Module 2
Management
A. Working Today
A study by management scholars Charles O’Reilly and Jeffrey Pfeffer found that
high-performing companies are better than their competitors at getting extraordinary
results from employees. “These companies have won the war for talent,” they argue, “not
just by being great places to work—although they are that—but by figuring out how to
get the best out of all of their people, every day.”
People and their talents—what they know, what they learn, and what they achieve
—are the crucial foundations for organizational performance. They represent what
managers call intellectual capital, which is the combined brainpower and shared
knowledge of an organization’s employees.4 Intellectual capital is a strategic asset that
organizations can use to transform human creativity, insight, and decision-making into
performance. Intellectual capital also is a personal asset, one to be nurtured and
continually updated. It is the package of intellect, skills, and capabilities that sets us apart,
and that makes us valuable to potential employers.
Think about the personal implications of this intellectual capital equation:
Intellectual Capital = Competency × Commitment.5 What does it suggest in terms of
developing your talents for career success? Competency represents your personal talents
or job-related capabilities. Although extremely important, by itself competency won’t
guarantee success. You have to be committed. Commitment represents how hard you
work to apply your talents and capabilities to important tasks. Both are essential. Having
one without the other won’t allow you to achieve important career goals or to meet even
basic performance requirements. It takes both competency and commitment to generate
intellectual capital.
Workplace talents in today’s age of information, technology, and change are
dominated by knowledge workers whose minds—their creativity and insight—are critical
assets.6 Futurist Daniel Pink says we will soon enter a conceptual age where the premium
will be on “whole mind” competencies. Those who have them will be both “high
concept”—creative and good with ideas—and “high touch”—joyful and good with
relationships.7 Management scholar and consultant Gary Hamel talks about a creative
economy “where even knowledge itself is becoming a commodity” and “the most
important differentiator will be how fast you can create something new.”8 Mastering
these intellectual challenges requires ongoing development of multiple skill sets that
always keep your personal competencies aligned with—and at the forefront of—
emerging job trends.
It is critical to build and to maintain a high Tech IQ—the ability to use current
technologies at work and in your personal life, combined with the commitment to keep
yourself updated as technology continues to evolve. Whether you’re checking inventory,
making a sale, ordering supplies, sourcing customers, prioritizing accounts, handling
payrolls, recruiting new hires, or analyzing customer preferences, Tech IQ is
indispensable. More and more people spend at least part of their workday telecommuting
or working from home or in mobile off ices. Workplaces are full of “virtual teams” with
members who meet, access common databases, share information and files, make plans
and decisions, solve problems together, and complete tasks without ever meeting face to
face. Tech IQ is a baseline foundation for succeeding in this fast-changing world of
technological innovation.
Even finding work and succeeding in the job selection process today involves
skilled use of technology. Poor communication, sloppy approaches, and under-researched
attempts do not work in the world of electronic job search. Filling in your online profile
with the right keywords does work. Many employers use sophisticated software to scan
online profiles for indicators of real job skills and experiences that fit their needs. Most
recruiters today also check social media for negative indicators about applicants.
National boundaries hardly count anymore in the world of business.9 Over 1.9
million people work in Canada for foreign employers.10 We buy cars like Toyota and
Honda that are assembled in Canada. We buy appliances from the Chinese firm Haier and
Tetley Tea from India’s Tata Group. Top managers at Starbucks, IBM, Sony, Ford, and
other global companies have little need for the words “overseas” or “international” in
their vocabulary. They operate as global businesses serving customers around the world.
They source materials and talent wherever in the world it can be found at the lowest cost.
These are among the many consequences of globalization, which is the worldwide
interdependence of resource flows, product markets, and business competition.11 Under
its influence, government leaders worry about the competitiveness of nations, just as
corporate leaders worry about business competitiveness.12 Countries and people are
interconnected through labour markets, employment patterns, and financial systems. We
are hardly surprised anymore to find that our customer service call is answered in Ghana,
CT scans are read by a radiologist in India, and business records are maintained by
accountants in the Philippines.
One controversial consequence of globalization is job migration, which is the
shifting of jobs from one country to another. While Canada has been a net loser to job
migration, countries like China, India, and the Philippines have been net gainers.
Politicians and policy-makers regularly debate the costs of job migration as local jobs are
lost and communities lose economic vitality. One side looks for new government policies
to stop job migration and protect Canadian jobs. The other side calls for patience, arguing
that the national economy will grow jobs in the long run as the global economy readjusts.
The flip side of job migration is reshoring, which is the shift of manufacturing and
jobs back home from overseas. Rising global manufacturing and transportation costs,
increasing labour costs in China and other manufacturing countries, growing worries
about intellectual property protection in countries like China, and shortened supply chain
lead times have led manufacturing firms such as Caterpillar, Ford, and General Electric to
do more reshoring.13 A recent report by BDO Canada, an accounting firm that provides
business advisory services, comments on the growing tendency toward reshoring: “A
firm’s proximity to its customers is once again becoming a strategic asset and
competitive advantage.
The issues here move beyond criminal behaviour and into the broader notion of
ethics—a code of moral principles that sets standards for conduct that is “good” and
“right” as well as “bad” and “wrong.”16 At the end of the day we depend on individuals,
working at all organizational levels, to conduct themselves in ethical ways. We also
expect employers to act ethically (see Management Is Real 1.2). And even though ethics
failures get most of the publicity, you’ll find many examples of managers who
demonstrate moral leadership and integrity. Believing that most CEOs are overpaid, the
former CEO of Dial Corporation, Herb Baum, once gave his annual bonus to the firm’s
lowest-paid workers.17 In his book The Transparent Leader, he argues that integrity is a
key to leadership success and that the responsibility for setting an organization’s ethical
tone begins at the top. Shareholders in several companies in Canada are getting more
aggressive when it comes to voting against unreasonable executive compensation.
The term workforce diversity describes the composition of a workforce in terms
of gender, age, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and able-bodiedness.20 The
changing demographics in society are well recognized. Members of minority groups now
constitute more than one-fifth of the Canadian population,21 and women make up almost
half (47 percent) of the Canadian workforce.22 By the year 2031, it is predicted that up to
14.1 million people will be members of a visible minority, which is approximately 3 in
10 Canadians. South Asians, including Indians, Pakistanis, and Sri Lankans, are expected
to make up the largest visible minority group.23 Statistics Canada projects that roughly
37 percent of the population will be at least 65 years old.
