Reserve Readings
benisd
r44.pdf
Philanthropy in the Workplace: How a Financial Institution Communicates Charitable Giving Values Jennifer Mize Smith & Beverly Davenport Sypher
As corporations increasingly support America’s philanthropic projects, employees are
more likely to receive employer-constructed messages touting the importance of giving
and volunteering. This case study employs qualitative methods, including interviews,
focus groups, and archival data, to examine how one financial institution communicated
its philanthropic values to employees. Findings reveal that the employer communicated
giving values through repetition and consistency of philanthropic discourse and actions.
As a result, employees viewed charitableness as an integral part of the organization’s
overall value system and used charitable values to make sense of other company practices,
even those outside the conventional notions of corporate philanthropy.
The 2010 Haitian earthquake touched the hearts of people around the world, and
Americans were quick to respond by giving time, money, and other resources to
help alleviate and repair the devastation. However, the American people are gener-
ous even without national disasters, as evidenced by the $307 billion given in 2008
(Giving USA, 2009). The ordinary, day-to-day individual giving helps sustain the
work of 1.4 million nonprofit organizations across the country (Meehan, Kilmer,
& O’Flanagan, 2004).
Individual donors consistently provide the lion’s share of charitable dollars, giving
approximately 75% of the total each year (Giving USA, 2009), yet society has come to
Jennifer Mize Smith, Purdue University; Jennifer Mize Smith is now at Western Kentucky University. Beverly
Davenport Sypher, Purdue University. This research is based on the first author’s doctoral dissertation. A pre-
vious version of this manuscript was presented at the 2008 National Communication Association Convention in
San Diego, CA. Correspondence to: Jennifer Mize Smith, Department of Communication, 165 Fine Arts Center,
Western Kentucky University, 1906 College Heights Blvd., Bowling Green, KY 42101. E-mail: jennifer.mize.
Southern Communication Journal
Vol. 75, No. 4, September–October 2010, pp. 370–391
ISSN 1041-794x (print)/1930-3203 (online)
# 2010 Southern States Communication Association. DOI: 10.1080/1041794x.2010.504449
expect corporate America to give as well. A 2004 national telephone survey found
that 89% of Americans believed charities and corporations should work together (Cone, 2004). Corporations are responding and gave $14.5 billion in 2008 (Giving
USA, 2009). Consequently, charitable giving is increasingly entering the workplace,
and a growing number of employees are encouraged, asked, and sometimes even
expected to participate in the charitable programs of their employers.
As part of a larger project that explores how employees experience, interpret, and
are influenced by charitable giving at work, this study focuses on the ways in which
companies espouse philanthropic values in the workplace. This research offers insight
into how philanthropic-minded employers are communicating their charitable giving
philosophies and how those values get integrated into the everyday micropractices
of work.
Literature Review
Extant research illuminates contemporary trends in corporate giving and provides
evidence of a relationship between corporate giving and leader values.
Contemporary Corporate Philanthropy
Corporate philanthropy or corporate charitable giving is the act of supporting
nonprofit organizations (NPOs) and charitable causes with company resources
(Choi & Wang, 2007). Acts of giving are socially desirable and go beyond any econ-
omic, legal, or ethical responsibility of the company (Carroll, 1998). Perhaps the most
traditional avenue of corporate philanthropy is a company’s direct contribution
to a charitable cause (Kotler & Lee, 2005). Contributions may be cash or in-kind
donations of products, services, and equipment, and they often play a critical role
in the operating budgets and special projects of nonprofits (Kotler & Lee).
Although direct contributions remain important to NPOs, today’s companies are
finding more creative ways to lend their support to community initiatives. For
example, companies may use corporate resources to address large-scale social issues,
such as those related to health and the environment (Kotler, Roberto, & Lee, 2002).
Others conduct promotional campaigns to garner support for a particular cause
(Kotler & Lee, 2004), such as PetSmart using its retail and Web site space to raise
money for animal shelters (Kotler & Lee, 2005).
Corporations may also engage in cause-related marketing (CRM) where a percent-
age of sales revenues from a particular product or service is donated to a charitable
organization that has been ‘‘adopted’’ by the company (Kotler & Lee, 2005).
American Express is credited with beginning the CRM trend with its 1983 campaign
donating a percentage of card purchases to the Statue of Liberty=Ellis Island Restoration Fund (Steckel, Simons, Simons, & Tanen, 1999). Since then, numerous
companies have implemented cause-related marketing programs, resulting in an
estimated $1 billion in corporate spending in 2004 (Association of Fundraising
Professionals, 2004).
Philanthropy in the Workplace 371
In addition to financial resources, corporate support may also take the form of
volunteering. In a 2004 survey of 71 U.S. companies including 30 on Fortune’s
Top 100 list, 81% reported having a domestic volunteer program (Committee
Encouraging, 2005). Typical programs include recruiting employees to visit
classrooms and hospitals, collect food, participate in walk-a-thons, mentor youth,
and build houses. Some companies, such as Timberland, even offer paid time off
for community service work (Kotler & Lee, 2005).
In some cases, the proliferation of corporate giving practices has necessitated new
organizational positions with titles such as Contributions Program Manager and
Bank of America’s Senior Vice President of Philanthropy (Association of Corporate
Contributions, n.d.). Likewise, new philanthropy-related professional organizations,
such as the Association of Corporate Contributions Professionals (AACP), have been
formed to assist with these emerging employee roles (Association of Corporate
Contributions, n.d.).
The amount of time and resources given to philanthropic issues and the creation
of new positions and professional associations demonstrate corporations’ commit-
ment to support the nonprofit sector. By placing charitable giving alongside other
business functions, corporations are espousing philanthropic values and legitimizing
their importance.
Organizational and Leader Values
Shared values are essential to an organization’s culture (Deal & Kennedy, 1982, 1999;
Keyton, 2005). Organizational values, and thus organizational culture, are shaped in
large part by organizational leaders. ‘‘Cultural leadership begins when managers
search their hearts and souls for the values and beliefs that they are willing to stand
behind,’’ explain Deal and Kennedy (1999, p. 191). By espousing a specific vision and
modeling role behaviors, a leader influences the development of a particular organiza-
tional culture (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Consequently, values become assumptions about
what is important, what gets communicated, and how to behave.
Many scholars have explored the effects of a leader’s values on decision making. As
early as 1965, Guth and Tagiuri concluded that ‘‘personal values are important determi-
nants in the choice of corporate strategy’’ (p. 123). Although decision makers bring their
cognitive ‘‘givens’’ of knowledge, alternatives, and consequences (March & Simon, 1958),
they also bring their personal values (Hambrick & Mason, 1984) and will draw upon
those values as criteria for choosing organizational initiatives (Guth & Tagiuri, 1965).
