The proposed paper is an extension of a term paper written towards incorporation in my final Master’s thesis. In the Creating a Research Space Model or CARS model (Swales, 1990) the project can currently be placed in the “Establishing a Niche” stage. The gist of this project lies in analyzing and developing framework for “transparent communication” between social enterprises and their partner organization to maximize impact of their project’s “civic calling”. The project will be a qualitative ethnographical enquiry for a short six-month project with a social enterprise to study all aspects of interaction with its partner organization. The aim of the project is to delve into the aspect of communication that social enterprise leaders emulate …show more content…
He further elaborates on the basic tenet of SET as laying emphasis on evolving of relationships over time into trusting, loyal, and mutual commitments. In order to do this without any conflicts, parties must abide by certain “rules” of exchange. Rules of exchange form a “normative definition of the situation that forms among or is adopted by the participants in an exchange relation” (Emerson, 1976: 351). In this way, SET states that rules and norms of exchange are “the guidelines” of exchange processes. SET continues to be a theory which has over the years been explored and referred by social psychologists, economists and anthropologists to study interdependency between individuals or organizations. Interdependency requires all parties to put equal efforts into the working of a process and hence is inclined to set well in inter-organizational relationships. This model was applied by Swedish researchers to study Wikham & Hall in 2012 to understand if SET implied positively in positive employee response towards the organization and understood the relationship to be partially true. In the proposed study, the idea is to study this theory both in developed country and a developing country perspective where the diversity of individual socio-economic needs will be more diversely studied and hence the discipline’s role of SET in an organizational set
In this paper, I am going to use concepts from the social exchange theory and relational dialectics theory to describe my relationship with my boyfriend. First, I will discuss the cost and rewards of the relationship. Second, I will then discuss the dialectics of autonomy and connection followed by, openness and protection.
The need for achievement regards an individual’s relationship with setting challenging goals, creating competitive scenarios, and overcoming difficulties. Setting goals and creating healthy competition between employees can bring the performance level back to normal, and even better yet surpass the usual level. The need for power regards an individual’s need to positively influence coworkers and improve their wellbeing by making a difference in their life. Having an impact on the lives of others has the potential to influence employee turnover rates and attendance. If an individual feels that they have power over another employee they will be more inclined to show up to work everyday and to stay at their current job for longer than they may have originally anticipated. The need for affiliation concerns the relationships that an individual needs to maintain positive, close, or intimate feelings with others. Positive, close relationships in the workplace make individuals feel as if they are truly a part of the organization and increase satisfaction levels amongst workers. These close relationships will help employees to fell that their work is appreciated within the organization and that there certainly are people who care how they perform at their jobs. Together, achievement, power, and affiliation all play an influential part in motivating individuals in the
Watson, J.C., & Gellar, S.M. (2005). The relation among the relationship conditions, working alliance, and outcome in both process-experiential and...
The theory I originally chose to critique was the Social Exchange and Rational Choice framework from our class book. I chose this theory because when we talked about it in class it made a lot of sense to me. Its propositions and foundations are very applicable to many situations, and I felt like I had a good grasp of its concepts and structure. However, in doing research for this paper, I discovered that contrary to what our book led me to believe, Social Exchange is a theory entirely separate from Rational Choice theory. So, in keeping with this discovery and despite my better judgment, I will do my best to relay and critique the information I find on either one or both theories and then compare only Social Exchange theory to the Symbolic Interaction framework. Although I will try to get the same information for both theories, there are not many resources which describe Social Exchange theory, and there are far more for Rational Choice theory, so the critique and discussion may be a little lopsided.
So before we go in greater detail on the different perspectives related to social responsibility, one might question the meaning of social responsibility. It is generally agreed that social responsibility is defined as the business obligation to make decisions that benefit societ...
The data was primarily collected through participant-observation and the analysis of the data is done with an analytical device Burke’s pentad (1969). The pentad is a useful analytic device in that it permits a highly condensed summary of the rhetorical force of a narrative (O’ Connor, 1995) according to the key dimensions of act (what the organization is doing, in this case, telling stories), agent (those building legitimacy), agency (how legitimacy is built, in this case, through intertextuality), scene (the background context in which legitimacy building take place), and purpose ( to build legitimacy but also to succeed with other personal or organizational objectives, such as to make money). The distinctions set forth in pentadic analysis
Social responsibility in business is very important because it goes hand in hand with creating shareholder wealth. A business should strive to increase their positive effects on society and decrease their negative. In the case study we were given we were asked to examine Company Q’s relationship with social responsibility. Company Q is a small local grocery store located in a metropolitan area. After careful review of Company Q it is very evident that their social responsibility is poor and needs improvement. Recently they closed a few stores in higher crime areas blaming the closures on the stores consistently losing money. Company Q has finally begun to offer
Jennifer Unger & C. Anderson Johnson, “Explaining Exercise Behavior and Satisfaction with Social Exchange Theory,” Perceptual and Motor Skills 81 (1995): 603-608.
