- 1 -

« CORPORATE HUMANISTIC RESPONSIBILITY: TOWARDS

A NEW CONCEPTION OF SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT AT THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL OF

ANALYSIS »

Stéphanie ARNAUD Professeur Associée - ICN Business School Nancy-Metz, Chercheur Associée

CERGAM - IAE d'Aix-en-Provence David M. WASIELESKI

Assistant Professor, Duquesne University, Department of Management, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Université Nancy 2 CEREFIGE

Cahier de Recherche n° 2011-13

CEREFIGE Université Nancy 2

13 rue Maréchal Ney 54000 Nancy

France Téléphone : 03 54 50 35 80

Fax : 03 54 50 35 81 Cerefige@univ-nancy2.fr

www.univ-nancy2.fr/CEREFIGE

n° ISSN 1960-2782

- 2 -

« CORPORATE HUMANISTIC RESPONSIBILITY: TOWARDS A NEW CONCEPTION OF SOCIALLY

RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT AT THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL OF ANALYSIS »1

Abstract The aim of the paper is to demonstrate how a humanistic style of management may lead to the achievement of social goals and development of a sense of responsibility. These two elements are attached to one of the three principles of corporate social responsibility (CSR): the managerial discretion. Applying the humanist philosophy to the management level of a business organization creates an autonomy supportive work environment - as defined by the self-determination theory - which in turns, facilitates internalisation of social values, citizenship behaviours, and cooperation. Promoting self-determination at work (i.e., the core of a humanist management) fits well with the ontology of CSR since autonomy and consideration of individuals as moral actors are central. We show that applying humanistic management philosophy to the discretion of managers can lead to socially responsible outcomes. KEY WORDS: Humanist philosophy, Human Resource Management, Self-Determination Theory, corporate social responsibility, corporate social performance Résumé : Cet article vise à démontrer comment un mode de management humaniste peut permettre la réalisation de buts sociaux et le développement d’un sens de la responsabilité. Ces deux éléments animent l’un des trois principes de la responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise (RSE) : la discrétion managériale. Appliquer la philosophie humaniste au niveau managérial d’une organisation créée un environnement de travail de type « autonomy supportive » – tel qu’il est défini par la Théorie de l’Autodétermination – ce qui facilite l’internalisation des valeurs sociales, des comportements citoyens et de la coopération. Promouvoir l’autodétermination au travail ( i. e. le cœur d’un management humaniste) correspond bien à l’ontologie de la RSE puisque l’autonomie et la conception des individus en tant qu’acteurs moraux sont centrales. Nous montrons qu’appliquer la philosophie humaniste au pouvoir discrétionnaire des managers peut permettre d’atteindre des résultats socialement responsables. MOTS CLES : Philosophie humaniste, Management des Ressources Humaines, Théorie de l’Autodétermination, Responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise, Performance Sociale de l’Entreprise.

- 3 -

1. Introduction Corporate social responsibility (CSR), as a concept, has had a long and tethered history. From the early days of its introduction into the management literature (Bowen, 1953; Friedman, 1962), through four stages of documented evolution and transformation (Frederick, 1988; 1994; 1999), to more recent re-formulations as corporate citizenship (Logsdon & Wood, 2002; Waddock, 2002), the idea remains largely the same—what should managers do to address business and society issues (Windsor, 2006). Despite the fact that to this day the meaning of the concept is still being debated, CSR continues to serve as a center-point of public policy and ethical dialogues. Research in the ethics and social issues fields concentrating on social responsibility is quite broad in scope. It ranges from discussions about what is CSR, to what firms do to achieve a desirable level of commitment to society (Randel, 2002). Given the current business environment which emphasizes the importance of corporations behaving responsibly, in the wake of disasters plaguing the financial and housing markets worldwide, it is critical for research on CSR and citizenship to be grounded in strategically useful and normatively productive principles, in order to address society’s problems caused by individual and corporate excess and abuses. Models of CSR involve three levels of analysis—institutional, organizational, and individual (Wood, 1991; Swanson, 1995; Randel 2002). The corporate social performance (CSP) framework “proposes measurement of all corporate impacts on general welfare” (Windsor, 2006: 99). In this paper, we focus on the individual level of CSP, manifested in the principle of managerial discretion (Wood, 1991). The individual-level principle of CSR (within this model) is to recognize that managers are moral actors, who possess free choice in the decisions they make. “Within every domain of corporate social responsibility, they are obliged to exercise such discretion as is available to them, toward socially responsible outcomes” (696). We assume the position that organizations function as open systems, rather than closed systems, that organizational boundaries have become blurred and nebulous. Open systems allow for cooperative actions, “based on the willingness of humans to bring in and develop their talents as part of communities of work” (Schoemaker, Nijhof, and Jonker, 2006: 448). Since socially responsible outcomes are a product of the shared values and principles of the managers of an organization and the network of stakeholders to which the manager is accountable, the management of the human capital associated with the organization goes beyond just the intra-organizational members. To achieve this cooperation between the firm and its stakeholders towards a socially responsible managerial agenda, we turn to humanist philosophy, and apply it to the management level of a business firm. Our thesis is: Through the fostering of self-determination for various stakeholders with whom the firm is involved, humanistic management may lead to social responsibility at the individual level (i.e., managerial discretion) and the achievement of social goals. In general, humanist philosophy deals with the unique nature of individual human beings in society. Humanism is concerned with the autonomy of individuals and their proper treatment. Managers who choose to adopt a humanistic management style are likely to create and maintain an autonomy supportive work environment (Deci & Ryan, 2000), which we will show, facilitates the internalization of social values and corporate citizenship behaviours, as identified through the open system. This theoretical paper is organized as follows: First, we provide a brief review of the corporate social responsibility concept and competing theories. Our focus will be on individual managerial discretion as a means of promoting a sense of responsibility and the achievement of social goals, as suggested

- 4 -

by Wood (1991). Next, we outline the basic philosophy of humanism and discuss how it translates to humanistic management. The humanistic conception of the business enterprise is described, as well as the management of human resources. We strive to demonstrate that humanistic management is compatible with the social responsibility principles of the company, as defined through managerial choices. Then we propose and argue that humanistic management philosophies can lead to positive social outcomes for the firm (both within and outside of the organization). Resulting pro-social behaviours are outlined and explained in light of the humanist principles adopted by individual managers within the firm. Finally, we conclude by suggesting that humanistic management principles may lead to CSR, as demonstrated by CSP. We will speculate about the practical managerial implications of adopting humanist philosophy. 2. Theoretical Background 2. 1. CSR Becomes Core Paradigm

The rise of big business and the American corporation after World War II, when the separation of ownership and control facilitated massive accumulations of wealth, led to greater public scrutiny of business operations. The perceived truth at the time was that business had an economic responsibility to shareholders and that their only social responsibility was to make profits (Friedman, 1962). "Corporations cannot be moral agents" under this philosophy (Wartick & Cochran, 1985: 760). Despite this belief regarding business' purpose, doubts and questions were raised by the public who, as a result of the social upheavals of the 1960s, began to think that business should be responsible for some of the societal ills they caused (Preston & Post, 1975; Sashkin, 1984). Doubt-creating environmental factors like employee safety and consumer protection, generated the random fact gathering stage of the normal science process, which saw multiple disciplines take an interest in business. Lawsuits and court cases caused regulators to take interest. Sociologists and psychologists began to analyze business' operations in terms of organizational behaviour and individual-level factors contributing to unethical conduct (Staw, 1991). Naturally, out of these divergent efforts arose different competing ideologies (Wartick & Cochran, 1985).