Standards and values will determine how a leader manages meaning (Fairhurst &
Sarr, 1996) and how members will make sense of organizational activities, as well as
their own decisions and behaviors. In essence, leaders are ‘‘sense-givers’’ (Thayer,
1988). As DePree (1998) explained, ‘‘Leaders need to be concerned with the insti-
tutional value system which, after all, leads to the principles and standards that guide
the practices of the people in the institution’’ (p. 131). In other words, in espousing
personal values, leaders not only shape organizational values but also develop the
moral principles of their followers (Howell & Avolio, 1992).
372 The Southern Communication Journal
Because corporate philanthropic contributions are largely at the discretion of
organizational leaders (Choi & Wang, 2007), a leader’s personal values are often
reflected in the company’s philosophy of philanthropy. Top managers with benevol-
ent values are ‘‘more likely to spread their intrinsic concern for others into the wider
society in the form of corporate philanthropy’’ (Choi & Wang, p. 347). For example,
Lerner and Fryxell (1994) found that the other-regarding values of CEOs of Fortune
500 companies were associated with corporate giving. Similarly, Thompson, Smith,
and Hood (1993) found that the values of small business owners predicted company
contributions, and Buchholtz, Amason, and Rutherford (1999) concluded that
management values mediate corporate philanthropy in midsized organizations.
Because a leader’s values are embedded in the vision set forth for the organization
(Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996), those values have important implications for employees.
As corporations increasingly support America’s philanthropic projects, employees
are increasingly asked to manage and participate in their employers’ charitable giving
initiatives (Byrnes, 2005).
In short, contemporary philanthropy encompasses numerous types of giving, and
a company’s propensity to give is often influenced by organizational leaders and
their values. While extant research has documented the growing number of corporate
giving practices and the relationship between leader values and giving, scholars
have rarely examined corporate philanthropy from a communicative perspective or
privileged the individual experiences of employees charged with supporting corporate
giving efforts.
This research project seeks to extend both communication and philanthropy
literature by examining how an organization’s philanthropic values are communi-
cated by and to employees in the workplace. Therefore, this study posits the following
research question:
RQ1: How does a company engaged in charitable giving communicate its philan- thropic values?
Method
The theoretical underpinnings of this study and the research question of interest
suggested the appropriateness of an organizational case study to explore how a
philanthropic-minded organization communicates its charitable values in the
workplace. Therefore, a qualitative study was conducted to examine a financial
institution that has demonstrated and communicated philanthropic values.
Context and Participants
This investigation focused on a large financial institution located in the southeastern
United States, hereinafter referred to by the pseudonym Patron Bank. A financial
institution offers a rich site for examining the philanthropic discourse in the
workplace. Banks have been among the leading institutions to support charitable
Philanthropy in the Workplace 373
initiatives, largely because (a) they have direct contact with the public (Fry, Keim, &
Meiners, 1982) and may use philanthropic activities to attract and retain customers
(Kotler & Lee, 2005), (b) they rely upon the local economy and any contribution
to local prosperity may garner future earnings for the bank (Useem, 1987), and
(c) banks are bound by law to address the financial needs of low- and moderate-
income neighborhoods (The Federal Reserve Board, n.d.) and may use nonprofit
organizations to assist those populations.
Like other banks across the country, philanthropy was often a part of the work
experience at Patron Bank. The company financially supported nonprofit initiatives
in a variety of ways, including contributions to nationally known organizations such
as United Way, March of Dimes, and the American Cancer Society, as well as local
projects such as the Downtown Redevelopment Authority and the free health clinic.
Patron’s largesse was also demonstrated by its many volunteers, particularly in local
schools where employees were allowed to use work time to read to children and to
share their business experiences. Additionally, many employees were members of
the boards of directors of various NPOs through which they chaired fundraising
campaigns, recruited volunteers, and offered financial expertise.
Although Patron Bank’s corporate footprint spans the southeastern portion of
the United States, this study focused on a single institution and its employees in
a midsize southern community. Thus, participants included the 80 employees
working in the main office and the eight local branches. A total of 44 employees
(55% of the local workforce) participated in the study. The total sample consisted of 34 women and 10 men, a direct reflection of the overall employee population.
Employment tenure ranged from 5 weeks to 47 years, including 4 employees with
less than 1 year at the bank, 20 employees with 1–5 years, and 20 employees with 5
or more years. Tenure for all participants had a mean of 6.7 years and a median of
4.5 years.
Interview participants were selected using stratified random sampling or what
Patton (2002) calls criterion sampling. Three criteria were considered to have a
potential influence on how employees make sense of charitable giving at work—
gender, tenure, and position in the organization. First, considerable evidence
suggests that charitable giving varies by gender. When compared to men, women
give to a greater variety of charities (Andreoni, Brown, & Rischall, 2003), are more
likely to support social service organizations (Ostrower, 1995), and are less respon-
sive to changes in the cost of giving (Andreoni & Vesterlund, 2001), suggesting that
women and men may respond differently to the charitable requests of their
employers. Second, it seemed reasonable to speculate that employees’ recall of cor-
porate discourse and activities related to charitable giving could be influenced by
their time with the organization, with those who have been with the organization
longer and so exposed to more messages regarding philanthropy more likely to be
able to recall and comment on them. Third, corporate charitable giving decisions
have been found to be influenced primarily by organizational members at the
managerial or executive levels (e.g., Lerner & Fryxell, 1994; Thompson et al.,
1993). Because managers are generally expected to support corporate decisions
374 The Southern Communication Journal
and often have more control over their work schedules than do non-managers
(e.g., tellers), managers may be more encouraged, as well as have more time and
opportunity, to organize and participate in the bank’s philanthropic activities.
Using these criteria, interview participants were selected to represent the total
employee population in proportions of men and women; employment tenure
(those who have been with the organization less than a year, 1–5 years, and more
than 5 years); and managerial status (salaried and hourly employees).
After conducting individual interviews, employees were recruited to participate in
one of three focus groups. Focus groups can serve multiple purposes (Morgan, 1997),
and in this study, their purpose was three-fold: (a) to supplement the data gathered
during individual interviews, (b) to gather additional insight that might be cued
through the interaction of participants, and (c) to include a wider range of employee
views while making efficient use of researcher time.
The focus groups were organized to be relatively homogeneous concerning
employment tenure and managerial status, with one group having 1–5 years tenure,
a second group having more than 5 years tenure, and a third group consisting of
employees in upper management positions. Gender as a sampling criterion became
less practical due to the bank’s small population of male employees. Forethought
was given to employee relationships so, for example, we didn’t invite an employee
and his or her direct supervisor or a department superior to the same focus group.
Additionally, participant selections were kept to one employee per branch location
to avoid placing any hardship on operations and scheduling. Given these constraints
and employee availability, five employees who had participated in interviews were
also invited to the focus groups. Although the research design did not necessitate
their inclusion, their participation added unexpected richness to the conversation.