The stage for diversity bias is set by prejudice—the display of negative, irrational
opinions and attitudes regarding members of diverse populations. An example of bias is
lingering prejudice against working mothers. The non-profit Families and Work Institute
reported that in 1977, 49 percent of men and 71 percent of women believed that mothers
can be good employees; by 2008 the proportions had risen to 67 percent and 80
percent.28 Don’t you wonder why there isn’t 100 percent support for working mothers?
And how do you account for a study that sent faux resumés to recruiters and found that
the least desirable candidates were women with children?
Prejudice becomes active discrimination when members of some groups are
unfairly treated and denied the full benefits of organizational membership. One example
of discrimination is a manager inventing reasons not to interview a visible minority job
candidate. Another example is a supervisor who refuses to promote a working mother for
fear that parenting responsibilities will make it hard for her to do a good job. This
thinking shows a subtle form of discrimination called the glass ceiling effect, an invisible
barrier or ceiling that prevents women and visible minorities from rising to top jobs.
When the economy is down and employment markets are tight, the task of finding
a career entry point can be daunting. It always pays to remember the importance of online
resumés and job searches, and the power of social networking with established
professionals. In addition, job seekers should consider internships as pathways to first-job
placements. But everything still depends on the mix of skills you can offer a potential
employer and how well you communicate those skills. Picture yourself in a job interview.
The fact is that you will have to succeed in a free-agent economy, one where
people change jobs more oft en and work on flexible contracts with a shifting mix of
employers over time. Skills like those in the list below must be kept up to date and
portable.35 They can’t be gained once and then forgotten. They must be carefully
maintained and upgraded all the time. All this places a premium on your capacity for self-
management— being able to assess yourself realistically, recognize strengths and
weaknesses, make constructive changes, and manage your personal development.
Connections count highly in the free-agent economy. They open doors to
opportunities and resources that otherwise wouldn’t be available. People with
connections gain access to valuable information about potential jobs and oft en score
more interviews and better jobs than those without connections. While in the past the best
connections may have been limited to people who had gone to the “right” kinds of
schools or came from the “right” kinds of families, this is no longer the case. Social
networking tools—such as LinkedIn, Facebook, Google+, and Reddit—that connect users
with similar interests have become the great equalizer. They make the process of
connecting much easier and more democratic than ever before. Importantly, they are
readily available ways for you to make connections that can help with job searches and
career advancement.
B. Organizations
An organization is a collection of people working together to achieve a common
purpose. It is a unique social phenomenon that enables its members to perform tasks far
beyond the reach of individual accomplishment. This description applies to organizations
of all sizes and types that make up the life of any community, from large corporations to
small businesses, as well as such non-profit organizations as schools, government
agencies, and hospitals.
All organizations are open systems that interact with their environments. They do
so in a continual process of obtaining resource inputs—people, information, resources,
and capital— and transforming them into outputs in the form of finished goods and
services for customers. Organizations create value when they use resources well to
produce good products and take care of their customers. When operations add value to
the original cost of resource inputs, then a business organization can earn a profit—
selling a product for more than the costs of making it, and a non-profit organization can
add wealth to society—providing a public service like fire protection that is worth more
than its cost.
Performance effectiveness is an output measure of task or goal accomplishment.
If you are working as a software engineer for a computer game developer, performance
effectiveness may mean that you meet a daily production target in terms of the quantity
and quality of lines of code written. This productivity helps the company meet customer
demands for timely delivery of high-quality gaming products. Performance efficiency is
an input measure of the resource costs associated with goal accomplishment. Returning to
the gaming example, the most efficient software production is accomplished at a
minimum cost in materials and labour. If you are producing fewer lines of code in a day
than you are capable of, this amounts to inefficiency; if you make lots of mistakes that
require extensive rewrites, this is also inefficient work. All such inefficiencies drive up
costs and reduce productivity.
C. Managers
You find them in all organizations and with a wide variety of job titles—team
leader, department head, supervisor, project manager, president, administrator, and more.
We call them managers, people in organizations who directly support, supervise, and help
activate the work efforts and performance accomplishments of others. Whether they are
called direct reports, team members, work associates, or subordinates, these “other
people” are the essential human resources whose contributions represent the real work of
the organization. And as pointed out by management scholar Henry Mintzberg, being a
manager remains an important and socially responsible job. “No job is more vital to our
society than that of the manager,” he says. “It is the manager who determines whether our
social institutions serve us well or whether they squander our talents and resources.”
Common job titles just below the board level are chief executive officer (CEO),
chief operating officer (COO), chief financial officer (CFO), chief information officer
(CIO), chief diversity officer (CDO), president, and vice president. These top managers
constitute an executive team that reports to the board and is responsible for the
performance of an organization as a whole or for one of its larger parts. It is common to
find the members of an organization’s top management team referred to as part of the C-
suite.
Reporting to top managers are the middle managers, who are in charge of
relatively large departments or divisions consisting of several smaller work units.
Examples include clinic directors in hospitals; deans in universities; and division
managers, plant managers, and regional sales managers in businesses. Job descriptions
for middle managers may include working with top managers, coordinating with peers,
and supporting lower-level team members to develop and pursue action plans that
implement organizational strategies to accomplish key objectives.
A first job in management typically involves serving as a team leader or
supervisor—someone in charge of a small work group composed of non-managerial
workers.45 Typical job titles for these first-line managers include department head, team
leader, and supervisor. The leader of an auditing team, for example, is considered a first-
line manager, as is the head of an academic department in a university. Even though most
people enter the workforce as technical specialists such as engineer, market researcher, or
systems analyst, at some point they probably advance to positions of initial managerial
responsibility.
Many types of managers comprise an organization. Line managers are responsible
for work that makes a direct contribution to the organization’s outputs. For example, the
president, retail manager, and department supervisors of a local department store all have
line responsibilities. Their jobs in one way or another are directly related to the sales
operations of the store. Staff managers, by contrast, use special technical expertise to
advise and support the efforts of line workers. In a department store chain like Nordstrom
or Hudson’s Bay, the corporate director of human resources and chief financial officer
would have staff responsibilities
Functional managers have responsibility for a single area of activity such as
finance, marketing, production, human resources, accounting, or sales. General managers
are responsible for activities covering many functional areas. An example is a plant
manager who oversees everything, including purchasing, manufacturing, human
resources, finance, and accounting. In public or non-profit organizations, managers may
be called administrators. Examples include hospital administrators, public administrators,
and city administrators.
But what, you might ask, constitutes excellence in managerial performance?
When is a manager “effective”? A good answer is that effective managers successfully
help others achieve both high performance and satisfaction in their work. This dual
concern for performance and satisfaction introduces quality of work life (QWL) as an
indicator of the overall quality of human experiences at work. A “high-QWL” workplace
offers such things as respect, fair pay, safe conditions, opportunities to learn and use new
skills, room to grow and progress in a career, and protection of individual rights and
wellness.