Research in regulation, social auditing, power differentials, and cognitive structures developed as the field expanded to investigate a variety of relationships in which businesses engage. Despite the diverse research, one underlying theme surfaced that served as the basis for a major transition in organizational thought. "Modern businesses, especially the megacorporations, are no longer mere economic institutions" (Wartick & Cochran, 1985: 760). Once consensus was reached that business has more than a fiduciary responsibility to society, conversion of ideology in the field took place. Business and society scholars rallied behind the idea that a firm must consider and respond to "issues beyond the narrow economic, technical, and legal requirements of the firm to accomplish social benefits along with economic gains" (Davis, 1973). A paradigm shift had occurred.

2. 2. CSR Expands and Develops

In the business and society field, Corporate Social Responsiveness (CSR2) was the first perceived truth to emerge from the conversion over from the economic model. While Carroll’s 1999 article thoroughly reviews the evolution of the CSR concept over

- 5 -

the second half of the 20th century, we attempt to address how the original CSR concept emerged in the Kuhnian sense of a paradigm’s evolution. In brief, Carroll attributes the origins of the CSR concept to Bowen’s (1953) influential book that suggested that businessmen had a responsibility to society. In the 1960s, many influential writers set the groundwork for the evolution of the CSR concept. Most notably, Keith Davis’s (1960) article first defined Social Responsibility as the ‘businessmen’s’ decisions and actions taken for reasons that are at least partially beyond the firms’ direct economic or technical interests.’ Davis’ (1960) now famous ‘Iron Law of responsibility’ stated that ‘Social Responsibilities of businessmen need to be commensurate with their social power,’ and was further expounded upon to suggest that social responsibilities extended beyond economic and legal obligations (Frederick, 1960; McGuire, 1963; Heald, 1970).

The Committee for Economic Development, (CED) in 1971, stated that the basic purpose of business is to serve the needs of society to the latter’s satisfaction, although there was still some dissension as to how far businesses’ social responsibilities extended. Steiner (1971) suggested that business - at its fundamental core - is an economic institution instituted by society for that purpose; business must engage in enlightened self-interest over the long run. Preston and Post (1975) took a public policy perspective that described the interpenetrating systems of business, society, and government and suggested that businesses have primary and secondary obligations.

While all possible streams of research that have arisen from the original work on CSR cannot be recounted in this paper due to space limitations, it can be safely stated that the competing perspectives listed above are some of the major research areas prevailing today. As a considerable amount of literature has been devoted to CSP, we will attempt to discuss the links between CSR and corporate social performance (CSP), which is used as the model with which we address managerial discretion for socially responsible behaviour. 2. 3. Corporate Social Performance

In the 1970s, the CSR concept had slowly evolved into what was described as the Corporate Social Performance concept (CSP). Influential writers in this period included Sethi (1975) who discussed the need to make a distinction between the corporation’s behaviour in terms of its social obligations, social responsibility, and social responsiveness. The first conceptual modelling of the CSP concept, however, originated with Carroll’s (1979) pyramid-structured model, that described business as having a fundamental economic basis with legal, ethical, and finally discretionary expectations layered above it. Carroll, furthermore, described these four societal expectations as the social responsibilities of business. This model integrated the three dimensions of social responsibility, social issues and social responsiveness into an initial CSP framework, as opposed to developing a definition of CSP.

The next conceptual leap in terms of development of the CSP concept was by Wartick and Cochran (1985), who defined CSP as the ‘underlying interaction among the principles of social responsibility, the processes of social responsiveness, and the policies developed to address social issues’ (758). The Wartick and Cochran CSP model went beyond the three dimensional model developed by Carroll in 1979, by positioning the model in this framework of principles, processes, and policies.

It was not until Wood’s (1991) integrative CSP Framework (Figure 1), however, that the fragmentation within the CSP literature was eventually consolidated into the defining article for the CSP concept. Wood articulated the CSP concept in terms of a definitional framework that built on the earlier literature of Carroll and Wartick and

- 6 -

Cochran, to name a few (Jones, 1980; Keim, 1978; Davis, 1973). She defined CSP as “a business organization’s configuration of principles of social responsibility, processes, of social responsiveness, and policies, programs, and observable outcomes as they relate to the firm’s societal relationships” (1991: 693). Under the principles of social responsibility, Wood related the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations of Carroll’s 1979 CSP framework to the CSR principles of social legitimacy at the institutional level, public responsibility at the organizational level, and managerial discretion at the individual levels of analyses. The latter is our focus in this current paper.

Figure 1

Source: Wood, 1991: 694

2. 4. Modern-day CSR and Corporate Citizenship

The corporate citizenship literature is also rooted in the CSR framework (Carroll, 1999) and has been accepted by both practitioners and academicians alike, with examples of firms engaging in corporate citizenship activities being found across the globe (Altman and Vidaver-Cohen, 2000; Logsdon & Wood, 2002). Marsden (2000) defines corporate citizenship as ‘a company’s management of its influence on and relationships with the rest of society’ (2000: 11). He argues that corporate citizenship goes beyond the CSR concept and calls the highest level of citizenship attained as that of proactive engagement. Marsden’s (2000) model of corporate citizenship is based on a matrix whose components include the following company objectives: triple bottom line (which includes sustainability on economic, social, and environmental dimensions), shareholder value based on stakeholder relationships and new forms of monitoring and codes of conduct, and managerial satisficing or strategic philanthropy that involves specialist intervention in societal issues.

Corporate citizenship, in its evolution beyond the CSR literature, is strategically linked to industry, as it proposes a balance between the economic and societal domains of business, which has made it intuitively appealing to business corporations and practitioners alike. Citizenship, however, is faced with the accusation of lacking normative integration, a criticism that has also been leveled at the outcomes or performance-driven CSP literature.

Concurrently in the business and society literature, much work has been done to develop the stakeholder theory of the firm (Freeman, 1984), basically stating that

- 7 -

organizations should be defined by the stakeholder relationships that drive their business operations. This runs counter to managerial capitalism, which focuses only on the fiduciary duty of the firm to shareholders (Freeman, 1991). While CSR has been using stakeholder terminology for decades, only recently has a stakeholder approach been applied to CSR. Longo et al. (2005) studied the needs of individual stakeholder groups, and identified which ones would add value to the organization. Socially responsible behaviour, according to these authors would involve addressing at least half of the stakeholder interests. In a similar study, Abreu et al. (2005) evaluated the corporate social responsibility of Portuguese firms by tracking the relationship of the firms with five key stakeholders (employees, consumers, investors, suppliers, and community). In none of these relationships is the quality determined by the free choice of the individuals, although they do address basic rights to safety and fair treatment. Other studies using the stakeholder approach to CSR merely identify what firms are addressing, and which relationships are the most important to individual managers (Papasolomou, 2005). The majority of the studies merely descriptive in nature, and identify how the socially responsible goals of a corporation are realized through stakeholder relations (Brickson, 2007). In fact, Garriga and Mele (2004) advocated instrumental stakeholder theory, which conceives CSR as a strategic tool for wealth creation in the firm. We find it is important to consider CSR in terms of stakeholder relationships. However, more theoretical groundwork needs to be laid that analyzes the rationale behind the maintenance of the quality of the relationships (Jamali, 2008). Our current piece takes a step in that direction.

Despite all of these efforts, there are still many elements not thoroughly studied and explored by researchers, specifically at a micro level (Swanson, 1995). The concept of corporate social responsibility does not have consensus regarding its exact meaning, nor its practical implementation (Frederick, 2005). Wood (1991) talks about "managerial discretion" in explaining the individual principle of CSR (694). This level emphasizes the role played by the human resources and the management. Talking about CSR requires, at the individual level of the business organization, the promotion of the principle of “managerial discretion”. In a CSR perspective and point of view, managers must be considered as “moral actors” obliged to “exercise choice in the service of social responsibility”. The principle of CSR (at an individual level) is to recognize that managers are moral actors, with the ability to make choices. But we can only talk about corporate social performance if this exercise of discretion leads to achieve socially responsible outcomes (Wood, 1991: 696).