Ultimately, groups ranged from 5 to 7 participants and involved a total of 17 employ-
ees, 12 of whom had not been interviewed. All participants were given pseudonyms
to protect their identities.
Data Collection Procedures
After receiving Institutional Review Board approval, three data collection techniques—
examining written documents, conducting individual interviews, and convening
focus groups—were used to investigate the communication of philanthropic values
in the workplace.
Archival data
Remnants of the ‘‘material culture’’ are a good source of information that cannot be
observed (Patton, 2002) or that informants may not perceive as important or think to
reference. Archival data were gathered from a variety of organizational documents
including Community Reinvestment Act reports, 10 corporate news releases from
November 2005 through January 2006, 117 local electronic newsletters from 2005,
the employee handbook, the local bank’s 2005 holiday card, and the February 2006
Philanthropy in the Workplace 375
corporate newsletter. Other relevant archives were also examined, including the
corporate Web site, a local newspaper ad, three promotional pieces for charity
fundraisers, and a banking magazine that was displayed in the reception area.
These documents not only provided a good background regarding the organizational
context and corporate philosophy but also revealed organizational language and
pointed to what was valued in the local organizational culture.
Individual interviews
Following an initial review of archival data and an informational interview with the
local top executive, 32 individual interviews were conducted using a semi-structured
format. Open-ended questions focused on employees recalling the ways in which
they had experienced Patron’s communication of philanthropic values. 1
The
predetermined interview guide enabled us to inquire about the same basic areas
with each person, as well as to pursue other relevant topics as they emerged.
Participants were first selected at random (e.g., approximately every third name)
from an alphabetical employee list. Characteristics of the initial group were compared
to the study’s demographic goals, and adjustments were made by choosing names
at random until the sample reflected the total employee population. All interviews
took place in a private room at the participant’s work site and were conducted during
regular work hours, with the exception of two participants who opted for other times.
Interviews ranged from 30 minutes to 2 hours, with an average of 58 minutes and
a total of 31 hours. All interviews were tape recorded and transcribed verbatim,
generating 579 pages of single-spaced text.
Focus groups
Participants in the three focus groups were initially contacted by telephone.
Electronic mail messages were then sent to confirm the date, time, and place of
the meetings. All focus groups were conducted in the bank’s board room from
11:00 am to 1:00 pm on three different days, and participants were provided boxed
lunches. Each meeting began with an overview of the purpose of the study and
continued with questions focused on Patron Bank’s charitable giving philosophy
and related giving messages. 2 Focus groups were tape recorded and later transcribed
verbatim. The 6 hours of focus group discussion generated 102 pages of
single-spaced text.
Data Analysis
The data from all sources (i.e., documents, interviews, and focus groups) were
carefully read and analyzed for recurring themes related to the research question.
Open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) began with the identification of 133 varied
concepts. As concepts were operationally defined and modified, some were
combined, and others were deemed not applicable to the focus of this study. The
376 The Southern Communication Journal
remaining 17 concepts (e.g., generous support, supports multiple organizations)
were then clustered into six larger, more abstract categories based on commonalities
(e.g., organizational support). Properties or specific attributes were defined to give
each category more precision (Strauss & Corbin). Using a constant comparative
method of working back and forth between the data and the categories (Patton,
2002), categories were compared and contrasted, which revealed three larger themes
that were relevant to the research question. Following Owen’s (1984) prescription, a
theme was characterized by recurrence, repetition, and forcefulness. The data were
again analyzed for any negative cases that appeared to not support the themes that
had emerged. Finally, the relationships among the themes were interpreted, and
the data were revisited to find further evidence to support or refute the assertions
being forwarded.
Findings
In response to the research question of how a charitably-inclined organization
communicates philanthropic values, employees identified numerous strategies used
by Patron Bank to advocate workplace giving. During data analysis, these strategies
were coded as categories and then organized into three overarching themes: always
spoken about, led by example, and charity begins at home. All themes are in vivo codes
taken verbatim from the data and best represent the meanings and interpretations
articulated by most participants.
Always Spoken About
The always spoken about theme emerged as participants described how giving-related
messages were regularly found in organizational discourse, albeit some more direct
than others. During analysis, this theme was defined as communication that
either explicitly or implicitly suggested that charitable giving was a valued part of
organizational membership. Specifically, this theme captures the ways in which
Patron advocated charitable giving (a) in its mission statement, (b) in the employee
newsletter, and (c) by the frequency of charitable giving talk.
The mission statement
When describing how they knew of Patron’s philanthropic values, participants most
often referred to the corporate mission statement. Contrary to research suggesting
that mission statements are both poorly implemented and undercommunicated
(Kotter, 1995), almost half (42%) of the participants specifically pointed to the cor-
porate mission statement as a source of learning the organization’s philanthropic
values. For example, local Vice President Sam explained that philanthropy is ‘‘built
into our mission, to make our communities a better place. And you do that by
not only making good financial institution decisions, you know, making loans,
etc., but by donating time and dollars back to your community.’’
Philanthropy in the Workplace 377
We might expect managers to evidence a greater affinity toward the mission
statement than other employees because they are likely to have a more formal
responsibility to manage its meaning (Fairhurst, Jordan, & Neuwirth, 1997). In
this case, however, Patron employees at lower levels were no less familiar with the
organization’s espoused mission. For instance, Connie, a Relationship Banker located
in one of Patron’s branches, recalled how she learned that Patron Bank values giving:
‘‘It’s right there in the mission statement of the bank that part of our purpose, our
reason for being, is to help not only the individuals, our clients, but also to make our
communities better places to live.’’ Another lower level employee, Abigail, also
recounted her first experience with Patron’s view of philanthropy saying, ‘‘When
you start working, you go through orientation, and it’s drilled into you, our mission,
our values. You know, the whole thing about [Patron] is that we’re giving back to our
community and making a difference in our community.’’ Even Allison, a part-time
teller of less than 1 year said, ‘‘I believe that [charitable giving] is a big part of the
company because their mission is to make the community in which they work a
better place to live.’’
Interestingly, charitable giving is not explicitly stated in Patron Bank’s mission
statement. The closest the mission statement comes to mentioning philanthropy
are some general statements about making the world and the communities in
which the bank does business better places to live. Participants, however, routinely
interpreted giving as part of the organization’s philosophy, and some explained
how charitable giving may be read between the lines. ‘‘Charitable giving, they don’t
use those words, you know,’’ explained Jason, ‘‘they say ‘making the community a
better place to live,’ but I take that as charitable giving.’’ Similarly, Jill said charitable
giving ‘‘just kind of goes along with [Patron Bank’s] philosophy of doing the right
thing; they want us as employees to have integrity, and, you know, I think part of
that does go hand in hand with helping others who need help.’’