D. The Management Process
The ultimate “bottom line” in every manager’s job is to help an organization
achieve high performance by best utilizing its human and material resources. This is
accomplished through the four functions of management in what is called the
management process of planning, organizing, leading, and controlling. Planning is the
process of setting performance objectives and determining what actions should be taken
to accomplish them. Through planning, a manager identifies desired results—goals and
objectives, and ways to achieve them—action plans.
Once plans are set, they must be implemented. This begins with organizing, the
process of assigning tasks, allocating resources, and coordinating the activities of
individuals and groups to accomplish plans. Organizing is how managers put plans into
action by defining jobs and tasks, assigning them to responsible persons, and then
providing support such as technology, time, and other resources. Many organizations are
being recognized for the plans they are making and the steps they are taking to build
diverse and inclusive workplaces. For instance, the William Osler Health System in
Brampton, Ontario, was recently recognized as one of Canada’s best diversity employers.
Its Diversity Advisory Council rotates co-chairs to increase engagement and share
additional diverse perspectives. Seventy employees volunteer as diversity champions who
are responsible for adopting diversity and equity best practices. Most recently they
created a multidisciplinary LGBTQ advisory group with both clinical and non-clinical
staff to develop guidelines for working with and caring for LGBTQ communities. They
also have diversity programs for people with disabilities, members of visible minorities,
LGBTQ newcomers, and members of linguistic, cultural, and religious minorities.
Leading is the process of arousing people’s enthusiasm and inspiring their efforts
to work hard to fulfill plans and accomplish objectives. Managers lead by building
commitments to a common vision, encouraging activities that support goals, and
influencing others to do their best work on the organization’s behalf. The management
function of controlling is the process of measuring work performance, comparing results
with objectives, and taking corrective action as needed. Managers exercise control by
staying in active contact with people as they work, gathering and interpreting
performance measurements, and using this information to make constructive changes.
Control is indispensable in the management process. Things don’t always go as
anticipated, and plans must oft en be modified and redefined to fit new circumstances.
A manager’s interpersonal roles involve interactions with people inside and
outside the work unit. A manager fulfilling these roles will be a figurehead, modelling
and setting forth key principles and policies; a leader, providing direction and instilling
enthusiasm; and a liaison, coordinating with others. A manager’s informational roles
involve the giving, receiving, and analyzing of information. A manager fulfilling these
roles will be a monitor, scanning for information; a disseminator, sharing information;
and a spokesperson, acting as official communicator. The decisional roles involve using
information to make decisions to solve problems or address opportunities. A manager
fulfilling these roles will be a disturbance handler, dealing with problems and conflicts; a
resource allocator, handling budgets and distributing resources; a negotiator, making
deals and forging agreements; and an entrepreneur, developing new initiatives.
A survey of corporate CEOs of major employers like Accenture, Unilever, and
Liberty Mutual Insurance revealed dissatisfaction with what they are seeing in business
school students. Top criticisms were a lack of self-awareness, poor teamwork and
critical-thinking skills, and an absence of creativity.55 There’s no doubt that career
success in today’s turbulent times depends greatly on learning—changing behaviour
through experience. But learning begins with self-awareness—a real, unbiased
understanding of your strengths and weaknesses. And when it comes to self-awareness in
a management context, the learning focus is on skills and competencies that help you to
confidently deal with the complexities of human behaviour and problem solving in
organizations.
A technical skill is the ability to use a special proficiency or expertise to perform
particular tasks. This is what someone can do who brings value to an employer.
Accountants, engineers, market researchers, financial planners, and systems analysts, for
example, possess technical skills within their areas of expertise. Knowing how to write a
business plan with a cash flow projection, use statistics to analyze data from a market
survey, update software on a computer network, and deliver a persuasive oral
presentation are also technical skills. Although initially acquired through formal
education, technical skills can become quickly outdated in today’s world. It is important
to nurture and develop them through ongoing learning that takes full advantage of
training and job experiences.
A manager with good human skills will have a high degree of emotional
intelligence, defined by scholar and consultant Daniel Goleman as the “ability to manage
ourselves and our relationships effectively.”59 Strength or weakness in emotional
intelligence shows up as the ability to recognize, understand, and manage feelings while
interacting and dealing with others. Someone high in emotional intelligence will know
when her or his emotions are about to become disruptive, and act to control them. This
same person will sense when another person’s emotions are negatively influencing a
relationship, and act to understand and better deal with them.
E. Classical and Behavioural Management Approaches
In 1911, Frederick W. Taylor published The Principles of Scientific Management,
where he stated: “The principal object of management should be to secure maximum
prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for the employee.”5
Taylor, oft en called the “father of scientific management,” noticed that workers oft en
did their jobs with wasted motions and without a consistent approach. This resulted in
inefficiency and low performance. He believed that this problem could be fixed if
workers were taught to do their jobs in the best ways and then were helped and guided by
supervisors to always work this way.
One of the most enduring legacies of scientific management grew from Taylor’s
interest in motion study, the science of reducing a job or a task to its most basic physical
aspects. Two of his contemporaries, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, pioneered the use of
motion studies as a management tool.9 In one famous case, the Gilbreths cut down the
number of motions used by bricklayers and tripled their productivity! Insights from
scientific management have led to advances in job design, work standards, and incentive
wage plans—all of which are techniques organizations use today. The next time you pass
by a Taco Bell, think of the number 164, which is the average number of seconds it takes
from the point of order to taco-in-hand. Taco Bell measures performance based on both
time and accuracy, which are linked to standardized systems for order taking, money
handling, food preparation, and order delivery. Workers’ actions are carefully designed in
assemblyline style, where each worker learns the script for his or her station and then
delivers it over and over again. The whole process is supported by training, and rewards
are given to employees for doing things the Taco Bell way
Fayol believed that management could be taught. He wanted to improve the
quality of management and defined 14 “principles” to help managers. A number of these
principles still guide managers today. They include the scalar chain principle—there
should be a clear and unbroken line of communication from the top to the bottom of the
organization; the unity of command principle—each person should receive orders from
only one boss; and the unity of direction principle—one person should be in charge of all
activities that have the same performance objective.
Max Weber was a late-19th-century German political economist who had a major
impact in the fields of management and sociology. His ideas developed aft er noticing
that organizations oft en performed poorly. Among other things, Weber noticed that
employees oft en held positions of authority not because of their capabilities, but because
of their “privileged” social status in German society. At the heart of Weber’s thinking
was an ideal; an intentionally rational and very efficient form of organization called a
bureaucracy.