How can we guarantee that the exercise of discretion will lead to socially responsible outcomes? What can managers do at an individual level to develop CSR? What could be the principles and contents of the managerial discretion? We propose to apply humanism to the human resource management to establish an answer and propose practices for the individual principle of CSR. 3. The Humanist Philosophy

In this section we first briefly describe the main principles of “humanist

philosophy”, which we then interpret in terms of human resources management (HRM) practices in order to explain what it means to follow a “humanist HRM”. Then, we show its similarities with the recommendations of the self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 2000) in terms of an autonomy supportive work environment. Numerous experiments and field investigations show the links between this type of work environment and a crowding-in effect of self-regulated motivation at work, by the

- 8 -

mediation of the feeling of self-determination. We quote the main theoretical and empirical studies about the self-determination theory.

3. 1. The main principles of humanistic thinking

During the Renaissance, humanistic thinking began to develop with Petrarque, Erasmus, Rabelais, Pic de la Mirandole, etc. According to these authors, “we are not born Human, we become Human” (Erasmus), thanks to education, the acquisition of knowledge, the development of our capacity to use rightly our liberty and to distinguish Good from Evil. This notion of liberty, which characterizes human beings, is highlighted by Pic de la Mirandole in his “Discourse on the dignity of man” (1993). In this text, the author imagines what God would say about the Human Being: “All other creatures have a defined nature contained by laws laid down by us. You alone, free of all hindrance, following your own free decision that I have given you, you will decide on your own nature. I have placed you at the centre of the universe, in order that you may look that much more easily all around you at all that is the world. I made you neither heavenly nor earthly, neither mortal nor immortal; following your own will and for your own merit, as modeller and sculptor of your own self, create yourself in your own chosen form.”1 The creation of oneself by oneself is central in the humanistic conception of human being. We can decide to use our liberty and capacity of reflexion in order to develop some aspects of our personality and to become the author of our life. In other words, according to the humanists, human beings can develop their own self-determination.

After the Renaissance, the Enlightenment goes into detail on the humanist thinking. Kant focuses on the concept of “moral autonomy” and his “categorical requirement”: “Always treat others as an end and never just as a means”. In a French dictionary, (the “ Treasure of the French Language”, 1840), we find that humanism is “a philosophical attitude which holds the human being in the highest esteem and which claims for each human being the possibility to develop his own humanity and his human faculties, to make them flourish”2. Following the humanists, by “human faculties” we are given to understand moral autonomy, exercising one’s liberty and the capacity to create oneself by oneself. With the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, humanist principles are: autonomy, liberty, dignity, equality between men and the right to develop our human potentialities (our talents).

During the twentieth century, Mounier (1949) and Leroux (1999) develop the philosophy of “personalism”. According to Mounier (1949: 4), “personalism is a philosophy…Its central statement being the existence of free and creative persons, it introduces into the very heart of these structures a principle of unpredictability which disperses any desire for definitive systematization”3. Personalist philosophy states that, unlike other animals, the human being has a sphere of liberty, an ability to be self-determined, and the will to give a meaning to his life (Leroux, 1999: 18). “It was

1 « Toutes les autres créatures ont une nature définie contenue entre les lois par nous prescrites ; toi seul, sauf de toute entrave, suivant ton libre arbitre auquel je t’ai remis, tu te fixeras ta nature. Je t’ai placé au centre de l’univers, afin que tu regardes avec d’autant plus d’aisance à l’entour de toi tout ce qui est au monde. Je ne t’ai fait ni céleste ni terrestre, ni mortel, ni immortel ; d’après ton vouloir et pour ton propre honneur, modeleur et sculpteur de toi-même, imprime-toi la forme que tu préfères. »in « Discours sur la dignité de l’homme », Pic de la Mirandole, (1993). 2 « attitude philosophique qui tient l’homme pour la valeur suprême et revendique pour chaque homme la possibilité d’épanouir librement son humanité, ses facultés proprement humaines » in « Trésor de la langue française » (1840). 3 « Le personnalisme est une philosophie (…) Son affirmation centrale étant l’existence de personnes libres et créatrices, il introduit au cœur de ces structures un principe d’imprévisibilité qui disloque toute volonté de systématisation définitive » Mounier (1949, p.4).

- 9 -

expected that personalism would begin by defining the person. But only the objects…that can be placed within sight are defined. But the person is not an object. [The person] is an activity born of self creation, communication and adhesion, who takes hold of herself and recognizes herself in his act, as a personalization movement”4 (Mounier, 1949: 5 - 6). In this quotation, we can recognize the principle of self-determination, of “creation of oneself by oneself”, highlighted five centuries before, by Pic de la Mirandole (“as modeller and sculptor of your own self, create yourself in your own chosen form.”).

In fact, personalism adds an important principle to the humanist ontology of the human being: “the need to be recognized by others”; in other words, the need to be socially integrated. We could use the self-determination theory terminology and speak about “the fundamental need of relatedness”. Leroux (1999) makes a distinction between the “personality” and the “person”. The “personality” contains all our potential and latent talents. If we decide to develop and to materialize our talents and express our personality, we will need to meet other people in order to obtain their recognition about who we are. We can really become a “person” and have a complete feeling of existence when we receive the recognition from other persons about who we are and what we create and achieve. “The person also appears to us as a presence directed towards the world…other persons do not limit this presence, they bring her into being and make it grow. She only exists towards others, she only recognizes herself through others, she only finds herself in others. The primitive experience of the person is the experience of the second person. The, you, and in him, the, us precedes the, I, or at least accompanies it”5 (Mounier, 1949: 33). “When called on, our judgment calls for the participation of a third person, called on to give his own evaluation of our act and what it reveals”6 (Leroux, 1999: 73.). At any meeting, the person will try to obtain recognition from others, in order to have the feeling of existing in the eyes of others: “I am being seen, therefore I exist”7 (Todorov, 1995: 38). We don’t exist without others. “We believe that it is the essence of Man to create materially and morally, to make things and to make himself”8 (Bergson, 1993). We don’t come into being as a human, we become human in developing our talents and potentials, the best of our personality, our moral autonomy, our self-determination. We become a “person” by inviting the benevolent regard of another in order to hold the attention required to obtain recognition of who we are and what we are creating. We become a “person” through the regard of others, which allows us to “exist” and to be “recognized”.

To summarize, to become a person and develop our humanity, we must be involved in a process of “creation of oneself by oneself”. But, in order to develop this self-determination, the environment must satisfy some conditions and be supportive. Given what we have written before, we can conclude that each human being should:

4 « On s’attendait à ce que le personnalisme commençât par définir la personne. Mais on ne définit que des objets (…) que l’on peut placer sous le regard. Or la personne n’est pas un objet. [La personne] est une activité vécue d’autocréation, de communication et d’adhésion, qui se saisit et se connaît dans son acte, comme mouvement de personnalisation » (Mounier, 1949, p.5 - 6). 5 « La personne nous apparaît aussi comme une présence dirigée vers le monde…Les autres personnes ne la limitent pas, elles la font être et croître. Elle n’existe que vers autrui, elle ne se connaît que par autrui, elle ne se trouve qu’en autrui. L’expérience primitive de la personne est l’expérience de la seconde personne. Le tu, et en lui le nous, précède le je, ou au moins l’accompagne » (Mounier, 1949, p33). 6 « Mis en appel, notre jugement réclame le concours d’un tiers, appelé à porter sa propre évaluation sur notre acte et ce qu’il révèle » (Leroux, 1999, p.73.) 7 « On me regarde, donc je existe » (Todorov, 1995, p.38). 8 « Nous croyons qu’il est de l’essence de l’homme de créer matériellement et moralement, de fabriquer des choses et de se fabriquer lui-même » (Bergson, 1993).

- 10 -

- have a large sphere of autonomy to use his liberty, - encounter stimulating challenges to develop his talents and potentials, - surround himself with other people he can trust, in order to have a feeling of recognition and acceptance, to have a feeling of being considered as an end and not only as a means. 3. 2. Tools and practices for a humanist management

To be qualified as “humanist”, the work organization and mode of management will have to: - be supportive of the person’s liberty and the development of his moral autonomy, - facilitate the development of his talents and potential, with stimulating challenges, - make social relations based on trust, mutual respect and mutual recognition and encounters with trustworthy people possible and easy, - consider each person as an end and not just as a means, as an individual. a/ Participative and delegative management could satisfy the need for autonomy: the employee should have the possibility to take decisions and initiatives in his job, to participate in developing the objectives and choose his means and ways of working. b/ A variety of tools and practices could allow the employees’ need to develop their talents and abilities at work and to be satisfied: job enlargement, job enrichment and empowerment, continuing education and vocational training, a grant of responsibility, the quality and the regularity of a feedback from supervisors. Tasks should represent a level of challenge corresponding to the level of the employee’s abilities: “the right people at the right place”. Challenges that are too easy don’t stimulate and develop abilities. Inversely, challenges that are too difficult don’t permit the employee to be successful in his task. c/ When supervisors give recognition and are constantly attentive, their subordinates can trust them and develop feelings of being understood and supported. Work relationships must be based on trust and mutual respect. A regular dialog between supervisors and their subordinates, an appraisal performance system and a compensation system perceived as fair, encouragements and congratulations, etc., can allow the need for recognition and mutual respect to be satisfied (Peretti, 2004, 2005). d/ A humanist management should respect the result of the self-determination logic. Discrimination at the recruitment stage and during the work contract must be forbidden. Employees’ right to privacy must be preserved (Arnaud, 2006, 2007). Each employee must be respected in his singularity and subjectivity. A personalized HRM could realize this objective. Each practice and tool of management must be designed using as its starting point the singularity and the subjectivity of the employee.

We find strong similarities between the humanist principles and the fundamental needs of human beings studied by the self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 2000). So, obviously, when we develop what could be a humanist mode of management, we find the same recommendations as those done by the “self-determination theory” about what is called an “autonomy supportive work environment”. We are going to develop these similarities in the next section. We will also evaluate the effectiveness of this type of management.

- 11 -

4. The self-determination theory (SDT) 4. 1. The SDT’s principles

According to the SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000), all human beings want to be self-determined and need to satisfy three innate fundamental psychological requirements for this: the needs for 1) competence (feeling of self-efficacy, the sense that they are effectively coping with challenges), 2) autonomy (self-organizing experience, to feel the initiator of their own actions) and 3) relatedness (social relations based on mutual respect, and having a sense of being socially integrated).. Self-determination deals with the degree to which a person “feels a sense of choice in her life” and the degree to which she “feels like herself”9. We clearly recognize the principles that we learned of humanist philosophy to feed the dimension of "person" and enable the growth and development of each one. Thus we have, with the SDT theory, a psychological declination of the philosophical concept of “creation of oneself by oneself”. Consequently, we can posit that SDT shares with the humanist philosophy the same ontology of human beings.

The satisfaction of the three fundamental needs enhances the feeling of self-determination, which in turn permits self-regulated motivation, also called “autonomous motivation” (Gagné & Deci, 2005). The self-motivated person acts volitionally and not through external forces. She has an internal locus of causality (De Charm, 1968). We talk about intrinsic motivation when a person realizes an activity for pleasure, interest, curiosity, just because she enjoys realizing this activity for itself, without being placed under external control or obligation. “Intrinsically motivated activities were defined as those that individuals find interesting and would do in the absence of operationally separable consequences” (Deci & Ryan, 2000: 233). This is an expression of self-determination. Inversely, extrinsic motivated activities are defined as those that individuals would do only for their consequences, in order to obtain rewards, compensation, or avoid punishment. They feel obligated or controlled by external contingencies (Gagné, 2003). Extrinsic motivation represents an external locus of causality. Behaviour is controlled and not self-determinate. Incentives systems deal with this type of motivation, which is the only one taken into account by the standard neoclassical economics (Frey and Yegen, 2001). “External regulation, which is evident when no internalization has occurred, represents the most controlled form of extrinsic motivation, for people’s behaviour is regulated by others’ administration of contingencies” (Gagné, 2003: 203). Between the extrinsic motivation and the intrinsic motivation, there is a continuum in terms of different levels of regulation: introjection, identification, and integration. This continuum is graphically represented in the Figure 2.

These three steps of regulation are different levels of internalization in the self of the external regulations. “When the process of internalization is differentially successful, such that external regulations are internalized through the processes of introjection, identification, or integration, the result will be different types of extrinsic motivation that vary in the extent to which they are controlled versus autonomous” (Gagné, 2003: 203). We talk about “extrinsic internalized motivation” to design the introjected, the indentified, and the integrated motivations.

9 Words inspired by http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/index.html

- 12 -

Figure 2 The continuum of regulation and motivation

Source : Gagné and Deci 2005 : 336

According to Deci and Ryan (2000), Gagne (2003) and Gagne & Deci (2005),

satisfaction of the three basic needs – allowing the self-determination – facilitates the internalization of values, standards and requirements of the environment in which the individual is located. The exercise of autonomy, accountability, and enhancement of oneself promotes a feeling of self-regulation (self-control), which in turns allows the self-subordination to the collective interest of the organization or society – depending on the social group to which the individual refers. In other words, these authors explain that the need to feel self-determinate creates a dynamic of internalization of regulations external to oneself in order to make these regulations internal. This phenomenon of internalization of social rules and environmental constraints is presented in the literature as a prerequisite for building a coherent and unified self and for guarantying a self that is socially integrated.

Introjection characterizes the first stage of the internalization of external

regulations. At this level, the regulation of motives and ultimately of the behaviour, is controlled by a part of the self, but this regulation is still a sort of rule. The individual obliged himself to comply with this rule in order to avoid guilt and shame, and to increase or maintain self-esteem and self-approval. So, when a person is driven by an introjected motivation to realize an activity, she is ego-involved (Deci & al. 1994; Plant, & Ryan, 1985, Ryan et al., 1991). Her reasons to comply with some social or moral values and to achieve some activity are to protect her self-esteem. According to Perls (1973: 32), there is introjection when the individual consumes but cannot digest and integrate values and norms in his deep self. There is not an identification of the entire self to these rules. Consequently, a conflict can occur between the different parts of the self, causing internal tensions and anxiety (Ehrenberg, 1998). “Introjected regulation, which involves internal prods and pressures and is characterized by inner conflict between the demand of the introject and the person’s lack of desire to carry it out, is still

- 13 -

relatively controlled even though the regulation is within the person. In contrast, by identifying with the value of the activity, internalization will be fuller, people will experience greater ownership of the behaviour and feel less conflict about behaving in accord with the regulation, and the behaviour will be more autonomous (Deci & Ryan, 2000: 236). A person driven by an identified motivation refers to the importance of the goals and values achieved or expressed by an activity to stay involved in its realization. For example, if we feel that benevolence and care for others are highly important in our society, we might donate our blood. “Finally, with integration, the most complete and effective internalization, the person’s extrinsically motivated actions will be fully volitional” (Deci & Ryan, 2000: 236). Identified, integrated and intrinsic motivations are self-regulated and generate volitional engagement in action, with an internal locus of causality (De Charm, 1968). The integration characterizes the final stage of the internalization of the external regulation of the self, when the person includes the external rule in the definition of her deep self, of her personality. For example, we are involved in social activities like charities, because our nature is altruistic. Integration guarantees a stable and unified self, without internal conflict. The person performs an activity because it is important to her, it makes sense, and is desirable. This is an expression of her self, her will and not an obligation. She is task-involved (Deci et al., 1994).

