and the

corporate-clientele relationship, and that if one relationship is to improve, so must the other.

Corporate Culture

For decades, corporate human resource departments across the country have known that

creating and cultivating a corporate culture has a positive effect on enhancing not only their

employee’s sense of job satisfaction but also has a positive impact to their overall business

performance (Liu, 2010, p. 75). The concept of corporate culture and what it exactly means has

been an ever-evolving definition. Studies have revealed that over 54 different definitions have

been used over the course of the past 30 years in the attempt to define what is meant by the term


corporate culture (Tharp, n.d., p. 5). Edgar Schein of MIT’s Sloan School of Management

perhaps summed it up best in defining organizational and corporate culture as:

A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of

external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be

considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to

perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. (Tharp, n.d., p. 5)

It is these shared basic assumptions that create the culture itself and are therefore very

important to be conveyed and established. The importance of instilling corporate culture and the

effect it has upon productivity has been a topic of extensive research over the past several

decades. Analyzing measurements and outputs on common business elements such as substance,

strength, adaptability, economic performance, return on investment and stock prices, research

shows that a company outperforms its competitors in all of these categories when (a) the

corporate culture emphasizes its customers, investors, and employees and (b) the corporate

culture is suited to its business environment simultaneously remaining adaptive to change

(Huang, 2013, para. 5). Corporate adaptation to change is a key component in cultivating

corporate culture. The difference between companies that have attained long-term success and

those companies that have failed is that successful companies introduced and implemented

changes to their corporate culture at a much quicker rate than those who failed (Huang, 2013,

para. 6). Not only is corporate flexibility required in a company’s products and services lines to

remain a contending force in the market, it’s an absolute factor that must be present in the

corporate culture itself. Corporate culture means different things to different people. From the

outside, both the public consumer and the political society in which the company is established

formulate an opinion of a company. Corporate image is a direct reflection of the corporate


culture. From this external perspective, a corporation’s stance on social, ecological and political

issues (also known as corporate social responsibility) is certainly part of what comprises a

corporation’s culture. In reality, there are four different factors that contribute to corporate

culture:

1. Instrumental factors – the degree to which a corporation maximizes its

shareholders values by achieving economic goals through social activities

2. Political factors – the political impact a corporation has and how it uses its clout

in the political realm

3. Integrative factors – the corporation’s role in social issues and the integration of

social demands

4. Ethical factors – the focus of doing the right thing in order to contribute positively

to a good society (Garriga & Domènec, 2004, p. 63-64)

From the inside, both employees and the company’s stockholders perceive the company

in a different light than from those external. Seen from this internal perspective, corporate

culture is shaped more so by corporate citizenship, employee perception of the corporate social

responsibility, and the degree of alignment between these two elements in a values-based

environment (Glavas & Sandy, 2009, p. 55). Alignment of values between a corporation and its

employees is not only important in retaining talented employees, it attracts talented employees to

the company to begin with. While corporate social responsibility and corporate citizenship are

both fundamental to creating a corporate culture, it’s the inter-dynamics between the two that

create corporate image.


Corporate Social Responsibility

The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as a component of corporate

culture is quickly being integrated in today’s most progressive corporations. CSR often refers to

H.R. Bowen’s pronouncement that big businesses often affect and instill a sense of social

responsibility, an idea well discussed in his book Social Responsibilities of the Businessman

(Mehta, 2011, p. 20). Through his and others’ works, CSR is defined as the “commitment to

improve community well-being through discretionary businesses practices and corporate

resources” (Kotier & Lee, 2005). Modern CSR has sprung from the convergence of four primary

ideologies: (1) corporations are instruments of wealth creation and its social activities are a

means to economic results; (2) corporations have presence and influence in politics and they

must exercise their influence responsibly; (3) corporations must integrate social demands placed

upon it by its host society; and (4) corporations have ethical responsibilities and must contribute

to society by doing what is ethically correct (Garriga & Domènec, 2004, p. 51). Each of these

four aspects is equally important and found in every modern corporation, however they are rarely

known about or considered by the public. Public awareness of what happens behind the curtain

is often not possible and if it were, would more often be misinterpreted. For example, let’s say

that an insurance company tries to influence Congress to prevent the passage of a bill that would

ultimately increase insurance premiums on a national level. The general public may never

appreciate, understand, or even be aware of the insurance company’s efforts, even though the

company’s intervention may have had a direct and positive impact on the general public’s cash

flow (Garriga & Domènec, 2004, p. 64). Of those that may have an understanding of the

company’s political influence, some may think that it was done out of corporate self-interest, and

that preventing nationwide premium increases was merely a side effect of corporate self-


preservation. This is a notion that is not unsupported. Despite increased media exposure on

CSR, corporations are largely integrating the concept into their day-to-day management. Fewer

than 20% of corporate employees and a mere 3% of corporate executives report that their

company is socially responsible in any way (Glavas & Sandy, 2009, p. 52). Corporations

struggle with the question of how to successfully communicate its level of CSR. One of the most

effective and direct methods is to create a visible employee interaction with the public.