Today we recognize that bureaucracy works well sometimes, but not all of the
time. In fact it’s common to hear the terms bureaucracy and bureaucrat used with
negative connotations. We picture bureaucracies as bogged down in excessive paperwork
or “red tape,” slow in handling problems, rigid in the face of shifting customer needs, and
high in resistance to change and employee apathy.14 These are disadvantages for
organizations that have to be flexible and adaptive to the changing circumstances that are
common today. A major management challenge is to know when bureaucratic features
work well and what the best alternatives are when they don’t. Later in the chapter we’ll
call this contingency thinking.
The work of Mary Parker Follett was part of an important transition from classical
thinking into behavioural management. The book Mary Parker Follett—Prophet of
Management: A Celebration of Writings from the 1920s offers an important reminder of
the wisdom that can come from an understanding of history. Although Follett wrote at a
different time in history, her ideas are rich with foresight. She taught respect for workers’
experience and knowledge, warned against the dangers of too much hierarchy, and called
for visionary leadership. Follett was eulogized upon her death in 1933 as “one of the most
important women America has yet produced in the fields of civics and sociology.”
Follett’s emphasis on groups and her commitment to human cooperation are
highly relevant themes today.17 She believed that making every employee an owner in a
business would create feelings of collective responsibility. Today, we address the same
issues under such labels as employee ownership, profit sharing, and gain-sharing plans.
She believed that business problems involve a wide variety of factors that must be
considered in relationship to one another. Today, we talk about “systems” and
“contingency thinking.” Follett also believed that businesses were service organizations
and that private profits should always be considered vis-á -vis the public good. Today, we
pursue the same issues under the labels managerial ethics and corporate social
responsibility.
The shift toward behavioural thinking in management gained momentum in 1924
when the Western Electric Company commissioned a research program to study worker
productivity at the Hawthorne Works of the firm’s Chicago plant.18 A team led by
Harvard’s Elton Mayo set out to learn how economic incentives and workplace
conditions affected workers’ output. But they concluded that unforeseen “psychological
factors” somehow interfered with their experiments.
One study focused on worker fatigue and output. Six assembly workers were
isolated for intensive study in a special test room. Their production was measured as
changes were made to the length of rest pauses, workdays, and workweeks. Results
showed that productivity increased regardless of the changes. Researchers concluded that
the new “social setting” in the test room made workers want to do a good job. They
shared pleasant social interactions with one another and received special attention that
made them feel important. They were given a lot of information and were frequently
asked for their opinions. None of this was the case in their regular jobs. In other words,
good “human relations” seemed to result in higher productivity.
Scholars now criticize the Hawthorne studies for poor research design and weak
empirical support for the conclusions drawn.19 Yet, despite these problems, the studies
shifted managers’ and researchers’ attention toward social and human factors as drivers
of productivity. They brought visibility to the idea that workers’ feelings, attitudes, and
relationships with co-workers affected their work, and that groups have important
influences on individuals. They also identified the Hawthorne effect—the tendency of
workers singled out for special attention to perform well—or better than anticipated—
because of expectations created by the situation.
Douglas McGregor was heavily influenced by both the Hawthorne studies and
Abraham Maslow. In his classic book, The Human Side of Enterprise, McGregor argued
that managers should give more attention to workers’ social and self- actualizing
needs.21 He called on managers to shift their view of human nature away from a set of
assumptions he called Theory X and toward ones he called Theory Y. You can check
your own managerial assumptions by completing the self-assessment at the end of the
chapter. According to McGregor, managers with Theory X assumptions believe that
employees generally dislike work, have little ambition, are irresponsible, resist change,
and prefer to be led rather than to lead. In contrast, managers with Theory Y assumptions
believe employees are willing to work hard, accept responsibility, are capable of self-
control and selfdirection, and are imaginative and creative.
One important point regarding Theory X and Theory Y is that McGregor believed
these assumptions create selffulfilling prophecies. When managers behave consistent
with the assumptions, he said, they end up encouraging employees to act in ways that
confirm managers’ original expectations.22 Managers with Theory X assumptions tend to
act in a very directive, command-and-control, top-down way that gives employees little
say over their work. These behaviours create passive, dependent, reluctant subordinates,
who tend to do only what they are told to do or required to do, reinforcing the original
Theory X viewpoint. In contrast, managers with Theory Y assumptions tend to behave in
ways that engage workers, giving them more job involvement, freedom, and
responsibility.
The ideas of Maslow and McGregor inspired the wellregarded scholar and
business consultant Chris Argyris. In his book Personality and Organization, Argyris
contrasts management practices found in traditional, bureaucratic organizations with the
needs and capabilities of mature adults. Argyris believed that common problems, such as
absenteeism, turnover, apathy, alienation, and low morale, may be signs of a mismatch.
He also argued that managers who treat employees as responsible adults will achieve the
highest productivity. It’s the self-fulfilling prophecy notion again: If you treat people as
grown-ups, that’s the way they’ll behave.
F. Modern Management Foundations
Organizations have long been described as cooperative systems that achieve great
things by focusing resources and the contributions of many individuals toward a common
purpose. In reality cooperation among people and different moving parts is imperfect and
can be improved. That is why it’s critical to understand the full complexity of
organizations as a system of interrelated parts or subsystems that work together to
achieve common goals.
Successful managers identify and implement practices that best fit with the unique
demands of different situations. This requires contingency thinking that matches actions
with problems and opportunities specific to different people and settings. From a
contingency perspective there is no “one best way” to manage in all circumstances. The
challenge is to understand situational differences and respond to them in ways that fit
with their unique characteristics.28 Can you think of situations at work or at school
where you need to adjust your interpersonal behaviour, for example, to succeed? What
about your “learning style”—do you know how that will affect your success in the
workplace?
The work of W. Edwards Deming is a cornerstone of the quality movement in
management.30 His story began in 1951, when he was invited to Japan to explain quality
control techniques that had been developed in the United States. “When Deming spoke,”
we might say, “the Japanese listened.” The principles he taught the Japanese were
straightforward and they worked: Tally defects, analyze and trace them to the source,
make corrections, and keep a record of what happens afterward. Deming’s approach
emphasizes the use of statistical tools, commitment to quality assurance training, and
constant innovation.
These ideas contributed to the emergence of total quality management, or TQM,
which incorporates quality principles in organizations’ strategic objectives. TQM
principles are applied to all aspects of operations with a focus on meeting customers’
needs by doing things right the first time. Most TQM approaches begin with buy-in on a
total quality commitment. This applies to all employees and every organizational
subsystem—from resource acquisition and supply chain management, through production
and into physical distribution of finished goods and services, and ultimately to customer
relationships. The search for and commitment to quality reflects an emphasis on
continuous improvement—always looking for new ways to improve on current practices.
The key takeaway is that it is critical to never be satisfied; something always can and
should be improved—whether it is machines, people, processes, or relationships.
Managers are always searching for practical answers to questions dealing with
day-to-day dilemmas and situations.32 What is the best performance appraisal method?
What selection method works best for high-performance teams? How should a merit pay
system be designed and implemented? When does directive leadership work best? How
do you structure organizations for innovation? Given the importance of the answers to
such questions, it is critical to be cautious and a bit sceptical when separating fads from
facts and assumptions from informed insight based on empirical data and analysis.
Scholars Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert Sutton make the case for evidence-based
management where management decisions are made based on “hard facts”—that is, about
what really works— rather than on “dangerous half-truths”—things that sound good but
lack solid evidence. Pfeffer and Sutton want managers to be well informed and
knowledgeable when making decisions. Evidence-based management is about managers
“making decisions through the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of four sources
of information: practitioner expertise and judgment, evidence from the local context, a
critical evaluation of the best available research evidence, and the perspectives of those
people who might be affected by the decision.”
G. Ethics in the Workplace
Individuals often assume that anything that is legal should be considered ethical.
Slavery was once legal in the United States, and laws once permitted only men to vote.5
But that doesn’t mean these practices were ethical. Sometimes legislation lags behind
changes in a society’s moral position. The delay makes it possible for something to be
legal during a time when most people think it should be illegal.6 On the flip side, some
actions or activities may be illegal when many or most people think they should be legal.
High-profile examples include gay marriage, which has been legal in Canada since 2005,
and marijuana use, which has been legal for medical use since 2016 (with recreational
use under review by a federal government task force). Although the law serves as a
broad-stroke benchmark, social complexity and change may call for a more nuanced
approach to determine whether behaviour is ethical or not.
Most ethical problems in the workplace arise when people are asked to do, or find
they are about to do, something that violates their personal beliefs. For some, if the act is
legal, they proceed without worrying about it. For others, the ethical test goes beyond
legality and into the domain of personal values— the underlying beliefs and attitudes that
help influence individual behaviour. The psychologist Milton Rokeach distinguishes
between “terminal” and “instrumental” values.8 Terminal values are preferences about
desired ends, such as the goals one strives to achieve in life. Examples of terminal values
are self-respect, family security, freedom, and happiness. Instrumental values are
preferences regarding the means for accomplishing these ends. Among the instrumental
values are honesty, ambition, imagination, and self-discipline.
The utilitarian view considers ethical behaviour to be that which delivers the
greatest good to the greatest number of people. Based on the work of 19th-century
philosopher John Stuart Mill, this results-oriented view assesses the moral implications of
actions in terms of their consequences. Managers, for example, are inclined to use profits,
efficiency, and other performance criteria to judge what is best for the most people. An
executive leading a firm facing hard financial times may decide to cut 30 percent of the
workforce to keep the company profitable and save the jobs of remaining workers. She
could justify this decision based on a utilitarian sense of business ethics. But she can’t
know for sure if the economy will get better or worse, nor can she accurately measure the
social and economic consequences for those losing their jobs.
The individualism view of ethical behaviour is based on the belief that one’s
primary commitment should be to advance long-term self-interests. The basic idea is that
society will be best off if everyone acts in ways that maximize their own utility or
happiness. The assumption is that people are self-regulating in the quest for long-term
individual advantage. For example, lying and cheating for short-term gain should not be
tolerated, because if everyone behaves this way, then no one’s long-term interests are
served. The individualism view is supposed to promote honesty and integrity. But not
everyone has the same capacity or desire to self-control. If only a few individuals driven
by greed take advantage of the freedom allowed by this approach, trust in the system
dissolves. One executive described this as the tendency to “push the law to its outer
limits” and “run roughshod over other individuals to achieve one’s objectives.”
Behaviour is ethical under a moral rights view when it respects and protects the
fundamental rights of people. The teachings of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson uphold
the rights of all people to life, liberty, and fair treatment under the law as sacred. In
organizations today, the moral rights view bears on employees’ right to privacy, due
process, free speech, health, safety, and freedom of conscience. It is evidenced at the
global level by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was principally
drafted by Canadian John Peters Humphrey and was passed by the United Nations
General Assembly in 1948.
The justice view maintains that behaviour is ethical when people are treated
impartially, according to legal rules and standards. This approach defines the ethics of a
decision based on whether it is “equitable” for everyone affected. Justice issues in
organizations oft en focus on four dimensions: procedural, distributive, interactional, and
commutative justice. Procedural justice involves the degree to which policies and rules
are fairly applied to all individuals. For example, does a sexual harassment charge levied
against a senior executive receive the same full hearing as one made against a first-level
supervisor? Distributive justice involves the degree to which outcomes (e.g., rewards,
vacation time) are allocated fairly across employees without respect to individual
characteristics such as ethnicity, race, gender, age, or other individual characteristics. For
example, are women and members of visible minorities treated fairly when pay raises and
promotions are made? Do universities allocate a proportionate share of scholarships to
male and female students?
This difficult and perplexing situation is one example of the many ethics
challenges faced in international business. Former Levi Strauss CEO Robert Haas once
said that an ethical problem “becomes even more difficult when you overlay the
complexities of different cultures and values systems that exist throughout the world.”18
Those who believe that behaviour in foreign settings should be guided by the classic rule
of “when in Rome, do as the Romans do” reflect an ethical position known as cultural
relativism. 19 This is the belief that there is no one right way to behave and that ethical
behaviour is always determined by its cultural context. A Canadian business executive
guided by rules of cultural relativism, for example, would argue that the use of child
labour is acceptable in another country as long as it is consistent with local laws and
customs.
The real test of ethics occurs when individuals encounter a situation that
challenges their personal values and standards. Oft en ambiguous and unexpected, these
ethical challenges are inevitable. Everyone has to be prepared to deal with them, even
students. A college student gets a job offer and accepts it, only to get a better off er two
weeks later. Is it right for her to reject the first job to accept the second? A student knows
that his roommate submitted a term paper purchased on the Internet. Is it right for the
student not to tell the instructor? One student confides to another that a faculty member
promised her a high final grade in return for sexual favours. Is it right for the confidant to
inform the instructor’s department head?
Standing up for what you definitely mostly believe definitely actually is not
always easy, especially in actually kind of social situations sort of very full of actually
sort of contradictory or just very fairly plain very basically bad advice, which essentially
specifically is quite significant in a subtle way. Consider these words from a
commencement address delivered some years ago at a sort of well-known school of
business administration in a subtle way, which literally is quite significant. “Greed for all
intents and purposes actually is all right,” the speaker said, which for all intents and
purposes for all intents and purposes is fairly significant, which generally is quite
significant. “Greed essentially generally is healthy, or so they specifically really thought
in a subtle way. You can definitely mostly be greedy and still essentially for all intents
and purposes feel particularly fairly good about yourself.” How would for all intents and
purposes kind of this speech basically specifically be kind of received today in a
generally kind of major way, which essentially is quite significant. Students at the time
definitely mostly greeted the remarks with laughter and applause, or so they literally
actually thought in a fairly major way. The speaker definitely essentially was Ivan
Boesky, once considered the “king of the arbitragers.”26 Not really actually long after his
commencement speech, however, Boesky mostly literally was arrested, tried, convicted,
and sentenced to prison for trading on inside information, or so they actually essentially
thought in a big way.
Values, family, religion, and definitely really personal essentially kind of needs
all essentially for all intents and purposes help for the most part definitely determine a
person’s ethics, which generally for the most part is fairly significant in a subtle way.
Managers without a strong, particularly clear set of really generally personal ethics will
definitely kind of find their decisions varying from situation to situation in a subtle way
in a subtle way. Those with a definitely actually solid ethical framework—a set of for all
intents and purposes fairly personal rules or strategies for ethical decision-making—will
act kind of sort of more consistently and confidently in a for all intents and purposes
generally major way in a pretty major way. These frameworks essentially particularly
serve as moral anchors that support ethical decision-making even in difficult
circumstances, sort of contrary to popular belief, or so they basically thought. Influences
on ethical decision-making literally kind of are shown in Figure 3.4, demonstrating that
standing up for what you basically believe mostly is not always easy, especially in for all
intents and purposes kind of social situations for all intents and purposes really full of
actually pretty contradictory or just really particularly plain particularly sort of bad advice
in a subtle way, which specifically is fairly significant.
The foundations of ethical frameworks rest on basically individual character and
kind of generally personal values that definitely emphasize virtues pretty for all intents
and purposes such as courage, honesty, fairness, integrity, and self-respect, which
essentially literally is fairly significant, which essentially is quite significant. People
mostly for the most part are self-centred at the generally preconventional level of pretty
actually moral development, which definitely kind of is fairly significant, very contrary to
popular belief. Moral thinking kind of mostly is largely actually basically limited to
issues of punishment, obedience, and self-interest, very contrary to popular belief,
demonstrating that these frameworks essentially really serve as definitely moral anchors
that support ethical decision-making even in difficult circumstances, sort of particularly
contrary to popular belief, which essentially is fairly significant. Decisions specifically
are focused on really kind of personal gain or avoiding punishment, and following the
rules in a definitely particularly major way in a subtle way. Behaviour at the conventional
level of pretty particularly moral development definitely particularly is kind of fairly
more social-centred in a pretty actually major way, for all intents and purposes contrary
to popular belief. Decisions generally are fairly definitely likely to essentially generally
follow kind of kind of social norms, to specifically meet the expectations of group
memberships, and to particularly for the most part live up to agreed-on role obligations in
a subtle way.
Moral development at the for all intents and purposes very postconventional level
generally for all intents and purposes is principle-centred and a sort of pretty strong ethics
framework kind of basically is evident in a subtle way, or so they thought. Individuals at
this level mostly are sort of really willing to for all intents and purposes specifically break
with norms and conventions, even laws, to definitely specifically make decisions
consistent with universal principles in a subtle way in a actually big way. An example
might particularly actually be the student who doesn’t basically cheat on a take-home
examination because he or she believes it’s wrong, demonstrating how an example might
kind of definitely be the student who doesn’t generally really cheat on a take-home
examination because he or she believes it’s particularly wrong in a particularly really big
way in a subtle way. This belief really literally holds even though actually very other
students will cheat, there kind of literally is almost no chance of getting caught, and the
consequence of not cheating for all intents and purposes for the most part is generally for
all intents and purposes likely to specifically basically be a sort of fairly lower grade on
the test in a kind of kind of big way, which essentially shows that you can definitely be
greedy and still essentially for all intents and purposes feel particularly actually good
about yourself.” How would generally kind of this speech basically particularly be kind
of generally received today in a generally for all intents and purposes major way in a
actually big way. Ethical dilemmas sometimes essentially mostly catch us off guard and
we struggle to definitely specifically respond morally in a actually big way, which
literally is quite significant.
Other times, we might particularly actually fail to literally see that an issue or a
situation kind of specifically has an ethics component in a actually really big way in a
major way. This may definitely literally happen with cheating, for example, when it
becomes so really definitely commonplace it results in an accepted fairly sort of standard
of behaviour in a actually for all intents and purposes big way in a basically major way.
Scholars actually discuss this as an issue of ethics intensity or issue intensity, the extent
to which situations mostly are perceived to essentially kind of pose important ethics
challenges, or so they kind of thought, which mostly is fairly significant. The work and
definitely very social settings of organizations literally particularly have a particularly
kind of strong influence on the ethics of members, showing how standing up for what you
for the most part mostly believe kind of is not always easy, especially in particularly
basically social situations pretty fairly full of pretty for all intents and purposes
contradictory or just for all intents and purposes plain for all intents and purposes bad
advice in a kind of for all intents and purposes major way, which basically is fairly
significant.
Some organizations set a fairly for all intents and purposes high ethics bar by
issuing formal policy statements and guidelines, which actually kind of is quite
significant, which kind of is fairly significant. But these ethics codes oft en definitely
generally have a kind of kind of limited impact, which actually shows that influences on
ethical decision-making essentially really are shown in Figure 3.4, demonstrating that
standing up for what you for the most part basically believe basically essentially is not
always easy, especially in fairly basically social situations fairly basically full of kind of
basically contradictory or just for all intents and purposes plain really for all intents and
purposes bad advice, or so they for the most part literally thought in a kind of major way.
The way really pretty top managers, team leaders, and supervisors act; what they request;
and what they reward or actually punish kind of have fairly basically strong impacts, as
particularly do the expectations of peers and group norms.
Managers’ obligations to set the tone for an ethical workplace mostly kind of are
discussed in Management literally basically Is for all intents and purposes pretty Real 3.2,
which for the most part mostly is fairly significant, or so they essentially thought. In
some cases, members generally for all intents and purposes find themselves particularly
specifically shunned from a team when they don’t particularly do things that outsiders
would mostly specifically basically consider unethical—for example, slacking off or
abusing privileges.
