Article thumbnail

Social Irresponsibility in Management

By J. Scott Armstrong

Abstract

Previously published research suggested that the typical manager may be expected to harm others in his role as a manager. Further support for this was drawn from the Panalba role-playing case. None of the 57 control groups in this case were willing to remove a dangerous drug from the market. In fact, 79% of these groups took active steps to prevent its removal. This decision was classified as irresponsible by 97% of the respondents to a questionnaire. Because the role exerts such powerful effects, an attempt was made to modify subject’s perceptions of their role so that managers would feel responsible to all of the firm’s interest groups. Some subjects were told that board members should represent all interest groups; other subjects were placed on boards of directors where the different groups were represented. Subjects in both groups also received information on the impact of the decisions upon stockholders, employees, and customers. The percentage of irresponsible decisions was reduced under these conditions as only 22% of the 116 groups selected the highly irresponsible decision

Topics: Behavioral Analysis
Publisher: Elsevier North-Holland Inc
Year: 1977
OAI identifier: oai:cogprints.org:5201

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1972). Assignment of Responsibility in the Case of Lt. Calley: Preliminary Report on a National Survey,”
  2. (1973). Business Philosophy and Executive Responsibility,” Acad.
  3. (1962). Capitalism and Freedom. doi
  4. (1970). Conformity as a Function of Deception and Role Playing,”
  5. (1931). Corporate Powers as Powers in Trust,”
  6. (1970). Corporate Social Responsibility and the Social Crisis,”
  7. (1965). Effectiveness of Emotional Role Playing in Modifying Smoking Habits and Attitudes,”
  8. (1968). Ethics in Business.
  9. (1974). Experiments to Answer Questions Raised by the Use of Deception in
  10. (1932). For Whom are Corporate Managers Trustees?” Harvard Law Rev. doi
  11. (1932). For Whom Corporate Managers are Trustees,”
  12. Handbook of the Law of Corporations.
  13. (1968). Industrial Democracy: The Sociology of Participation.
  14. (1966). Instrumentality of Aggression, Feedback, and Frustration as
  15. (1935). Is Effective Enforcement of the Fiduciary Duties of doi
  16. (1972). Is the Subject’s Personality or the Experimental Situation a Better Predictor of a Subjects Willingness to Administer Shock to a Victim?”
  17. (1974). Level of Destructive Obedience as a Function of Transmitter and Executant Roles in The Milgram Obedience Paradigm,”
  18. (1976). Managerial Ethics in
  19. (1975). Managerial Ethics: A Post-Watergate View,” doi
  20. (1967). Organizational Goal and Expected Behavior of
  21. (1974). Role Playing and the Effects of Expectancy Confirmation,” doi
  22. (1975). Role Playing versus Deception: The Ability of Subjects to Simulate Self-Report and Physiological Responses,”
  23. (1970). Role Playing: An Alternative to doi
  24. (1967). Role Playing: An Alternative to Deception?”
  25. (1969). Role Playing: Psychology by Consensus,” doi
  26. Social Responsibilities of the Businessman.
  27. (1970). Socially Responsible Behavior as a Function of Observer Responsibility and Victim Feedback,” doi
  28. (1969). Some Effects of Guilt on
  29. (1966). Studies in Forced Compliance I: The Effect of Pressure for Compliance on Attitude Change Produced by Face-to-Face Role Playing and Anonymous Essay Writing,”
  30. (1973). Subordinate Personality as a Moderator of the Effects of Participation in doi
  31. (1972). Thalidomide and the Power of the Drug Companies. doi
  32. (1971). The Participatory Economy. doi
  33. The Valid Use of Simulation Results,”
  34. (1971). Who Wants Corporate Democracy?” Harvard Business Rev. 49 (SeptemberOctober,
  35. (1974). Young Executives: