I. Introduction
This essay aimed to evaluate and critique the paper written by Geoffrey Williams and John Zinkin. It was divided into seven parts. First of all, I would brief introduce what the essay is about, followed by giving the description of the paper being evaluated. Then, theory and literature would be evaluated, with highlighting the theoretical frameworks used by the authors in developing the paper. Research design and approach would come to the fourth part, in which I would explore the research design and methods and discuss the benefits and limitations. Afterwards, benefits and limitations of the research design and approach would be given, and finally comes the suggestions of alternative research strategies/method and the conclusion.
II. Brief description of the paper being evaluated
The authors firstly gave an introduction and the aim of the paper that explores the relationship between attitudes to corporate social responsibility (CSR) and Hofstede & Hofstede’s cultural dimensions of business activity. The authors found the limitation of the current studies which only analyzed the CSR within one country or within one cultural group, so that they attempted to do some research on this field by considering the issues in more than one country.
Then, the volume of CSR was categorized into four distinct models: the instrumental and private wealth creating models, the political and social models, the integrating social demands models and the ethical models. And these approaches were mapped into Hofstede dimensions respectively. Next, five propositions based on Hofstede dimensions were developed and they authors discussed the impact on the propensity to punish firms with irresponsible behavior. In the followi...
... middle of paper ...
...uccessful Designs for Social and Economic Research. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Coutrot, T. (1998). "How Do Institutional Frameworks Affect Industrial Relations Outcomes? A Micro-Statistical Comparison of France and Britain", European Journal of Industrial Relations, 4(2): 177-205.
Hofstede, G and Hofstede, J. -G. 2005. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lowe, K. B., and Gardner, W. L. (2000). "Ten Years of The Leadership Quarterly: Contributions and Challenges for the Future", The Leadership Quarterly, 11 (4): 459-514.
McCall, M. J.,(1984). "Structure Field Observation", Annual Review of Sociology, 10:263-82.
Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D. and Krishnan, R. 2004. Marketing Research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. 2007. Research methods for business students. 4th ed. London: Prentice Hall.
Jay, J. (2012). Strategic Leadership Review, Volume 2, Issue 1. In Scholasticahq. Retrieved Janurary 26, 2013, from https://scholasticahq.com/supporting_files/397/attachment_versions/394.
Rugg, G., & Petre, M. (2007). A gentle guide to research methods. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.
Maignan, I. (2001). "Consumers' perceptions of corporate social responsibilities: a cross-cultural comparison." Journal of Business Ethics 30(1): 57-72.
Pierce, Jon L. and John W. Newstrom (2011) 6th edition. Leaders and the Leadership Process.
Geert Hofstede performed the most lauded research on The Dimensions of Culture theory. His findings and the model that he created were outlined in his 1980 book “Cultures Consequences.” The work was met with both acclaim and disregard from fellow academics. Hofstede’s work is generally quoted and cited without any hesitation even today and his model is still widely used the main guideline for dealing with human resources from a cultural perspective.
Geert Hofstede, Gert Jan Hofstede and Michael Minkov, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Revised and Expanded 3rd Edition. McGraw-Hill 2010.
Hopen, Deborah. "The Changing Role and Practices of Successful Leaders." Journal For Quality & Participation 33.1 (2010): 4-9. Business Source Premier. Web. 28 Feb. 2014.
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B., (2007). The leadership challenge, (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Whitener, J. K. (2007). Year of wonders: The wonder of leadership. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9(2), 214-222,226-230,234-235. from ABI/INFORM Global.
Zikmund, W., Babin, B.J., Carr, J.C., & Griffin, M. (2010). Business research methods (8th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western
An organization’s Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) drives them to look out for the different interests of society. Most business corporations undertake responsibility for the impact of their organizational pursuits and various activities on their customers, employees, shareholders, communities and the environment. With the high volume of general competition between different companies and organizations in varied fields, CSR has become a morally imperative commitment, more than one enforced by the law. Most organizations in the modern world willingly try to improve the general well-being of not only their employees, but also their families and the society as a whole.
I begin this essay by defining CSR, there are many definitions for this term by various different theorists, and EU says that CSR is "A concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis." On the other hand, Sloman et al. define it as "The concept in which a firm takes into account is the interests and concerns of a community rather than just its shareholder". Davis and Blomstrom (1966), say it "Refers to a person’s obligation to consider the effects of his decisions and actions on the whole social system". These definitions differ from one another in many ways but they agree that CSR involves taking the environment into account and therefore, one must look take social responsibility.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2012). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary
Basically, Hofstede’s cultural dimension is divided into five dimensions along which national culture could be described: power distance (PDI), individualism-collectivism (IDV), masculinity-femininity (MAS), uncertainty avoidance (UAI) and long-term orientation versus short-term normative orientation (LTO).
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2010) Research Methods for Business Students, 5th Edition, Pearson Education.