Description
Sustainable development ties together concern for the carrying capacity of natural systems with the social challenges faced by humanity. As early as the 1970s, "sustainability" was employed to describe an economy "in equilibrium with basic ecological support systems.
Study on Stainable Development
Table of Contents
Executive Summary................................................................................................................................... 4 Methodology................................................................................................................................................. 5 Demography.................................................................................................................................................. 6 What matters most in corporate survival?................................................................................................... 9 Putting things into perspective................................................................................................................... 16 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................... 19 About the Author........................................................................................................................................ 20 Reference ................................................................................................................................................ 21
Executive Summary
Corporations are now faced with multitude of issues stemming from both endogenous and exogenous causal factors. Paradoxical to formulate a response in this quandary, is often the pathological demeanors of the few. This immensely detrimental behavioral construct is counterproductive, as it for the entity so do for our common goods. Adding to this predicament is the contemporary debate of balancing the need for economic progress and conservation of our common biosphere. What otherwise construed to be far apart systems are suddenly discovered ensnared and the concept is partly thrown upon corporations to integrate in their strategic formulation. Furtherance to this complex abstraction is the perspective of applied physics, "The Entropy Law". What once considered the matter of thermodynamics is now relevant to our own survival. Some scholars take this conception depicting the apocalyptic epitome should we continue our increase rate of consumption and plunder of earth's resources - an abstraction that goes against the very essence of economic progress.
Page 4 of 21
In contrast, others, with a bit of tone down, relying on human spirit and capability to deliver solutions calls upon our common consensus on a formulation known as "Sustainability" or "Sustainable Development". But the message is somewhat convoluted through a plethora of conflicting strategies, definitions, mandates and regulatory measures. The obfuscation has created deviation in the discourse of "sustainability" measures without addressing systemic discord with sustainability challenges at organizational and societal level, and societal and ecological level. My quest to this abstraction is to find a simple yet powerful solution that uncovers systemic conflicts with sustainability challenges prescribing an epitome of behavioral competence that benefit us all; at organizational level it gives the model for long term viability, at societal and ecological level it formulates institutional response to reduce entropy towards interconnected economic and biospheric system. This survey provides prelude to my research and depicts an interesting result. I believe the survey result furnished herein will immensely benefit corporations to be effective at organizational, financial, societal and environmental level.
Methodology
This web survey is ongoing and distributed electronically to different e-groups worldwide. It uses a sampling technique known as "convenience sampling" (Lund, 2010) and efforts are made to collect samples randomly. The survey questionnaires are crafted in four different sections: Demography, Work Environment, OCB (Organ, 1998, 1990, 1997; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Chowdhury, 2011; Organ, Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 2006) level and sustainability. The number of respondents thus far participated totaled 134.
Demography
Efforts are made to draw representations from many countries. No personal data is collected. Respondents are requested to participate in the survey anonymously. Among the respondents - 51% are from USA, UK-8%, Canada -8%, India-7%, Netherlands - 6%, Australia - 4%, Argentina -1%, Austria -1%, France - 1%, Grenanda -1%, Hong Kong - 1%, Isreal - 1%, Italy -1%, New Zealand - 1%, Switzerland -1% and United Arab Emirates - 1% while 1% of respondents did not identify their country. Respondents from few countries e.g. China and Japan that were expected to participate in this survey till date have not done so. I expect to have an improved number of respondents within few months.
Page 6 of 21
Interestingly, respondents from different industry segments and job functions have participated in the survey. Industry representations include 19% from telecom & technology, 19% - Consulting firms, 10% - University & Research Institutions, 19% - Computer Hardware & Software, 6% - energy sector, 3% - Building & Construction firms, 3% - Banking & Finance, 3% - Manufacturing, 3% - Healthcare & Hospitals, 1% - Utilities Sector, 1% - Services Sector, 1% - Non Profit, 1% - Civic Organization & Foundations, 1% - Food & Beverage, 7% - Other and 1% abstain from answering industry question.
Representations at "Job Responsibility" level are as follows: 32% - individual contributor, 26% - 1st& 2nd level Managers, 13% - Self Employed and/or Contractors, 11% - Director or Sr. Director Level, 6% - C level Executives including GM, Sr. VP CFO, CIO, CEO etc, 10% - others, 1% - Board Members and 1% abstain from identifying job responsibility.
Page 8 of 21
What matters most in corporate survival?