To these employees, the mission statement was more than simply empty rhetoric.
Rather, it was a meaningful reflection of organizational identity and company ideals.
The mission statement summarized the kind of company Patron aspired to be and
provided direction for the kind of activities it pursued and expected employees to
follow. In short, the mission statement appeared to be a central feature in employees’
understanding and articulation of the bank’s philanthropic values and expectations.
Employee newsletter
Following the mission statement, participants most often cited the bank’s local, inter-
nal e-newsletter as an important source of information about the company’s giving
expectations. The electronic publication originated from the local president and
was distributed approximately three times a week to all local employees. Tonya
described it this way:
Anything that [the president] feels like is important, such as a community event that he wants us to be involved in or volunteer time for or donating money, then he puts it out there in that publication. So we have a way of knowing what’s going on.
378 The Southern Communication Journal
Sam further explained how the president ‘‘will talk about events that we have been
involved in, what a good thing that it does, and how pleased he is to see that the
employees are participating.’’
A content analysis confirmed participants’ responses and revealed that of the 117
newsletters distributed in 2005, almost half (49%) included one or more messages
related to charitable giving. The frequency with which charitable giving messages
appeared was surpassed only by the regularly occurring ‘‘thought of the day,’’
birthday announcements, and recognition of employee or branch achievements.
Along with upcoming events and volunteer opportunities, the internal newsletter
also reported on the success of past charitable giving activities. For example, the first
issue of the New Year celebrated the previous holiday season projects and included a
personal thank you from the local president:
In addition to making the Christmas season a little brighter for some of the chil- dren . . ., we were able to help eight families (29 children) enjoy the Christmas sea- son this year. We provided new coats, shoes, clothes, and toys for these children . . . . Thanks to each of you for your contribution to this worthy cause.
Because employee newsletters are typically controlled by those in upper manage-
ment, Cheney (1983) argued that such periodicals are good sources of company poli-
cies, viewpoints, and attitudes. In this case, newsletter messages came directly from the
local leader who represented and spoke on behalf of the larger corporate organization.
The newsletter became the corporate voice and provided insight into organizational
values and guidelines regarding appropriate behavior for organizational members.
Employees can look to these publications for cues about what is important to the
organization and its leaders, as evidenced in a spring newsletter when the local presi-
dent took the opportunity to remind employees of the bank’s philanthropic stance:
I know that all of you are aware of [Patron’s] involvement in our community. We sponsor several large events (e.g., [the] Soap Box derby, [Patron Bank] Classic) and, also, we donate back to our community in other ways. Recently we made a donation to [the local] Junior High School for one of their projects in which they were able to raise $2300 for the Make-a-Wish Foundation. I just want you to be aware of [Patron’s] community involvement and to be proud of working for an organization that takes such great pride in being a contributor to many worthy causes for our community.
Not all newsletter messages communicated Patron Bank’s corporate giving beliefs
as explicitly as this one. Even so, according to participants, the internal newsletter was
a continual and personal reminder of the bank’s philanthropic values. With this level
of repetition and the use of collective personal pronouns, it would be difficult for
employees to be unaware of what the bank valued and the charitable projects in
which they were engaged.
Frequent communication
Aside from written communication such as mission statements and newsletters,
several participants interpreted the bank’s giving philosophy from the sheer
Philanthropy in the Workplace 379
frequency with which philanthropy-related messages occurred, both internally
to employees and externally as corporate rhetoric. Seven participants described
charitable talk as occurring weekly or biweekly, and 19 recalled it being monthly
or bimonthly. Managers may be expected to be more aware of the company’s phil-
anthropic efforts, but non-management employees equally recalled the recurrence
of charitable giving talk. For example, Amy, one of Patron Bank’s newest tellers,
said, ‘‘I’ve only been here a little over a month, and I’ve heard quite a bit about
[charitable giving], I’d say probably . . . five or six times in a month, and that’s pretty good.’’
Although there was some variation in participants’ reports of how often charitable
giving was talked about, the repetition was enough for 11 participants to describe it as
a constant topic in the workplace. ‘‘It just seems like it’s a constant thing,’’ said
Shelly. ‘‘I remember when I first started working here, it seemed like there was always
something going on, always . . . it was just like a presence,’’ she concluded. Jason agreed saying, ‘‘It seems like you can’t hardly turn around here without there being
something [charitable] that we are involved in locally.’’
These and other employees pointed to the repetition of philanthropy-related
messages as a way in which they came to understand that charitable values were
a part of the organizational culture. The notion of giving was talked about on a
regular basis, and that talk became integrated into employees’ daily work. To some,
the recurrence and consistency of charitable talk were as important as the charitable
talk itself when interpreting the bank’s strong belief in giving. For example, Barb, a
teller, put it this way: ‘‘I think it’s the consistency that it’s, you know, it’s always
there, and it’s something that is always spoken about.’’ Holly also underscored
the importance of maintaining a consistent message, claiming, ‘‘It needs to be
continuous, making it more or less of a tradition, a tradition that is habit-forming
and you know what to expect.’’ It is not likely that employees would have viewed
charitable giving with the same importance if it were merely mentioned a couple of
times a year.
Clearly, Patron’s frequent discourse related to personal and corporate giving had
led employees to make assumptions about the importance their employer placed on
philanthropy. While most spoke favorably of the recurring messages, six employees,
mostly tellers, described how philanthropic activities added to their daily tasks and
admitted to sometimes feeling overwhelmed. Tellers are often asked to solicit money
from clients. For example, at the time of interviews, they were simultaneously selling
paper hearts for cystic fibrosis and collecting donations for a bowl-a-thon to benefit
Big Brothers Big Sisters. Allison explained, ‘‘We’ve had three [fundraisers] going on
in the past little bit; it gets to be a little bit much to remember what to do.’’ Likewise,
Ellie explained:
It seems like we’re always doing something. I’ve heard people say that . . . . Often it gets to be like, ‘‘oh, we’re selling something else’’ or ‘‘we have to ask for something else.’’ People just sometimes feel like we have all this other stuff to do plus this . . . . It just at times can be a little bit overwhelming . . . . It gets to where you feel like you’re kind of harassing the clients.
380 The Southern Communication Journal
Although these employees thought charitable giving was a good thing to do,
they confessed that the frequency of Patron’s largesse was sometimes too much
and led some to feel ‘‘flooded’’ and ‘‘tapped out.’’ Each message announcing a
new philanthropic project required several employees working to implement it. So,
although the efforts may benefit a good cause, they also add time and stress to some
employees’ workload, particularly those on the front line. Consequently, the more
frequent the talk, the more overwhelmed some employees may feel.
In short, employees at most levels and with varying lengths of time with the
bank were clearly aware of the organization’s philanthropic values because it was
‘‘always spoken about.’’ Patron talked the talk of giving as philanthropy-related
topics figured prominently and consistently in employee-directed messages. The
mission statement, internal newsletter, and the frequency with which charitable
giving was discussed were significant ways in which Patron Bank communicated
its philanthropic values.
Led by Example
Patron Bank not only talked about giving but also walked the talk of charitableness.
The led by example theme clearly emerged in participants’ responses and reflects
their descriptions of how the bank’s philanthropic discourse was put into action.
More specifically, employees shared how philanthropic values were exemplified
by (a) the organization’s support of charitable projects and (b) the behavior of
its leaders.
Organizational support
All participants recalled more than one example of how the bank was actively
involved in the community and its charitable projects. Nearly half (48%) of total participating employees specifically noted that Patron Bank supported multiple
causes, from large, nationally known charities such as United Way to small, local
school projects.
A review of employee newsletters from 2005 confirmed participants’ recollections.
Local newsletters mentioned at least 24 different charity-related activities the bank
had supported either with a corporate contribution or with employee donations of
time or money. Quarterly corporate newsletters also touted Patron Bank’s numerous
philanthropic efforts; for example, the February 2006 issue featured donations made
across the region to the American Red Cross, public television, universities, and the
American Heart Association.
Other observed artifacts also illustrated the bank’s dedication to its local com-
munity. For example, paper hearts with donor names were taped to drive-thru
windows as tellers solicited clients for $1 donations to benefit the Cystic Fibrosis
Foundation. Invitations to a bank-sponsored charity auction were distributed at
branch counters, and lobby bulletin boards displayed information about other
Patron-sponsored fundraisers.
Philanthropy in the Workplace 381
As participants continued to provide evidence of the company’s philanthropic
program, it became apparent that they interpreted the organization’s charitable
behavior as enactments of its espoused values. Connie made this explicit connection:
Either you have a generous, giving, and caring nature or you don’t. And as a company, if you do, then you have the kind of value system that [this bank] has—care about the client, care about the employee, care about the community—so you give back.
Tonya also attributed Patron Bank’s giving to its corporate philosophy saying this:
The company as a whole wants to support the community. The company, not just your local market, but the company, the big conglomerate of corporate people, wants to be involved in [giving].
As a company, Patron Bank not only talked about giving and encouraged employ-
ees to give but also engaged in charitable behavior that was consistent with its
discourse. Along with communicating a corporate philosophy that emphasized
making the community a better place, Patron Bank exemplified the talk by support-
ing numerous charitable organizations that contributed to the aesthetic, cultural,
educational, medical, and economic development of the local area.
Leader behavior
A second way in which the company led by example to communicate its philanthropic
values was through the actions of organizational leaders. Nearly half (45%) of the total
participants discussed how local and corporate leaders set an example for charitable
giving. Several participants spoke specifically about Patron’s corporate Chairman and
CEO. ‘‘Our chairman mentions often that he gives to United Way and gives a lot to
United Way. So he’s a big supporter of that,’’ explained Jill, and ‘‘he just comes right
out and lets you know that it’s important to him.’’ Other participants, like Tonya,
echoed similar sentiments about the corporate management team saying, ‘‘I feel
comfortable that they probably donate as much time and effort as I do . . . they’re not expecting me to do something that they’re not willing to do themselves.’’
Similarly, explained Sam, ‘‘If it happens to be something, an event, that we’re asking
our employees to participate in, then it’s led by example that management is
participating in it.’’
Archival data again corroborated participants’ perceptions. Short bios of the
executive management team were listed on the corporate Web site. Several included
charity-related activities with which company leaders were involved. Such activities
included serving on the boards of educational institutions, philanthropic founda-
tions, and United Way chapters, as well as participating in Boy Scouts, Junior
Achievement, and various church organizations.
Likewise, participants also commented on the charitable example set by local
leaders, particularly David, the local president. For example, Julie described David
as doing ‘‘a lot in the community as far as being active in the civic groups’’ and par-
ticipating in ‘‘charitable giving.’’ Employees noticed David’s support of community
382 The Southern Communication Journal
projects and took comfort in supporting the causes with which he was involved.
According to Elizabeth, ‘‘If he’s doing it and he’s a reputable person in our com-
munity, then that makes you feel good about what you’re giving.’’
The local president said he felt it was important to set an example for others,
not only by making monetary contributions on behalf of Patron but also by
assuming leadership roles in various community organizations. For example, he
had recently served on the board of the Free Health Clinic, Junior Achievement,
the Capitol Arts Alliance, and other nonprofit organizations. ‘‘It’s something I
would do anyway,’’ David explained, ‘‘but I’m showing examples of [giving]’’ to
other employees.
The same kind of philanthropic mindedness was also exemplified by other local
leaders. According to Sandy, ‘‘a lot of the managers [give] and so that really sets an
example’’ for other employees. Tonya, who managed three Patron branches,
was one of those who emulated the president’s community support and tried to
pass her charitable interests along to subordinates. She explained, ‘‘[David] has
influenced me a lot. He sets an example. I don’t feel bad about asking my associ-
ates to get involved because I’m involved.’’ Top leaders and managers clearly
modeled the kind of behavior that was advocated in their talk. This congruence
between leader behavior and company values is important because employees
take behavioral cues from leaders as to what is appropriate and valued in an orga-
nization’s culture. In contrast, employees may become cynical or disenchanted
about company values if they are contradicted by their own leaders (Cha &
Edmondson, 2006).
In summary, participants identified important ways in which the bank demon-
strated a willingness to walk the talk of charitable giving. The bank’s support
of numerous charitable projects turned organizational talk into action, and the
same charitableness was mirrored in the behavior of corporate and local leaders
who exemplified the company’s espoused beliefs.
Charity Begins at Home
The first two themes showed the importance to employees of repetition and consist-
ency in the bank’s philanthropic message and the enactment of that message in the
charitable practices of the organization and its leaders. The third theme that emerged
focused on the relationship between espoused company values and other business
practices. The phrase ‘‘charity begins at home’’ was used by one focus group partici-
pant and captures participants’ talk about a sense of caring for others that was
embedded in company policies and procedures not explicitly linked to the bank’s
charitable giving efforts. Clearly, participants interpreted corporate philanthropy as
being much more than traditional giving.
A good example of a business practice deemed ‘‘charitable’’ by participants was the
bank’s recent stance on eminent domain. When asked about Patron’s charitable
giving, nearly half (45%) of the total participants, including those in all three focus
groups, mentioned the bank’s publicized decision to deny loans to investors who rely
Philanthropy in the Workplace 383
on local governments to seize land from reluctant sellers. National news media noted
that Patron Bank was the first major financial institution to adopt such a policy and
did so despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that the use of eminent domain to
seize private land for commercial development was constitutional.