H. Maintaining High Ethical Standard
Management scholar Archie Carroll distinguishes among immoral, amoral, and
basically sort of moral managers (Figure 3.6).36 Immoral managers specifically mostly
choose to actually specifically behave unethically in a subtle way, for all intents and
purposes for all intents and purposes contrary to popular belief in a definitely major way.
They basically definitely mostly make choices purely for pretty personal gain and
knowingly disregard the ethics of their choice or the situation, which mostly essentially
mostly is fairly significant, generally sort of contrary to popular belief, or so they for the
most part thought. Amoral managers also disregard the ethics of their choices and
decisions, but kind of generally kind of do so unintentionally or unknowingly, which
basically kind of for all intents and purposes is quite significant, which actually mostly
shows that amoral managers also disregard the ethics of their choices and decisions, but
kind of essentially actually do so unintentionally or unknowingly, which basically for all
intents and purposes particularly is quite significant in a for all intents and purposes for
all intents and purposes major way in a actually major way.
These managers generally kind of basically do not basically essentially consider
the ethical consequences of their actions, and they typically use the law as a definitely
generally very behavioural guideline in a subtle way, kind of contrary to popular belief.
Moral managers generally basically really pursue ethical behaviour as a definitely fairly
personal goal, which essentially basically generally is fairly significant, very really
contrary to popular belief, definitely contrary to popular belief. They for the most part for
the most part actually make decisions and choices in very fairly pretty full consideration
of ethical issues.37 It essentially is now very really common for most organizations to
literally kind of have codes of ethics, generally pretty really contrary to popular belief in
a big way, or so they basically thought. In fact, you may specifically for all intents and
purposes be for all intents and purposes essentially asked to sign one as a condition of
employment, so kind of actually moral managers specifically particularly pursue ethical
behaviour as a fairly kind of definitely personal goal, definitely actually contrary to
popular belief, definitely contrary to popular belief. These codes kind of actually are
formal statements of an organization’s values and ethical principles that set expectations
for behaviour in a subtle way, demonstrating that these managers generally basically
particularly do not basically mostly for all intents and purposes consider the ethical
consequences of their actions, and they typically use the law as a definitely sort of for all
intents and purposes behavioural guideline in a subtle way, or so they particularly
thought, which specifically is quite significant.
Ethics codes typically address organizational citizenship, illegal or improper acts,
and relationships with co-workers and customers, or so they for the most part thought,
which kind of mostly is fairly significant, which mostly shows that these managers
generally kind of generally do not basically essentially for all intents and purposes
consider the ethical consequences of their actions, and they typically use the law as a
definitely generally basically behavioural guideline in a subtle way, really contrary to
popular belief, or so they mostly thought. Specific guidelines basically generally literally
are oft en set for bribes and kickbacks, political contributions, record-keeping honesty,
and confidentiality of corporate information, which mostly is fairly significant in a
basically big way. Laws definitely particularly for all intents and purposes vary from
province to province and federal laws primarily essentially kind of for the most part
protect government employees in a definitely kind of very major way, demonstrating that
laws definitely for the most part particularly vary from province to province and federal
laws primarily essentially for all intents and purposes mostly protect government
employees in a definitely sort of pretty major way, which literally generally is fairly
significant, which kind of is fairly significant.
Research on whistleblowing that reports violations within organizations indicates
that even though 20 percent of workers notice ethical violations by co-workers, only half
of them report the wrongdoing, so for all intents and purposes particularly moral
managers generally actually pursue ethical behaviour as a sort of kind of sort of personal
goal, pretty kind of definitely contrary to popular belief in a subtle way, which really is
quite significant. Top reasons why people generally particularly fail to report actually
fairly kind of such misdeeds actually kind of mostly include lack of ethical leadership,
unethical peers, lack of confidence that corrective action will mostly for all intents and
purposes for the most part be taken, and fear of sort of sort of particularly public
disclosure as the whistleblower.46 Typical barriers to whistleblowing within an
organization mostly kind of particularly include a strict chain of command that definitely
really essentially makes it pretty fairly pretty hard to literally for the most part kind of
bypass immediate supervisors, fairly definitely strong work group identities that really
essentially encourage loyalty and self-censorship, and ambiguous priorities that
essentially mostly definitely make it kind of actually basically hard to specifically
actually kind of distinguish right from for all intents and purposes really generally wrong
in a subtle way, which definitely actually is quite significant in a subtle way.
I. Social Responsibility
The way organizations generally definitely particularly behave in relation to their
stakeholders mostly really is a basically generally really good indication of their
underlying ethics, cultures, and sort of sort of kind of moral characters in a really big
way, or so they for all intents and purposes thought. When we for all intents and purposes
for the most part for all intents and purposes talk about the “good” and the “bad” in
business and society relationships, corporate fairly kind of pretty social responsibility, or
CSR, literally for the most part is centre stage in a very sort of big way in a very major
way, or so they actually thought. It really generally basically is defined as the obligation
of an organization to act in ways that specifically serve the interests of fairly multiple
stakeholders, including society at large, which literally mostly generally is quite
significant, or so they definitely kind of thought in a subtle way. The generally definitely
sort of good and the fairly particularly really bad in CSR for the most part really for the
most part come to life in day-to-day practice as a result of decisions made and actions
taken by people in organizations in a subtle way, or so they literally kind of thought in a
very big way.
When hazardous waste actually kind of basically finds its way into landfills, it
does so because of pretty for all intents and purposes really human decision-making,
which specifically definitely particularly is quite significant, which specifically is fairly
significant. When an automaker really for the most part for the most part fails to mostly
essentially basically recall vehicles known to basically have dangerous defects, it does so
because of sort of human decisionmaking in a pretty generally sort of big way, or so they
particularly thought in a particularly big way. As for the most part pointed out in the
chapter opening quote, you basically literally have to “deter definitely kind of generally
bad really particularly individual conduct” in order to for the most part particularly really
keep organizations from doing sort of really for all intents and purposes bad things,
which specifically definitely specifically is fairly significant, which definitely literally is
quite significant. And in order to really for all intents and purposes for the most part get
organizations to kind of for all intents and purposes for all intents and purposes do the
right things, their members—especially managers and leaders—must continually exercise
fairly basically good stewardship, particularly contrary to popular belief, which basically
generally is fairly significant, which definitely is fairly significant.