Organizations that failed and organizations that triumphed, their success and failure are corollary of their resilience to overcome endogenous and exogenous challenges. Among respondents, those participated in this survey, 55% believe internal or endogenous issues hinder progress or eventually become threat to corporate survival. On the contrary, 45% believe external or exogenous issues hinder corporate progress or become threat to corporate existence. Many scholarly works however emphasized that internal factors are essential to corporate survival than external factors. This hypothesis has been argued in many researches and ample of literatures support the contention. Essential to this argument is the concept of OB (Organizational Behavior) and phenomena of collective behavioral response. This implies a collective behavioral reflection that a corporation depicts. The imperatives of human elements in defining corporate personality cannot be underestimated. Corporation is for that matter a micro society and reflects collective behavioral phenomena of it's coalitional biological agents (SBE, 2004; Vecchio, 2006; Chowdhury, 2011).
Few months before, I conducted an "Opinion Poll" through linkedin.com (Chowdhury, 2011a) on the question, "What is the root cause of Corporate failure?" - Respondents have participated in this poll directly (sample size N = 85) and also commented through various e-groups discussions (sample size N = 340).
Page 10 of 21
Around 57% of the respondents in e-forum discussions and 48% respondents of the "Opinion Poll" indicated "Lack of Effective Leadership" as the single most important endogenous causal factor in corporate failure. Literatures sprinkled with evidence of such findings and my naturalistic observation also support the findings of "opinion poll". Leadership is one of the important elements among few key factors that collectively define organization's endogenous quality. However, "Leadership" may itself is affected by the corporations dormant norms and normative that are often overlooked. These norms and normative are effect of "Organizational Behavior (OB)" and rudimental sediments of the OB. Since organization is driven by coalitional biological agents that are acting collectively (SBE, 2004), careful consideration of "human elements" within an entity is essential.
This said is true when respondents are asked to identify single most important element that helped their organization become successful, 55.32% indicated People including employee and leaders are important while 37.23% identified Innovative Products & Services. Organizations e.g. Google (T+D, 2010; Doing & Choo, 2008; Mercuri & Pundrich, 2010) that have been phenomenally successful counted on their people to deliver innovative products & services, create customer loyalty &Trust and so forth. Emphasis for those organizations that have been inexplicably successful was the endogenous quality -a capability building strategy to develop behavioral competence. An important way to measure organization's endogenous quality is to examine some of the essential attributes such as "Trust".
Page 12 of 21
The survey indicates an interesting phenomenon when "Trust" is examined in conjunction with other important endogenous attributes. Respondents who answered "Yes" to the question" Do you trust your organization to do what is right?" also ranked their employers "high" (7 to 8 in a likert scale of 1 to 10; 1 being worst and 10 being excellent) "Proactive" and "Creative" competence. In contrast, those answer "No" to the question ranked their employer relatively low (3 to 3.5) in "Proactive" and "Creative" competence.
The same observation is also prevailing in other questions related "Profitability & Shareholder's Capital", "Market Leadership" and "Innovation".
The respondents who answered "Yes" to the question, "Do you Trust your Organization to do what is rights?" ranked their employer high (6.9 to 7.8 in a likert scale of 1 to 10; 1 being worst and 10 being excellent) in "Profitability & Shareholder's Capital", "Market Leadership" and "Innovation". Conversely, those who answered "No" ranked their employer relatively low (4 to 5) in "Profitability &Shareholder's Capital", "Market Leadership" and "Innovation".
Similarly, the survey also depicts employees who fear their job ranked their employer low in "Proactive" and "Creative" competence. Page 14 of 21
Conversely, those do not fear performing their job ranked employers high in "Proactive" and "Creative" competence. In contrast, respondents who say they love their job ranked their employer high in "Proactive" and "Creative" competence.
Similarly, those who say they love their jobs also ranked their corporation high in "Profitability", "Market Leadership" and "Innovation". These observations underscore that some of the corporations that have done well at financial, social and ecological level seems to foster certain attributes of endogenous qualities.
Putting things into perspective
The "bivariate" statistical correlation analysis of survey result finds variables (that depicts corporations endogenous quality) e.g. "Employees who loves their Job" having strong "Pearson" correlations with Innovation [.522, Sig (2-tailed) <.000], Profitability [.345, Sig (2-tailed) <.002], Market Leadership [.373, Sig (2-tailed) <.001], Corporate Citizenship [.398, Sig (2-tailed) <.000], Environmental
Page 16 of 21
Responsibility [.323, Sig (2-tailed) <.004] and Governance [.388, Sig (2-tailed) <.000].
Furtherance to this, above "bivariate" correlation chart depicts how each variable is correlated to others emphasizing on interdependencies. For examples, governance can easily be obtained if corporation's behavioral competence is fostered and so do innovation, profitability and environmental performance. This explains the benefits of developing behavioral competence as it relates to corporation's own survival and that of our common goods. However, the challenge is how to develop this behavioral competence of eliminating systemic conflict with sustainability challenges.