Patron’s opposition to eminent domain is not a conventional form of charity,
but employees interpreted it as an act of charitable giving nonetheless. For example,
Tori said:
I know it’s not charitable giving, but [Patron] has said, ‘‘Your home is more impor- tant than us making money,’’ and I think that shows the Bank has a heart . . . . It may not seem like a charitable thing, but it is, if a company has the heart to know that taking someone’s home is wrong when they could be making money.
Connie made a similar association saying that it is Patron’s underlying concern for
others that ‘‘translates into our stand on eminent domain and our stand on charitable
giving and giving our time and money to other things in the community.’’
According to participants, Patron Bank’s philanthropic mindedness was not only
extended outward to the community, but, as Wendy put it, Patron ‘‘also shows
charity in other ways, like to their own employees.’’ Kim explained, ‘‘It’s nice to work
for an employer that looks beyond its own doors; that same attitude will cross over in
their human resource policies.’’ Several participants agreed, and 71% of focus group participants identified company policies that they associated with being charitable.
A popular example was the 40 personal days that employees received each year.
Wendy made this connection to charitable giving:
Both of my parents right now are critically ill, and at a moment’s notice, I might need to be off. I don’t have to worry about being reprimanded for something like that, and to me, that’s a good company to work for. I think that falls right along with charity.
Other focus group participants agreed. As they compared the amount of time off
to that offered by other companies, they all concluded that Patron’s policy is every bit
as charitable as more conventional ways of giving.
In addition to 40 personal days, employees also received 8 hours per year for their
children’s school activities. Libby spent 8 hours volunteering at her child’s school.
Elaine took the paid time off to attend her children’s awards programs, and Wendy
used them to attend her son’s college graduation.
One focus group explained how employee policies reflect charitable giving, saying:
Jana: Well, charity begins at home; charity begins at home. Holly: You have to take care of your own first. Jana: Yeah, you’ve got to take care of your people. Holly: Before you can branch out.
A second focus group had a similar discussion:
Tori: You can’t give to one person without giving to others. Wendy: Right, what kind of company would it be like if they just gave to others and
did not give to their own employees? That’s where we’re tying [charitable giving] in, so not only are they charitable to the community, but also to us.
384 The Southern Communication Journal
In short, to the participants in this case study, the same ethic of care and
compassion that underlies traditional corporate giving was (and should be)
evidenced by the policies and practices affecting customers and employees alike. In
other words, if an organization espouses philanthropic values, then those values
should be reflected not just in charitable giving programs but in the everyday ways
of doing business.
Discussion
Schervish (1998) argued that philanthropy often gets characterized as a commercial
activity measured in large part by monetary values of contributions and benefits. This
seems to be especially true of corporate philanthropy because much of the current
literature details how and how much companies give to charity (e.g., Kotler & Lee,
2004, 2005; Porter & Kramer, 2002). Such economic conceptions may relegate
corporate giving to being just one of many business functions. In contrast, the
participants in this study viewed corporate giving as part and parcel of their employ-
er’s overall value system. As such, philanthropic values and, more specifically, the
organizational discourse constructing those values, provided a lens through which
employees interpreted a variety of corporate messages and practices.
Choi and Wang (2007) defined values as ‘‘fundamental elements in people’s
belief systems’’ (p. 348). In this case, messages about charitable giving that were
‘‘always spoken about’’ constructed charitableness as a fundamental organizational
value, and that value became a basis for understanding other organizational rhetoric,
such as the corporate mission statement. Participants repeatedly cited the mission as
a source of knowing the importance placed on charitable giving in their workplace,
even though the mission statement mentions neither charitable giving nor
philanthropy.
The absence of an explicit reference to charitable giving in the corporate mission
suggests that employees may have ascribed charitableness to the mission statement in
an effort to frame or make sense of philanthropic talk and behaviors in the work-
place. Framing allows one to determine the meaning and significance of something
(Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996). Part of the mission’s charge is to improve the communities
in which Patron Bank operates. Equating that phrase to charitable giving enabled
employees to understand and embrace the bank’s philanthropic discourse and the
ways in which that discourse got played out in their everyday work. For example,
when employees were asked to solicit clients, to volunteer, or to make personal dona-
tions, the mission statement and the underlying value for philanthropy gave meaning
to, and perhaps to some extent legitimized, managerial requests. In short, because
charitable giving was constructed as a company value, the actions that grew out of
that discourse became an accepted part of organizational membership.
Patron employees also used the bank’s philanthropic values to make sense of
individual behaviors. Patron’s leaders regularly ‘‘led by example,’’ advocating and
exemplifying charitable giving on corporate, local, and individual levels. They did
not just talk about charitable giving; they enacted it and did so not only by
Philanthropy in the Workplace 385
committing the bank’s time and resources to numerous philanthropic causes but
by getting involved personally as volunteers, donors, and community leaders.
According to participants, the congruent words and deeds of leaders were instrumen-
tal in shaping employees’ interpretations and articulations of the bank’s corporate
giving philosophy. Participants seemed to describe the notion of integrity or the
‘‘consistency between an individual’s values and behavior’’ (Choi & Wang, 2007,
p. 348). Because philanthropic values were clearly instantiated in organizational dis-
course, participants attributed meaning and importance to leaders’ philanthropic
behaviors, and many adopted similar charitable talk and behaviors of their own. This
finding supports DePree’s (1998) argument that leaders are stewards of many things,
not just organizational assets, legacy, and effectiveness but, equally as important,
values.
Collins and Porras (1991) argued that a company’s guiding philosophy is instilled
by its leaders ‘‘not via rhetoric, but rather through their daily actions’’ (p. 34).
Although these participants certainly paid attention to how leaders behaved,
the constitutive relationship between discourse and action appeared to be most
important to their understanding Patron’s philanthropic philosophy. Without
the frequent and consistent discourse constructing the value of charitableness, those
same leader behaviors would have had little or different meaning to organizational
members.
Perhaps more interestingly, employees perceived corporate philanthropy as
evidence of a broader corporate philosophy and used the same philanthropic
discourse to interpret and evaluate all kinds of corporate practices, including those
outside the traditional realm of corporate philanthropy, such as human resource
policies and the bank’s opposition to eminent domain. In essence, employees were
‘‘using social values as beacons for business’’ (Cheney, Wilhelmsson, & Zorn, 2002,
p. 97) and expected those values to be enacted in all company actions.
Participants seemed to have invoked a second element of integrity, and that is, ‘‘the
adherence to the moral principle of fairness’’ (Choi & Wang, 2007, p. 348). Because
charitableness was constructed as a fundamental organizational value in Patron’s cul-
ture, employees assumed the same values would resonate in all corporate practices.