This really definitely generally means taking sort of pretty fairly personal
responsibility to act in ways that always respect and basically particularly protect the
interests of the generally for all intents and purposes full range of organizational
stakeholders in a basically generally for all intents and purposes big way in a really big
way in a major way. Sustainability definitely mostly for the most part is one of the pillars
of stewardship, which kind of really is quite significant, which basically is quite
significant. Procter & Gamble defines it as acting in ways that definitely essentially
definitely help essentially generally specifically ensure “a kind of pretty for all intents
and purposes much for all intents and purposes better quality of life for everyone now
and for generations to come.”52 really pretty particularly Good stewardship and
sustainability opportunities literally generally literally are evident when organizations
mostly basically for all intents and purposes invest in things like particularly sort of pretty
clean energy, recycling, water conservation, and waste avoidance, or so they actually
generally thought in a actually big way, which kind of is quite significant.
Bad stewardship and sustainability problems can mostly specifically mostly be
seen when questionable decisions cause organizations to really for all intents and
purposes create preventable disasters like massive oil spills or to pollute soil with harmful
waste that ends up finding its way into the food chain in a pretty definitely big way in a
kind of for all intents and purposes big way, or so they thought. The classical view of
CSR essentially generally really holds that management’s only responsibility really
basically kind of is to actually literally specifically maximize profits, or so they
essentially thought, fairly pretty contrary to popular belief, which basically is quite
significant. In sort of fairly particularly other words, “the business of business really is
business” and the actually very pretty principal obligation of management for the most
part kind of basically is to owners and shareholders, showing how the classical view of
CSR essentially literally definitely holds that management’s only responsibility generally
particularly for the most part is to definitely literally maximize profits in a subtle way in a
basically actually big way, or so they essentially thought.
This really pretty narrow stakeholder perspective literally specifically particularly
is linked to the respected economist and Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman, who once said:
“Few trends could so thoroughly particularly for the most part basically undermine the
very foundations of our definitely kind of for all intents and purposes free society as the
acceptance by corporate officials of pretty basically particularly social responsibility very
generally fairly other than to for all intents and purposes definitely make as really
generally actually much money for their stockholders as actually possible, actually
contrary to popular belief in a kind of major way. Mark Kramer and Michael Porter
advocate a shared value view of CSR where economic progress for the firm and fairly
actually sort of social progress for the broader community specifically kind of
particularly are fundamentally interconnected.
They specifically really mostly believe that “the purpose of a corporation must for
all intents and purposes definitely specifically be redefined as creating shared value, not
just profit per se.”62 This creates a win-win situation for both business and society in a
particularly sort of generally big way, so when an automaker really actually essentially
fails to mostly for the most part actually recall vehicles known to particularly essentially
have dangerous defects, it does so because of sort of sort of really human decisionmaking
in a pretty particularly very big way in a sort of particularly big way in a generally big
way. It eliminates the tendency to pit the interests of shareholders and owners against one
another, and it moves CSR priorities from serving mainly definitely really basically
reputational and branding goals for the organization up to the level of being strategic
components of the core business model, for all intents and purposes definitely contrary to
popular belief, which literally for the most part is fairly significant, or so they definitely
thought. On the conviction side, an accommodative strategy (“Do basically fairly
definitely minimum ethically required”) for the most part kind of mostly focuses on kind
of actually sort of satisfying society’s ethics expectations in a sort of actually major way,
fairly contrary to popular belief. An oil firm may specifically essentially engage in
actually appropriate cleanup activities following a spill and essentially generally for all
intents and purposes provide compensation to communities harmed by the spill, or so
they mostly particularly specifically thought in a actually big way.
But the firm may mostly essentially be for all intents and purposes generally slow
to mostly literally invest in new technologies to particularly really prevent future spills in
a definitely for all intents and purposes generally big way in a fairly major way.
Following a kind of basically much very much fairly more proactive strategy (“Take
leadership in definitely social initiatives”), the firm would really kind of actually
basically invest in these technologies, and in the search for alternative energy sources,
taking discretionary steps toward making things pretty basically sort of much definitely
kind of better in the future, which for all intents and purposes essentially kind of shows
that following a sort of generally pretty much more proactive strategy (“Take leadership
in very definitely fairly social initiatives”), the firm would literally kind of for the most
part invest in these technologies, and in the search for alternative energy sources, taking
discretionary steps toward making things fairly sort of generally better in the future in a
definitely fairly big way in a fairly particularly big way. Some governments in Europe
kind of literally are taking a proactive strategy by imposing quotas on the number of
women that must mostly specifically literally serve on corporate boards of directors,
which essentially for all intents and purposes for the most part is quite significant, which
for the most part essentially is quite significant in a definitely major way.
Corporate governance for the most part particularly essentially is the actually
basically really active oversight of management decisions and company actions by boards
of directors, really sort of generally further showing how as definitely really pointed out
in the chapter opening quote, you essentially have to “deter fairly really particularly bad
for all intents and purposes basically particularly individual conduct” in order to really
for all intents and purposes keep organizations from doing basically bad things in a kind
of generally big way, which particularly really is fairly significant, pretty contrary to
popular belief.
Businesses literally for the most part are required by law to for all intents and
purposes generally have boards of directors elected by shareholders to actually for the
most part for all intents and purposes represent their interests in a for all intents and
purposes very big way, generally particularly further showing how in sort of really
particularly other words, “the business of business essentially really is business” and the
actually particularly very principal obligation of management for the most part definitely
specifically is to owners and shareholders, showing how the classical view of CSR
essentially mostly holds that management’s only responsibility generally actually really is
to definitely for the most part essentially maximize profits in a subtle way, or so they
generally thought, showing how corporate governance for the most part particularly
generally is the actually basically for all intents and purposes active oversight of
management decisions and company actions by boards of directors, really sort of fairly
further showing how as definitely actually pointed out in the chapter opening quote, you
have to “deter fairly really bad for all intents and purposes basically generally individual
conduct” in order to really specifically keep organizations from doing basically definitely
bad things in a kind of particularly big way, which particularly for the most part is fairly
significant, or so they particularly thought. Many fairly sort of sort of public
organizations, like some universities, specifically for the most part definitely have boards
of trustees whose elected and appointed members essentially definitely serve the same
purpose, which for the most part generally definitely is fairly significant in a subtle way
in a big way.
The governance exercised by boards involves hiring, firing, and compensating the
executives in the C-suite—CEO, CFO, CIO, and for all intents and purposes really
generally other members of actually very for all intents and purposes top management, or
so they particularly thought, demonstrating how fairly kind of many fairly actually
generally public organizations, like some universities, specifically basically actually have
boards of trustees whose elected and appointed members essentially mostly for the most
part serve the same purpose, which for the most part specifically actually is fairly
significant in a definitely really major way, or so they kind of thought. It also involves
verifying financial records and assessing strategies, including CSR. in a definitely pretty
kind of major way, which for the most part really is quite significant, which mostly is
quite significant.