With the extrinsic internalized motivation, the activity illustrates or permits the achievement of social or moral values. The activity is realized not for the pleasure and enjoyment that could be felt intrinsically, but for its goals, its consequences, and for its importance. That is why we talk about a motivation extrinsic to the task (unlike intrinsic motivation) but internalized by the person. The extrinsic internalized motivation is fundamental for explaining volunteering, humanitarian ventures, environmental and civic conduct, and moral and pro-social behaviour (that is, towards others and society, in general). In fact, participating in a voluntary cleanup of the environment (e.g., collecting waste, stopping to pick up bottles and soiled plastic bags) requires less intrinsic motivation – collecting waste is not supposed to be a pleasant and exciting activity - than as internalized extrinsic motivation to "save nature "and restore intergenerational equity. The motivating factor is not in the task itself, which can be unpleasant and uninteresting, but it is the meaning and values it conveys, internalized by the individual who has no need of be placed under the yoke of external incentives. For example, within the sphere of employment, the employee who works hard for his boss to "pay him back" because he feels paid and treated fairly, is driven by an extrinsic internalized motivation. Similarly, for employees who refuse to cheat because it would be dishonest (even when they are not monitored). With employees whose motives are self-regulating, incentives and monitoring are less necessary. The agency costs are reduced as individuals internalize the values and objectives of the company. This promotes the harmonization of the interests of employees with those of the company.

If the three fundamental basic needs are unfulfilled, self-regulated motivation can be undermined. “Social contexts and individual differences that support satisfaction of the basic needs facilitate natural growth processes including intrinsically motivated behaviour and integration of extrinsic motivations, whereas those that forestall autonomy, competence, or relatedness are associated with poorer motivation, performance, and well-being” (Deci & Ryan, 2000: 227). Social context or persons such as managers who facilitate and support satisfaction of the three basic needs are called “autonomy supportive”: “Contexts that are described as autonomy supportive are characterized as giving people choice and encouragement for personal initiative and

- 14 -

also support people’s competence in a climate of relatedness (Deci et al., 2001), are predicted to promote autonomous motivation (e.g., intrinsic motivation) as opposed to controlled motivation (e.g., extrinsic motivation)…An autonomy supportive person (or a work environment) would typically provide a good rationale for asking someone to engage in an activity, give some choice to the person, acknowledge the person’s feelings toward the activity, and encourage the person to take initiative and convey confidence in the person’s abilities” (Gagné, 2003: 203-204).

4. 2. Empirical studies

Numerous experiments and field investigations conducted in USA, Bulgaria, Canada, Japan, Russia and Australia show that self-regulated motivation enhances creativity, learning, flexibility, well-being, task involvement and performance at work (Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992; Hayamizu, 1997; Yamauchi & Tanaka, 1998; Miserandino, 1996; Benware & Deci, 1984; Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman & Ryan, 1981; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Valas & Sovik, 1993). The many works of Amabile and her team (Amabile, 1988, 1993; Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989 ; Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby & Herron, 1996) reveal the fundamental importance of the employees’ intrinsic motivation to guarantee creativity and innovation at work (qualities essential for R&D, for example).

Moreover, several experiments and field investigations demonstrate that an autonomy supportive work environment which facilitates the satisfaction of the three fundamental needs permits the feeling of being self-determined, higher levels of self-regulated motivation, performance, involvement, trust in one’s supervisor, loyalty towards the firm, etc. (Baard & al., 2004; Deci & al., 2001; Pajak & Glickman, 1989; Blais & Brière, 1992). “Autonomy support has been shown to lead to greater engagement in an initially uninteresting activity and increased positive feelings toward the activity (Deci & al. 1994)” (Gagné, 2003, p.204). In comparison with a situation without any feedback, a positive and constructive feedback between supervisors and employees raises their intrinsic motivation by the mediation of the satisfaction of their need for competence (Deci, 1971; Deci & Cascio, 1972; Boggiano & Ruble, 1979). These experiences show that this feeling of self-determination is effectively associated with greater levels of self-regulated motivation.

Inversely, some empirical studies show that monitoring, threats of punishment and strict and rigid procedures decrease the feeling of being self-determined and consequently self-regulated motivation (Deci & Cascio, 1972 ; Lepper & Greene, 1975 ; Harackiewicz, Manderlink & Sansone, 1984 ; Reeve & Deci, 1996 ; Amabile, DeJong & Lepper, 1976 ; Fisher, 1978 ; Zuckerman & al., 1978; Sherman et Smith, 1984).

We find strong similarities between what SDT calls “an autonomy supportive work environment” and what we call a “humanist mode of management”. Needs of autonomy, competence, relatedness, recognition, and dignity are essential to the development of the human faculties of each human being. SDT talks about a postulate of self-determination; humanists define human faculties by the creation of oneself by oneself. We share the same ontology and we recommend the same type of work environment. Based on the several empirical studies briefly exposed, we can suppose that a humanist management would permit to stimulate the feeling of self-determination and, as a consequence, self-regulated motivation. Therefore, a humanist management should allow the stimulation of creativity, innovation, learning capacity, flexibility, work involvement, loyalty, performance, etc.

- 15 -

We have shown that humanistic philosophy postulates that each human being wants to be self-determinated (creation of oneself by oneself), wants to be a “person” recognized by others. A humanistic management consists of giving to employees a supportive work environment, with autonomy, stimulating challenges, constructive feedback, acknowledgement, mutual respect and trust, enabling employees to achieve fulfilment. We converge towards SDT which “proposes that human beings have basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Contexts that support the satisfaction of these needs will promote a person’s enjoyment of activities and the autonomous self-regulation of behaviours. People are more likely to be intrinsically motivated, that is, to do an activity simply for the enjoyment they derive from it, when they can freely choose to pursue the activity (autonomy), when they master the activity (competence), and when they feel connected and supported by important people, such as a manager, a parent, a teacher, or team-mates (relatedness). Early research using this framework focused mostly on examining how decreases in experienced autonomy influenced intrinsic motivation. For example, research has shown that controlling rewards (Deci, 1971; Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999), deadlines (Amabile et al., 1976), and evaluation (Amabile, 1979) can decrease the enjoyment of an activity, whereas choice (Zuckerman et al., 1978) and acknowledging people’s feelings toward activities or rules regarding an activity (Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, & Holt, 1984) can enhance it.” (Gagné, 2003: 202).