Patron’s espoused philanthropic mindedness was thus employed to understand
traditional corporate philanthropy activities but was equally used to make sense of
everyday business practices. Participants expected the bank to behave toward
employees and customers in ways that reflected the same spirit of charitableness
shown to the community. After all, ‘‘charity begins at home,’’ so if Patron advocated
and enacted giving to others, it was only fair that the bank, in the words of one par-
ticipant, ‘‘take care of its own.’’ This interpretation clearly extends the conventional
boundaries of corporate giving and what ‘‘counts’’ as corporate philanthropy.
In short, Patron’s corporate CEO, local president, and other managers constructed
a dominant philanthropic discourse that permeated the culture, informed employee
assumptions, and influenced the very jobs that employees performed. The value
of giving became infused into the work environment through repeated
philanthropy-related messages and the ways in which those messages, and employees’
386 The Southern Communication Journal
talk about those messages, gave particular meaning to other corporate rhetoric,
behaviors, and practices. Consequently, employees adopted charitable giving talk
and sustained the normative value of giving by supporting Patron’s charitable pro-
jects with their time and efforts, even when it meant altering their responsibilities
or adding to their workloads.
From a critical perspective, Patron’s philanthropic discourse and practices could
be viewed as a means of corporate control, no longer sovereign but ‘‘dispersed into
norms and standard practices . . . —what Foucault called ‘discipline’’’ (Deetz, 1992, p. 22). Patron Bank’s norms and practices included numerous philanthropic efforts
and functioned to discipline employees’ assumptions and behaviors. As a result, the
organization’s belief system, power relations, and the ways in which philanthropy was
enacted went relatively unquestioned.
Different interpretations about the bank’s mission and charitable giving
behaviors might have foregrounded the relationships of power that have created
and sustained a particular philanthropic discourse. For example, the mission
statement’s reference to improving communities was framed as charitable giving;
however, it could have been framed as the need to maximize profits so the bank
could provide more jobs and jobs that would be more stable. Alternate frames such
as this may have enabled employees to question the bank’s philanthropic support
or the degree to which corporate largesse should alter work roles and responsibil-
ities. Yet, little evidence of an alternate frame was found, perhaps in part because of
the social desirability of charitable giving. Philanthropy, rooted in Christian beliefs,
has long been a part of American culture (Bremner, 1988). The societal value of
giving may have made it difficult for employees to question or express dissent
toward the bank’s charitable practices.
In this case study, the combination of talk and action, at individual and corporate
levels, enabled philanthropic values to become embedded in the organization’s cul-
ture and subsequently, in the hearts and minds of its members. These findings suggest
important pragmatic implications for corporate donors—specifically that corporate
philanthropy programs may be better received and supported by employees if those
programs inform and are informed by the organization’s overall culture.
In other words, if corporate giving is not independent of other business practices,
as suggested by this case study, then philanthropic initiatives must be constructed
and implemented in ways that are compatible with other organizational values and
policies. ‘‘If values are to be maintained,’’ explain Ginsburg and Miller (1992),
‘‘they must become an ongoing part of organizational life’’ (p. 24). Therefore, a phil-
anthropic mindset should be evident in both the language and the micropractices
that characterize everyday work experiences, including policies and practices that
fall outside conventional notions of corporate philanthropy.
Both discourse and action are symbolic, and both constitute meaning as employ-
ees strive to make sense of the increasing presence of charitable giving values in the
workplace. A value-based discourse of giving and the meanings available through that
discourse will enable charitable giving to be encompassed in what it means to be an
organizational member, and employees will be more likely to embrace the giving
Philanthropy in the Workplace 387
expectations placed upon them. To the contrary, corporate philanthropy programs
may neither be taken seriously nor supported by employees if the values driving those
programs are contradicted by other organizational messages and behaviors.
Qualitative Research in Communication
By privileging the voices of organizational members, a qualitative case study offers a
glimpse into the locally situated experiences of organizational life (Chen & Pearce,
1995; Sypher, 1997). A well-constructed case study brings to light a particular world
that would otherwise take much time to experience and understand (Deetz, 1990).
The participants’ own accounts of local knowledge help us ‘‘make sense of their
sensemaking’’ (Sypher, p. 1) and ‘‘allow us to ‘experience the experience’ of
organizational life’’ (p. 3). Only the kinds of data collected through qualitative
research can provide the depth and richness necessary to understand the lived experi-
ences of others, that is, ‘‘how they construct what they construct, why, and with what
effects’’ (Weick, 1995, p. 4).
Although communication research is often judged by objectivity, reliability,
validity, and generalizability, case studies, and perhaps qualitative research more
broadly, should be evaluated in terms of coherence, richness, comprehensiveness,
probability, plausibility, and open-endedness (Chen & Pearce, 1995). The inherent
incompleteness that characterizes most qualitative inquiry reminds us that there
are multiple stories that can be told (Sypher, 1997); thus, communication research
must continue to explore the everyday, taken-for-granted processes of communicat-
ing and organizing that constitute, construct, and shape the way we live and work.
This case study, although only one interpretation, foregrounds employees’
perspectives and strives to offer an interpretive account of their understanding of cor-
porate philanthropy in their workplace. Patron Bank employees experienced and
interpreted corporate philanthropy values and discourse in particular ways—ways
that may not be universal or generalizable—but nonetheless, ways that influenced
how they made sense of their work and the people around them. Their experi-
ences—and the experiences of many others in a multitude of communication
contexts—can only be apprehended through qualitative research and are, for their
own sake, worthy of study by communication scholars. It is our hope that this
study will exemplify how qualitative inquiry and case study research, in particular,
can generate contextually situated knowledge about important and interesting life
experiences.
Limitations and Future Research
Although this study extends organizational communication research by providing a
much needed exploration of how employers are talking about charitable giving in
the workplace, it is not without limitations. First, this study was conducted in a
community in the southern United States where charitable projects are routinely sup-
ported by local businesses. Therefore, the avenues for and frequency of charitable talk
388 The Southern Communication Journal
at work may be greater than in other geographic areas. Second, this study relied
heavily on interviews and focus groups. Although these methods were supplemented
by archival data in an effort to offer multiple sources of evidence, several interpreta-
tions were based primarily on participants’ recall of messages and policies. Third, the
study was conducted with management approval, and interviews and focus groups
were held on bank premises. The biases of management and location may have
caused some employees to be reluctant to articulate dissenting frames for fear of
employer or coworker reprisals.
Finally, this study was conducted during a relatively stable economic climate. The
recent economic downturn is being blamed for a 2% decrease in total giving
from 2007 to 2008 and, more specifically, a 4.5% decline in corporate contributions (Giving USA, 2009). It appears that traditional corporate donations are decreasing
in response to shrinking profits, but little is known about the other, less tangible ways
in which corporations support charitable efforts. Future research should explore
the influence of economic conditions on companies’ philanthropic values and the
ways in which those values get communicated, or not, to organizational members.