Every day we see them. Every day we hear them. Every day we interact with them. Cars have taken over the world. It was 1807 when the first combustion engine was created and it was considered a complete failure. It only took 200 years for the vehicle to revolutionize the way we live. Many use the car as a daily commuter, or to run to the grocery store or to travel across the country. With over 1 billion cars worldwide they are a big influence. The car has allowed urban sprawl to be possible. The economy has been affected by the car. The car has a bad side, it hurts our environment. So where does the car lie? Do the benefits out way the negatives?
The relationship between employer and employees plays a pivotal role in the performance of the organization. Employers and employees have certain responsibilities towards each other which facilitate a fair and productive workplace. Positive work relationships create a cooperative climate with effort towards the same goals. Conflict, on the other hand, is likely to divert attention away from organizational performance.
I am going to deal with the effects of the human relation theory in some organizations.
Social sustainability is “identifying and managing business impact, both positive and negative, on people.” The quality of a company’s relationships and engagement will directly or indirectly “affect what happens to employees, workers in the value chain, customers and local communities” (Wynhoven). This definition focuses on the importance of sustainable relationships. It focuses on the social aspect, which can be good helping to determine what social sustainability looks like. The UN definition makes it clear that it is important to manage the corporation’s impact proactively so that employees, customers, and local communities all benefit from a corporation’s presence. BMW is an excellent example of a corporation that focuses on social sustainability. BMW promotes exchange between refugees, local youth, and BMW employees through a neighborhood project called “Lifetalk” which aims “to give young people a better idea of possible career paths” (BMW). These actions come from the company’s beliefs and goals. BMW states that “taking social and environmental responsibility for everything we do is an integral part of how we perceive ourselves as a company. We are convinced that the lasting economic success of any enterprise these days is based increasingly on acting responsibly and ensuring social acceptance” (BMW). BMW believes that sustainability is an
It is the same business approach that a corporation contributes to sustaining the development by delivering economic, social and environmental benefits to any enterprises. One should be corporately and socially responsible to achieve triple bottom line, which is environmental which is nurturing the environment, social that holds the norms and values of the community and charity which meets the needs of people. To give a bigger picture, the essay will suggest four examples of CSR activities along with its benefits of the industry. In recent years, a tremendous rise and progress of the concept of CSR have been witnessed by the humanity, pulling it up to the highest peak and being the soul of all aspects of business and production, be it private or public. It would not be possible to stand out in the middle of other competitors despite being an individual entity, without public relation. Therefore, it is a win-win situation where, in the one hand corporate makes an accomplishment from the community while on the other hand, it fosters the daily life of the humankind, which is a blessing to the
Their impact remains constrained, their service area stays confined to a local population, and their scope is determined by whatever resources they are able to attract. These ventures are inherently vulnerable, which may mean disruption or loss of service to the populations they serve. Millions of such organizations exist around the world – well intended, noble in purpose, and frequently exemplary in execution – but they should not be confused with social entrepreneurship (Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition states, 2007). The proliferation of agencies has led to considerable concern that these organizations may be duplicating each other’s efforts and competing unnecessarily for contributions and clients (Frumkin, 2002, p. 142). The difference between the two types of ventures – one social entrepreneurship and the other social service – isn’t in the initial entrepreneurial contexts or in many of the personal characteristics of the founders, but rather in the outcomes (Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition,
Social Exchange theory was created by George Homans in 1958. Since its publication as “Social Behavior as Exchange”, several other theorists like Peter Blau, Richard Emerson, John Thibaut, and Harold Kelley have contributed to the theory. Before diving into the biggest concepts of this theory, two main properties need to be discussed. This theory is all about social exchanges, which are essentially reactions and decisions in relationships. The two properties are self-interest and interdependence. They are the two fundamental interactions between two individuals who each have something of value to the other. When an individual is looking out for their own self-interest, they are looking out for their own economic and psychological needs which can result in things like greed and competition. However, self-interest is not seen as a negative thing; in fact, it can result in both parties achieving their own interests. Interdependence, on the other hand, is harder to study but it is the combination of the two using both their efforts to gain something. Interdependence has higher social implications. Homans, as the founder of the theory, had it say that the theory consists of a social exchange with rewards and costs between at least two people. Rewards are defined as objects that have a positive value and are sought out by individuals. Costs are defined as objects that have a negative value and are avoided by individuals. Rewards in regards to relationships are things like support, friendship, and acceptance, while costs are things like energy spent, time, and money. Essentially this theory states that every individual is trying to maximize their wins or their worth and end up with something that is more positive than negative. Worth equ...