5. Humanistic Conception of CSR

The concept of the “autonomy supportive work environment” states that the key value of SDT is the development of the “autonomy” of the manager and of each employee. Consistent with this focus, we evaluate the principle of CSR applied at an individual level (managerial discretion). Applying a humanistic management helps to create a work environment that fosters CSR at the managerial discretion level of analysis. We posit that CSR is promoted at an individual level by humanism. In this section we explain the principle of managerial discretion in humanist terms. One of the main tenets of social responsibility is for managers to view the firm as a corporate citizen. It is a critical base assumption of CSR philosophy and practice that corporations are members of society; who, like individuals, must acknowledge and respect the expectations of society of their behaviour. Managers within the corporation first have an obligation to society not to cause harm through their operations and decisions (Drake, Gerde, & Wasieleski, 2009). Moreover, the managers have a duty to the stakeholders of the firm to work towards social betterment. Thus, merely honoring the negative duties of the “do no harm” principle is not enough to satisfy the expectation of the stakeholders in an open system. Since firms also have the obligation to work towards creating a better society through their operations and decisions, and since one way for individuals to realize their self-actualization goals in life is to be allowed to self-determinate, it follows that managers in firms can fulfill their social responsibility of working towards social betterment through decisions that lead to create an autonomy supportive environment. Using humanism involves the consideration that the well-being and self-determination of the individual (either inside or outside of the firm) is the finality, or end goal of the decision-making of the manager. As corporations are assumed to be thought of and treated as individuals within an open system (i.e., society), the well-being and self-determination of the individual should be the goal of the organization as

- 16 -

well. The history and development of CSR reveals three main competing approaches of the concept. Economic responsibility theory (easily seen in Friedman’s conception of CSR) promotes wealth generation in the markets subject only to minimal government regulation and very culturally relativistic ethics (Jensen, 2000). “The economic viewpoint argues that no costly responsibility action should be undertaken voluntarily” (Windsor, 2006: 102). The rational self-interest of individual managers is generally a key underlying assumption of this perspective. The managerial discretion aspect of Wood’s (1991) framework, which is based on nurturing socially responsible principles, is rejected in economic responsibility theory in favour of strict fiduciary responsibilities focusing on the making of profit. (The only constraint being public policy.) Using humanism as the underlying doctrine of socially responsible managerial choices involves inversing the logic of the maximization of profit principle and proposes another ontology of the actor leading to an alternate conception of the motivations in the economic sphere of activity. Ethical social responsibility theory is more in line with a humanistic perspective of management. This approach is substantially different in its purpose than the approach focusing on the objective reality of human beings (Rand, 1964). Ethical responsibility theory “advocates strong corporate self-restraint and altruism duties and expansive public policy strengthening stakeholder rights” (Windsor, 2006: 93). Individual human rights are emphasized in the decision-making processes of managers, and philanthropic ventures are considered a “discretionary” transfer of wealth from shareholders to non-fiduciary stakeholders. While economic and legal responsibilities are considered mandatory in a free market system, ethical responsibilities are at the discretion of management (Carroll, 1991). Since ethical managers are expected to partake in moral reflection in order to make the most prudent and moral choices, we posit that those decisions should include consideration of individual human beings inalienable rights and freedom. Creating an autonomy supportive work environment enhances satisfaction of the basic fundamental needs, in order to foster self-determination. The humanist conception of business proposes to maximize well-being and accomplishment of human beings under the constraint of realizing profits in order to stay competitive. By maximizing the flourishing of employees, customers, suppliers, shareholders, and other stakeholders, the mission and true meaning of CSR is realized. This approach would fall in line with a recent observation that there exists an emerging movement “towards a values-driven perspective of the organization” which is translated into managers’ business strategies and decisions (Schoemaker, Nijhof, & Jonker, 2006). 6. Humanistic Management and Corporate Social Performance Outcomes Now that we have provided the intuitive and philosophical basis for the opportunity of the relationship between humanist principles and the achievement of corporate social responsibility through managerial discretion, it is possible to consider the social outcomes of such an approach to CSR. Outcomes of a humanistic management in terms of CSP are realized both inside the firm and outside the firm with all the stakeholders in the open system environment. We show here that the managerial discretion to foster a workplace environment that allows for the self-determination of employees and management of the firm is more likely to lead to socially responsible outcomes for other stakeholder groups related to the protection of individual human rights.

- 17 -

6. 1. Social Outcomes for Employees

When humanist values are applied to human resource management, certain social outcomes are expected for employees of the firm. We outline those outcomes below: - The happiness (positive utility), well-being, and self-determination of the person, since they are the finalities of the action, of the business, and of the organization. Humanist managers try to support these consequences in their process of managing the relationships with their subordinates. Previously, we stated that a humanistic firm would consider the respect and the promotion of well-being of each stakeholder as a central value and goal for it activity. This, in itself, is a worthwhile result. Also, - the trust, mutual respect, recognition of the person, and respect of the human dignity of the person, and - the respect for the right of privacy at work, respect of intimacy, and subjectivity, (since humanism implies the consideration of each person as dignified individuals who have freedom choice to make decisions).

We concluded previously that applying the humanist philosophy to the HRM consists of giving each human being an adequate [1] sphere of autonomy to use his liberty, in giving stimulating challenges to develop his talents and potentials, and in surrounding himself with other people he can trust in order to have a feeling of recognition and acceptance (i.e., belongingness) and to be considered as an end and not only as a means. Social outcomes inside the firm are evidence of a type of work environment providing autonomy, stimulating challenges, opportunities to develop one’s talents and potentials (self-actualization), recognition, acceptance by others, trust, and respect as an end. Specifically, these ideals are realized in the following behaviours: - Reduction of the suffering at work, of suicides, of depressions, and of burn-out. - Mutual consideration, trust and esteem between managers and their subordinates. - Fairness and equity since each person is treated according to her specific needs. Individual perceptions of needs and treatment are taken into account by managers.

The creation of an autonomy supportive work environment has been shown by many empirical studies (Pajak & Glickman, 1989; Blais & Brière, 1992; Deci & al. 1994; Baard & al., 2004; Deci & al., 2001) to lead to the facilitation of the satisfaction of the three fundamental basic needs of competence, relatedness and autonomy of employees, which in turn are likely to cause: - higher levels of self-determination at work for employees and managers, which implies self-development, accomplishment and self-actualization of employees at work, - reduction of stress, anxiety[2], and suffering at work, and - an improvement of employees’ well-being at work.

Recall also how Gagné (2003) demonstrates that the more employees are self-determinate, the more they adopt pro-social behaviours. The outcomes of this interaction are: - the achievement of social goals (involvement in benevolence, associations, altruistic actions, etc.), and - the development of corporate citizenship behaviours between employees and employers. Taken together, the social outcomes for employees of humanistic management positively affects the treatment and philosophy towards other stakeholder groups of the firm in an open system.

- 18 -

6. 2. Social Outcomes for Other Stakeholder Groups

As stated in the previous section, the more a work environment is autonomy supportive, the more likely employees are to internalize values of the firm (Eghrari & Deci, 1988; Deci & al., 1994; Deci and Ryan, 2000a, 2000b). So, if the firm adopts a humanist culture and vision, by creating an autonomy supportive work environment, employees and thus managers, are supposed to adopt more easily a humanistic vision of their activity. Thus, to behave according to CSR and to promote social performance, "a company's social responsibilities are not met by some abstract organizational actors; they are met by individual human actors who constantly make decisions and choices…which have great consequences" (Wood: 699).

The humanist philosophy applied to human resource management processes is also a way to create an autonomy supportive work environment. Thus, applying humanism to managerial philosophy permits to creation of the conditions needed to foster the internalization of the values and visions of the organization by employees. Applying humanism to the goals, values, and vision of the organization permits to employees to seek and propose humanistic ends. In other words they would be empowered to promote their activities towards this goal, if they internalize the organizational culture or the firm. “An ideal citizenship interpretation restates ethical responsibility into voluntarism language intended to influence managerial discretion concerning universal human rights” (Windsor, 2006: 93). Socially responsible outcomes are expected as a result of another type of process too. Deci and Ryan (2000a, 2000b) discuss the need – for each human being – to be socially and mentally integrated. In order to be socially integrated, each human being is lead to adopt the norms, values and rules of behaviour of the community to which s/he desires to belong. But as the human being needs to be also mentally integrated, this adoption of the norms, values and rules of behaviours of the community must consist in a real integration in the self. Otherwise, the person could feel an internal conflict between her deep desires (of her real self) and the necessities of her social self (conflict between what we want and what we have to do). This could lead to neurosis and a low level of self-control. Eghrari & Deci (1988) and Deci & al. (1994) both emphasize this point.

Another outcome empirically studied by these authors is that when the environment is autonomy supportive, internalization of the constraints and rules are facilitated. Ehrenberg (1999) explains that it is easier to be in conflict against a salient authority, for instance, a chief, than to be against an internal source of obligation mentally constructed by the individuals themselves (i.e., low level of integration of the self in this case). So, as allowing autonomy makes less visible external sources of authority, the person becomes more responsible for her actions and decisions. This point associated with the need to be integrated in an environment and not to experience internal conflicts, leads to very high level of internalization of the rules and values of one’s community. As we explained previously, supporting the self-determination process of a person helps her to experience high levels of extrinsic internalized motivation and intrinsic motivation. Thus, allowing high levels of autonomy is not supposed to conduct to more individualism, but inversely, to lead to high levels of acceptation of the community’s values and rules (internalization of the external regulations such as social norms and moral values). This is in this sense that Gagné (2003) talks about the “pro-social behaviours”. Pro-social behaviours and actions can design benevolent work, altruistic action, (e.g., to donate one’s blood). With two empirical studies, Gagné (2003) demonstrates that the more employees are self-

- 19 -

determinate, the more they adopt social goals and citizenship behaviours. People who are self-determinate are more pro-social than others. They don't need to exercise excessive or illegitimate power; they are charismatic leaders who hold other-regarding values. Self-determinate people are oriented toward growth and personal development, challenging work. They feel high levels of empathy and taking into account the interests of others (i.e., to develop pro-social behaviour), since they experiment high levels of internalization of norms, values (like, generosity, altruism, etc.) and environmental constraints. We can conclude that a humanistic management – by creating an autonomy supportive work environment – supports the necessary conditions for realizing socially responsible outcomes, since the more employees are self-determinate, the more they are supposed to adopt pro-social behaviours and pro-social decisions. 7. Conclusion and Implications Our purpose in this theoretical paper is to demonstrate that adoption of humanistic management can lead to the achievement of social goals and the development and maintenance of a sense of responsibility towards stakeholders inside and outside of the firm. Working within the framework of Wood’s (1991) CSP model, we have focused here on the individual level of analysis where the principle of managerial discretion is defined in terms of the values of social betterment and duty to stakeholders. Assuming that the organization is an open system and is firmly rooted within society, we take a values-driven perspective of the firm, which is other-regarding rather than purely instrumentally self-interested in economic terms. To be able to apply humanism to CSR, we take the “ethical” social responsibility approach, rather than the competing, market-driven, “economic” social responsibility approach. “Man” is a social being, interested in cooperating with others, instead of only being rationally self-interested for financial gain. In these terms, a humanistic management nurtures and maintains the individual level of social responsibility by defining the principle of managerial discretion clearly, so managers can achieve pro-social outcomes. This is an important contribution to the CSR literature. Corporate social responsibility is still considered a contestable concept (Windsor, 2006). One reason for this may be the fact that through decades of research on the concept, both empirical and theoretical, there remain three main competing approaches for understanding what is social responsibility. Windsor (2006) describes an “ideal citizenship” interpretation of responsibility, which is based in the ethical theory of responsibility, but expands it using freedom of choice lexicon that is meant to influence managerial discretion over the natural entitlements of human beings. In this present paper, we address his point and provide a solution for creating that language for ideal citizenship—humanist principles. We offer that by creating a work environment that allows for managers and employees to self-determinate, humanistic management can lead to pro-social goals. In our literature review of CSR, we find that very little research has focused on the managerial discretion principle. Thus, our paper addresses an underdeveloped aspect of social responsibility—the individual manager’s choice to satisfy and balance the needs of multiple stakeholders. This indeed is also a major contribution. Another value of our efforts in this paper is the potential for the generation of future research in CSR, using our humanistic approach. Windsor (2006) states that there is little satisfactory theoretical synthesis among the work in CSR and corporate citizenship. He claims that any such systematic cohesion “must discover some

- 20 -

unknown subset of ethical principles also yielding corporate competitive advantage” (93-94). We strongly believe that humanism serves this purpose. Humanist principles offer a potential solution for CSR by creating a work environment stimulating managers and employees to choose socially responsible outcomes for the stakeholders within the firm, and in society. In this paper, we pursue this line of thought very modestly and cautiously, by only focusing on the individual level of analysis in the CSP framework. We see this as only the first step in a research stream which applies humanistic management to the organizational and societal levels. Future research should continue on in this line of inquiry. Pragmatically, future research should also consider empirically testing whether the humanist principles lead to socially responsible action. Of course, this can be done in field experiments and in examinations of company “best practices”, but we contend that there is potential in operationalizing humanist principles and self-determination with the variables developed in the KLD Research Analytics database. Updated every year, the KLD database evaluates and rates companies across different stakeholder groups for their attention to those relationships. For 20 years, the database has been used to determine socially responsible investing, and more recently has been used to determine annual Corporate Citizenship Rankings. The social ratings include: community, corporate governance, diversity, employee relations, environment, product, and human rights. We believe there is an opportunity with this database to evaluate whether humanist principles lead companies to achieve corporate social performance and corporate financial performance. In social audits, managers could explore their strengths and weaknesses related to employee self-determination, pro-social choice, and human rights.

As we also stated in this paper, the level of autonomy granted to an employee must be adapted to his capacity and desire to be self governing and autonomous. The “General Causality Orientation Scale” (GCOS)10 can be employed to estimate the autonomy orientation. This is a 12 item-scale. “This is an individual difference measure of people's relatively enduring motivational orientations and was developed for use with individuals who are at least 17 years of age. It assesses autonomous, controlled, and impersonal causality (motivational) orientations”.11 “Autonomously regulated people feel agentic in their own behaviour, whereas controlled, regulated people feel like pawns to external forces. The General Causality Orientations Scale assesses three different causality orientations to action: (1) an autonomous orientation representing a tendency towards volitional engagement in action (internal locus of causality); (2) a controlled orientation representing a tendency to orient toward and to be regulated by controls and contingencies (external locus of causality); and (3) an impersonal orientation representing a tendency not to engage in action, akin to helplessness (impersonal locus of causality)” (M. Gagné, 2003). Managers could use this scale to adjust their type of management according to their subordinate’s orientation type.

In his award-winning book (Social Issues in Management Division of the Academy of Management, Best Book Award 2009), Sumner Marcus Award-winning author, William C. Frederick writes about the history of CSR and the challenges facing scholars in the field in the future (Frederick, 2005). One of these main challenges is to find common values for which all future research can be based. He calls on researchers to identify clear principles that would give clarity of meaning and purpose to CSR, in order to bring some unity to the field. We hope our paper partially addresses Frederick’s call to action.

10 This scale can be found on: http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/index.html 11 Quotation extracted from http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/index.html

- 21 -

Bibliography Abreu, R., F. David and D. Crowther: 2005. Corporate Social Responsibility in Portugal

Empirical Evidence of Corporate Behavior. Corporate Governance, 5(5), 3–18. Altman, B.W. and Vidaver-Cohen, D. 2000. A framework for understanding corporate

citizenship. Business and Society Review, 105: 1-7. Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, S., 1989. The creative environment scales: The work

environment inventory. Creativity Research Journal, 2: 231-254. Amabile, T. M., 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research

in Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 10, edited by B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Amabile, T. M., 1993. Motivational Synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 3 (3): 185-201.

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M., 1996. Assessing the work environment for creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 39 (5): 1154-1184.

Amabile, T. M., DeJong, W., & Lepper, M., 1976. Effects of externally imposed deadlines on subsequent intrinsic motivation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34: 92-98.

Arnaud, S., 2006. Le respect de la vie personnelle des salariés dans la relation de travail. Thèse de sciences économiques, GREQAM, Université Paul Cézanne, Aix-Marseille.