Employees who volunteer their time, energy, or money and who do so in a proactive way not

only serves to reward the charitable cause they adopt, but greatly improves corporate image

(Glavas & Sandy, 2009, p. 52). Additionally, front line employees not only have the opportunity

to connect with their clients from a more personable level, they have the ability to convey in

what way the company provides CSR and what that means to the client personally. This is an

essential message to communicate, as customers most often patronize companies that act in

socially responsible ways (Glavas & Sandy, 2009, p. 52).

Corporate Citizenship

With all this said, the key factor in actuating CSR is activating employee participation.

Understanding what motivates employees to begin with underlies the process of successfully

activating participation in an employee. A successfully motivated employee will work to

increase not only their corporate commitment but also their personal performance, elements that

are both necessary components of corporate citizenship. Corporate citizenship in one context is

defined by S.A. Waddock as “manifested in the strategies and operating practices a company

develops in operationalizing its relationship with and impacts on stakeholders and the natural

environment” (Waddock, 2004, p. 7). The impacts on stakeholders and the natural environment

are exactly what a corporation is looking for, as this usually results in a positive image of the


company’s CSR, therefore leading to a stronger corporate-clientele relationship. While this is

an obvious goal for the corporation itself, this is not, by default, a goal for its individual

employees. From an employee’s point of view, the best definition of corporate citizenship is

reflected in Stebbin’s belief that “companies need to take an active responsibility for their

employee’s lives and that corporations have social responsibilities even when meeting those

responsibilities may cost money” (Stebbins, 2001, p. 232). Naturally, employees will have a

greater interest in personal gain when it comes to considering what their company does for their

clients vs. what their company does for them personally. To solve the apparent disparity, an all-

encompassing definition of corporate citizenship must be crafted and utilized. This definition

will change slightly from company to company however certain common elements must be

present, considered, and defined when customizing the meaning of corporate citizenship.

Results of studies conducted by Collins and Porras demonstrate that when company values and

their employees values align, a powerful synergy occurs. Companies that are successful in

aligning values with those of their employees not only profit above market but above their peer

group as well (Glavas & Sandy, 2009, p. 54). For an employee, when they realize that their

values align with their company’s values, they become more engaged in their work. Their

creativity and productivity are maximized and ultimately, superior and effective business results

follow (Glavas & Sandy, 2009, p. 54). In addition, when a company reflects positive values that

demonstrate effective CSR, their current employees find their work to be meaningful and they

want their company to succeed so that they can continue to contribute to the social or ecological

systems they both care about (Willard, 2013, para. 1). Communicating values must be bi-

directional, meaning it is important that not only the company convey to the employees what

their values are, but also that the employees must have a means of communicating their values


back. Corporate citizenship is developed through high quality connections between the

employer and the employees. High quality connections refer to interactions that have (a) a

higher emotional carrying capacity, which is the expression and communication of emotions; (b)

a higher level of tensility, which is the ability to endure challenges and setbacks; and (c) an

increased capacity for connectivity, where the relationship itself valuable, not just a means to a

further end (Glavas & Sandy, 2009, p. 57). All in all, the employer-employee relationship must

reflect the same attributes that interpersonal relationships often display. If an employee feels that

he can express himself emotionally, that he and his company work together through thick and

thin, and there is an emotional charge to the employer-employee relationship, then the employee

feels a sense of successfully communicating his values.

Relationship Marketing

The type and quality of employer-employee relationship ultimately manifests in the

corporate-clientele relationship. The way employees feel about their employers is often

conveyed in both the level of engagement with and the quality of relationship they develop with

their customer during business interaction. This transference is often seen in relationship

marketing. Relationship marketing (RM) is a relatively recent approach in Corporate America.

Departing from the more traditional transactional approach of previous business methods, RM

focuses on the goal of establishing and building meaningful relationships with customers

(Iglesias, Sauquet, & Montana, 2011, p. 632). This strategy promotes employee interaction with

a customer from a more personal approach, asking them questions about why they seek to do

business with their company and uncovering the underlying needs of the client rather than just

delivering what is verbally requested. By this, the client feels more attended to and leaves the

transaction with a greater sense of fulfillment than he initially expected. Skilled employees often


satisfy un-verbalized needs and possibly un-conscious to the client themselves, which leaves the

client with a feeling of having established a meaningful relationship. In order for RM to be

executed successfully, the primary element of a supportive employer-employee relationship must

be in place (Iglesias et al., 2011, p. 632). The employee must have a high level engagement in

order to deliver the attentiveness and fulfillment that are required to make RM a successful

approach. Engagement, in the context of RM, is best defined as:

[the] positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor,

dedication, and absorption. Engagement refers to a persistent and pervasive affective-

cognitive state that is not focused on any particular object, event, individual, or behavior.

Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, the

willingness to invest effort into one’s work, and persistence also in the face of

difficulties. Dedication is characterized by a sense of significance, enthusiasm,

inspiration, pride, and challenge…Absorption is characterized by being fully

concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one

has difficulties with detaching oneself from work. (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004, p. 294)

Just as employees need to communicate their values, employers must communicate

corporate values back to the employees. In essence, there is six shared values that employers

must impress upon their employees in order to fully implement a proper RM environment: trust,

commitment, teamwork, innovation, flexibility, and results orientation (Iglesias et al., 2011, p.

649). While the definitions of these values are self-evident, the levels of trust and commitment,

the degree of teamwork, the fostering of innovation, and the importance of flexibility and results

are all required to be expressed by the employer in order for the employer-employee relationship

to be mutually beneficial.


Conclusion

The nature and role of modern corporations have been slowly evolving over the past

century. In their darker past, corporations ravaged capitalistic societies from pseudo-tyrannical

sub empires. Their employees were treated as indentured servants, their clients manipulated in

both political and financial schemes, and the earth itself treated as a disposable resource.

Thankfully, today’s corporations see that cooperation with their employees, their clients, and the

society that hosts them benefits all involved. The synergistic union formed between employer

and employee creates a dynamic that transcends mere capital creation—it creates an environment

of mutual benefit, shared values, and a prosperous joint-venture that ultimately results in a

strengthened corporate-clientele relationship. Through continued research and cultivation of

corporate citizenship and other facets of OCB’s, future corporations will surely become an even

more essential part of modern society.


References

Erin, P. H., Stern, C., & John, T. J. (2012). Not all ideologies are created equal: Epistemic,

existential, and relational needs predict system-justifying attitudes. Social Cognition,

30(6), 669-688. http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/101521soco2012306669

Erkutlu, H. (2011). The moderating role of organizational culture in the relationship between

organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership &

Organization Development Journal, 32(6), 532-554.

http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org.library.gcu.edu:2048/10.1108/01437731111161058

Garriga, E., & Domènec, M. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the

territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1-2), 51-71. Retrieved from

https://library.gcu.edu:2443/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.library.gcu.edu:2048/

docview/198002837?accountid=7374

Glavas, A., & Sandy, K. P. (2009). How does doing good matter? Effects of corporate

citizenship on employees. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 36(), 51-70. Retrieved

from http://search.proquest.com/docview/211958603?accountid=7374

Huang, D. (2013, January 18). How does a corporate culture impact a company’s success? [Blog

post]. Retrieved from http://blogs.cisco.com/manufacturing/how-does-corporate-culture-

impact-a-companys-success/

Iglesias, O., Sauquet, A., & Montana, J. (2011). The role of corporate culture in relationship

marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 45(4), 631-650.

http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561111111361

Kotier, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Business and economics. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.


Liu, Y. (2010). Corporate culture and employee mentality capital agree with influencing factor

analysis. International Education Studies, 3(2), 75-80. Retrieved from



Mehta, S. R. (2011). The culture of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the academic

framework: Some literary implications. Contemporary Issues in Education Research,

4(10), 19-24. Retrieved from



Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship

with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 25(), 293-314. http://dx.doi.org/DOI: 10.1002/job.248

Stebbins, L. F. (2001). Work and family in America. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc.

Strine, Jr., L. E. (2007). Toward common sense and common ground? Reflections on the shared

interests of managers and labor in a more rational system of corporate governance.

Journal of Corporation Law, 33(1), 1-20. Retrieved from



Tharp, B. M. (n.d.). Defining “culture” and “organizational culture”: From anthropology to the

office. Haworth, 1-5. Retrieved from

http://www.haworth.com/en-us/knowledge/workplace-library/documents/defining-

culture-and-organizationa-culture_5.pdf


Waddock, S. A. (2004). Parallel universes: Companies, academics, and the progress of corporate

citizenship. Business & Society Review, 109(), 5-42. http://dx.doi.org/DOI:

10.1111/j.0045-3609.2004.00002.x

Willard, B. (2013). 5 reasons I low-ball employee productivity in the business case for

sustainability. Retrieved from http://sustainabilityadvantage.com

Documents

Identity in corporate america final