Despite these limitations, one thing is certain: Corporate philanthropy programs are
largely dependent upon the support and participation of employees. Therefore, organiza-
tional communication scholars should continue to examine employee interpretations of
charitable giving in the workplace, how employees make sense of philanthropy-infused
messages, and ways in which employer and leader values may influence employees’
own philanthropic identity and constructions of charitable giving.
This study also raises questions concerning power relations and the privileging of
some values and interpretations over others. Researchers should cast a more critical
eye toward corporate philanthropy and the ways in which a philanthropic culture
may, presumably unintentionally, create negative effects for employees, particularly
those who have little power to resist managerial requests. These lines of research
would further extend current thinking about corporate philanthropy and the ways
it is shaping organizational cultures, as well as give voice to those who increasingly
experience charitable giving in the workplace.
Notes
[1] A complete interview guide is available upon request from the first author.
[2] A complete focus group guide is available upon request from the first author.
References
Andreoni, J., Brown, E., & Rischall, I. (2003). Charitable giving by married couples: Who decides
and why does it matter? Journal of Human Resources, 38, 111–133.
Andreoni, J., & Vesterlund, L. (2001). Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. The
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 293–312.
Association of Corporate Contributions Professionals. (n.d.). Annual conference on corporate contri-
butions. Retrieved March 17, 2006, from http://www.accprof.org
Philanthropy in the Workplace 389
Association of Fundraising Professionals. (2004, July 6). U.S. corporations embracing cause-related
marketing. Retrieved March 24, 2006, from http://www.afpnet.org/ka/print_content.cfm?
folder_id=2345&content_item_id=17188
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Introduction. In B. M. Bass & B. J. Avolio (Eds.), Improving
organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bremner, R. H. (1988). American philanthropy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Buchholtz, A. K., Amason, A. C., & Rutherford, M. A. (1999). Beyond resources: The mediating
effect of top management discretion and values on corporate philanthropy. Business and
Society, 38, 167–187.
Byrnes, N. (2005, November 28). Banking on communities. Business Week, p. 76.
Carroll, A. B. (1998). The four faces of corporate citizenship: Business and Society Review, 100=101, 1–7.
Cha, S. E., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). When values backfire: Leadership, attribution, and
disenchantment in a values-driven organization. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 57–78.
Chen, V., & Pearce, W. B. (1995). Even if a thing of beauty, can a case study be a joy forever? A social
constructionist approach to theory and research. In W. Leeds-Hurwitz (Ed.), Social
approaches to communication (pp. 135–155). New York: Guilford Press.
Cheney, G. (1983). The rhetoric of identification and the study of organizational communication.
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69, 143–158.
Cheney, G., Wilhelmsson, M., & Zorn, T. E. (2002). 10 strategies for engaged scholarship.
Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 92–100.
Choi, J., & Wang, H. (2007). The promise of a managerial values approach to corporate
philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 345–359.
Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1991). Organizational vision and visionary organizations. California
Management Review, 34, 30–52.
Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy. (2005, July 26). 2004 Corporate giving standard
survey. Retrieved March 24, 2006, from http://www.givingstandard.com/CGS2004top10.pdf
Cone, Inc. (2004, December 8). Multi-year study finds 21% increase in Americans who say corporate support of social issues is important in building trust. Retrieved March 17, 2006, from http://
www.coneinc.com/Pages/pr_30.html
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1999). The new corporate cultures: Revitalizing the workplace after
downsizing, mergers, and reengineering. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
Deetz, S. A. (1990). Foreward. In B. D. Sypher (Ed.), Case studies in organizational communication
(pp. viii–x). New York: Guilford Press.
Deetz, S. A. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication
and the politics of everyday life. Albany: State University of New York Press.
DePree, M. (1998). What is leadership? In G. R. Hickman (Ed.), Leading organizations: Perspectives
for a new era (pp. 130–132). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fairhurst, G. T., Jordan, J. M., & Neuwirth, K. (1997). Why are we here?: Managing the meaning of an
organizational mission statement. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 25, 243–263.
Fairhurst, G. T., & Sarr, R. A. (1996). The art of framing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
The Federal Reserve Board. (n.d.). Community Reinvestment Act. Retrieved on March 15, 2006,
from http://www.federalreserve.gov/dcca/cra
Fry, L., Keim, G. D., & Meiners, R. E. (1982). Corporate contributions: Altruistic or for-profit?
Academy of Management Journal, 25, 94–106.
Ginsburg, L., & Miller, N. (1992). Value-driven management. Business Horizons, 35(3), 23–27.
Giving USA Foundation. (2009, June 10). U.S. charitable giving estimated to be $307.65 billion
in 2008. Retrieved January 4, 2009, from http://www.givingusa.org/press_releases/gusa/
GivingReaches300billion.pdf
390 The Southern Communication Journal
Guth, W. D., & Tagiuri, R. (1965). Personal values and corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review,
43(5), 123–132.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top
managers. Academy of Management Review, 9, 193–206.
Howell, J., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership. Academy of Management
Executive, 6(2), 43–54.
Keyton, J. (2005). Communication and organizational culture: A key to understanding work
experiences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2004). Best of breed. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 1(4), 14–23.
Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company
and your cause. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kotler, P., Roberto, N., & Lee, N. (2002). Social marketing: Improving the quality of life. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review,
73(2), 59–67.
Lerner, L. D., & Fryxell, G. E. (1994). CEO stakeholder attitudes and corporate social activity in
the Fortune 500. Business and Society, 33, 58–81.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Meehan, W. F., III, Kilmer, D., & O’Flanagan, M. (2004). Investing in society. Stanford Social
Innovation Review, 1(4), 34–43.
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ostrower, F. (1995). Why the wealthy give: The culture of elite philanthropy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Owen, W. F. (1984). Relational themes in interpersonal communication. Quarterly Journal of
Speech, 70, 274–287.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy.
Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56–68.
Schervish, P. G. (1998). Philanthropy. In R. Wuthnow (Ed.), The encyclopedia of politics and religion
(Vol. 2, pp. 600–602). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
Steckel, R., Simons, R., Simons, J., & Tanen, N. (1999). Making money while making a difference:
How to profit with a nonprofit partner. Homewood, IL: High Tide Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sypher, B. D. (1997). Case studies in organizational communication 2: Perspectives on contemporary
American work life. New York: Guilford Press.
Thayer, L. (1988). Leadership=communication: A critical review and a modest proposal. In G. M. Goldhaber & G. A. Barnett (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 231–263).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Thompson, J. K., Smith, H. L., & Hood, J. N. (1993). Charitable contributions by small businesses.
Journal of Small Business Management, 31(3), 35–51.
Useem, M. (1987). Corporate philanthropy. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research
handbook (pp. 340–359). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Philanthropy in the Workplace 391
Copyright of Southern Communication Journal is the property of Southern States Communication Association
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