Arnaud, S., 2007. Analyse économique du droit au respect de la vie personnelle : Application à la relation de travail en France. Revue Internationale de Droit Economique, n°2.

Baard, P. P., Deci, R. L., & Ryan, R. M., 2004. Intrinsic Need Satisfaction: A Motivational Basis of Performance and Well-Being in two Work Settings, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 34 (10).

Benware, C., & Deci, E. L., 1984. Quality of learning with an active versus passive motivational set. American Educational Research Journal, 21: 755-765.

Bergson, H., 1993. La pensée et le mouvant, Quadrige, P.U.F., 1ière édition 1938. Blais, M. R., & Brière, N. M., 1992. On the mediational role of feelings of self-

determination in the workplace: Further evidence and generalization, Unpublished manuscript, University of Quebec at Montreal, Canada.

Boggiano, A. K., & Ruble, D. N., 1979. Competence and the overjustification effect: A developmental study, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37: 1462-1468.

Bowen, H.R. 1953. Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper & Row.

Brickson, S.2007. Organizational identity orientation: The genesis of the role of the firm and distinct forms of social value. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 864–888.

Carroll, A.B. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4: 497-505.

Carroll, A.B. 1994. Social issues in management research. Business and Society, 331, 5-29.

Carroll, A.B. 1999. Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business and Society, 38: 268-295.

- 22 -

Community for Economic Development. 1971. Social Responsibilities of Business Corporations. New York: Author.

Davis, K. 1973. The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16: 312-322.

De Charm, 1968, Personal Causation: The Internal Affective Determinants of Behaviour, New York: Academic Press.

Deci, E. L., & Cascio, W. F., 1972. Changes in intrinsic motivation as a function of negative feedback and threats, Paper presented at the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, MA.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M., 2000. The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour, Psychological Inquiry, vol. 11 (4): 227-268.

Deci, E. L., 1971. Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 18 (1): 105-115.

Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M., 1989. Self-determination in a work organisation, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 580-590.

Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M., 1981. An instrument to assess adults’ orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence, Journal of Educational Psychology, 73: 642-650.

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. M., 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behaviour, New-York, Plenum Press.

Erhenberg, A., 1998. La fatigue d’être soi, Dépression et Société, O. Jacob, Paris. Fisher, C., 1978. The effects of personnel control, competence, and extrinsic reward

systems on intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 21: 273-288.

Frederick, W. C. 1960. The growing concern over business responsibility. California Management Review, 2: 54-61.

Frederick, W. C.: 1994. From CSR1 to CSR2. Business and Society, 33(2): 150–164. Freeman, .R.E. 1991. Divergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review,

24: 233-236. Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman. Freidman, Milton, 1962. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press. Frey, B. S., & Jegen, R., 2001. Motivation crowding theory: A survey of empirical

evidence. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15 (5) 589-611. Gagné, M., & Deci, E., L., 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26: 331–362. Gagné, M., 2003. The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial

behavior Engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 77. Garriga, E. and D. Mele: 2004. Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the

territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53:51–71. Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M., 1987. Autonomy in children’s learning: An

experimental and individual difference investigation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52: 890-898.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Manderlink G., & Sansone, C., 1984. Rewarding pinball wizardry : The effects of evaluation on intrinsic interest, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47: 287-300.

Hayamizu, T., 1997. Between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation : Examination of reasons for academic study based on the theory of internalization, Japanese Psychological Research, 39: 98-108.

- 23 -

Heald, M. 1970. The social responsibilities of business: Company and community, 1900-1960. Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University Press.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K., 1972. Management of organizational behaviour, Prentice Hall.

Hosmer, L. T., 1995. Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics, The Academy of Management Review, 20: 379-403.

Jamali, D. 2008. A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: A fresh perspective into theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 82: 213-231.

Kline, R. B., 2004. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Publications.

Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K., 1984. Setting limits on children’s behaviour: The differential effects of controlling versus informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity, Journal of Personality, 52: 233-248.

Lalande, A., 2002. Vocabulaire technique et critique de la philosophie, Quadrige, P.U.F.

Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D., 1975. Turning play into work: Effects of adult surveillance and extrinsic rewards on children’s intrinsic motivation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31: 479-486.

Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D., 1978. The Hidden Cost of Reward: New Perspectives on the Psychology of Human Motivation, New York: John Wiley.

Leroux, A., 1999. Une société à vivre. Refonder le personnalisme, P.U.F. Logsdon, J., & Wood, D.J. 2002. Business citizenship : From domestic to global level

of analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12 : 155-187. Marsden, C. 2000. The new corporate citizenship of big business: Part of the solution to

sustainability? Business and Society Review., 105: 9-25. McGuire, J.W. 1963. Business and Society. New York: McGraw-Hill. Miserandino, M., 1996. Children who do well in school : Individual differences in

perceived competence and autonomy in above average children, Journal of Educational Psychology, 88: 203-214.

Mounier, E., 1949. Le personnalisme, Que sais-je, P. U. F. Pajak, E., & Glickman, C. D., 1989. Informational and controlling language in

simulated supervisory conferences. American Educational Research Journal, 26: 93-106.

Papasolomou-Doukakis, I., M. Krambia-Kapardis and M. Katsioloudes: 2005. Corporate social responsibility: The way forward? Maybe not! European Business

Peretti, J-M., 2004. Les clés de l’équité dans l’entreprise, Editions d’Organisation. Peretti, J-M., 2005. Tous reconnus, ss la dir., Editions d’Organisation. Pic de La Mirandole, J., 1993. Œuvres philosophiques, traduction O. Boulnois & G.

Tognon, Paris, P.U.F. Preston, L. and Post, J. 1975.Private Management and Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall. Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L., 1996. Elements within the competitive stimulation that affect

intrinsic motivation, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22: 24-33. Review, 17(3), 263–279. Schoemaker, M., Nijhof, A., & Jonker, J. 2006. Human value management: The

influence of corporate social responsibility and social capital on HRM. Management Revue, 17(4): 448-465.

Sethi, P. 1975 Spring. Dimensions of Corporate Social Performance: An analytic framework. California Management Review, 17: 58-64.

- 24 -

Sherman, J., & Smith, H., 1984. The influence of organizational structure on intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation, The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 27 (4): 877-885.

Staw, B. 1991. Dressing up like an organization: When psychological theories can explain organizational action. Journal of Management 17: 805-819.

Steiner, G.A. 1971. Business and Society. New York: Random House Swanson, D.L. 1995. Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the corporate

social performance field. Academy of Management Review, 201, 43-64. Swanson, D.L.1999. Toward an integrative theory of business and society: A research

strategy for corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 24: 506-521.

Valas, H., & Sovik, N., 1993. Variables affecting students’ intrinsic motivation for school mathematics: Two empirical studies based on Deci and Ryan’s theory of motivation. Learning and Instruction, 3: 281-298.

Vallerand, R. J., & Bissonnette, R., 1992. Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as predictors of behaviour: A prospective study, Journal of Personality, 60: 599-620.

Wartick, S.L., and Cochran, P. L. 1985. The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review 104: 758-769.

Windsor, D. 2006. Corporate social responsibility : Three key approaches. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1) : 93-114.

Wood, D. J. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 164, 691-718.

Wood, D.J. & Logsdon, J.M. 1999. Theorizing business citizenship. Ruffin Lectures in Business Ethics, University of Virginia.

Yamauchi, H., & Tanaka, K., 1998. Relations of autonomy, self-referenced beliefs and self-regulated learning among Japanese children, Psychological Reports, 82: 803-816.

Zuckerman, M., Porac, J., Lathin, D., Smith, R., & Deci, E. L., 1978. On the importance of self-determination for intrinsically-motivated behaviour, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4: 443-446.