I find a better way to approach this is to begin with the implementation of a latent behavioral construct known as OCB (Organizational Citizenship Behavior). In this survey, I carefully crafted few questions to understand universal applicability of the OCB in corporation's sustainability response which I term OCBS (Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Sustainability) (Chowdhury, 2011a). Interestingly, my global survey results when statistically analyzed depicts stronger correlation (.580, P<.000 and .599, P<.000 respectively) between OCB and that of two moderators "Proactive" and "Creative" competence.
Both of the moderators are having stronger correlations with "Profitability", "Market Leadership", "Environmental Performance", "CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility)", "Innovation" and "Human Capital".
Page 18 of 21
Conclusion
Addressing systemic conflicts with sustainability challenges is essential to our continued existence but trying to achieve it through complex mandates, definitions and formulations will be futile. A simple yet powerful formulation is needed - it is in essence a capability building strategy; a behavioral competence that brings together human values and institutions.
The survey result shows OCBS as latent behavioral construct has universal applicability and possibly capable of developing behavioral competence corporations need. It allows corporations to formulate value ingrained response towards sustainability challenges at organizational, financial, societal and ecological level. However, survey result is based on a relatively small sample size and margin of error would be around 8.47% till date.
Page 20 of 21
Reference
Chowdhury, D., 2011. Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Sustainability (OCBS). Aberdeen Business School, The Robert Gordon University. Chowdhury, D., 2011a. what is the root cause of Corporate failure? - A linkedin Poll. Available online at http://www.linkedin.com/osview/canvas?_ch_page_id=1&_ch_panel_id=1&_ch_app_id=80&_applicati onId=1900&_ownerId=2665170&osUrlHash=fKaa&trk=hb_side_apps Diong, A. & Choo, D., 2008. Transformative Innovation for Growth. Industrial Management. Institute of Industrial Engineers. Lund, 2010. Convenience Sampling: an overview. Lund Research Ltd. Available online at http://dissertation.laerd.com/articles/convenience-sampling-an-overview.php Mercuri, S. & Pundrich, A.P, 2010. Can slow thinking reinforce the results of corporate social responsibility strategies? An Analysis of decision making process inside Google Inc.: France and Brazil. Unpublished working paper. Magellan Research Center, IAE, University Jean Moulin Lyon 3. Organ, W.D., 1988. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA. Organ, W.D., 1990. Fairness, productivity and organizational citizenship behavior: Tradeoffs in student and manager pay decisions. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, San Francisco. Organ, W.D., 1997. Towards an explication of 'morale": In search of the "m" factor . In C.I. Copper & S.E. Jacksons (Eds) creating tomorrow's organizations. John Wiley & Sons. Organ, W.D, Podsakoff, M.P. & MacKenzie, B.S., 2006. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, antecedents, and Consequences. Foundation for Organizational Science: SAGE Publications. Organ, W. D. & Ryan, K., 1995. A Meta-Analytic Review of Attitudinal and Dispositional Predictors of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Personnel Psychology Inc. SBE, 2004. Business, Science and Ethics. The Ruffin Series No. 4. Society for Business Ethics (SBE). T+D, 2010. Work Example: Google. American Society for Training & development. Vecchio, P.R., 2006. Organizational Behavior: Core Concepts, 6th Edition. Thomson South-Western.
doc_793227184.docx
Sustainable development ties together concern for the carrying capacity of natural systems with the social challenges faced by humanity. As early as the 1970s, "sustainability" was employed to describe an economy "in equilibrium with basic ecological support systems.
Study on Stainable Development
Table of Contents
Executive Summary................................................................................................................................... 4 Methodology................................................................................................................................................. 5 Demography.................................................................................................................................................. 6 What matters most in corporate survival?................................................................................................... 9 Putting things into perspective................................................................................................................... 16 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................... 19 About the Author........................................................................................................................................ 20 Reference ................................................................................................................................................ 21
Executive Summary
Corporations are now faced with multitude of issues stemming from both endogenous and exogenous causal factors. Paradoxical to formulate a response in this quandary, is often the pathological demeanors of the few. This immensely detrimental behavioral construct is counterproductive, as it for the entity so do for our common goods. Adding to this predicament is the contemporary debate of balancing the need for economic progress and conservation of our common biosphere. What otherwise construed to be far apart systems are suddenly discovered ensnared and the concept is partly thrown upon corporations to integrate in their strategic formulation. Furtherance to this complex abstraction is the perspective of applied physics, "The Entropy Law". What once considered the matter of thermodynamics is now relevant to our own survival. Some scholars take this conception depicting the apocalyptic epitome should we continue our increase rate of consumption and plunder of earth's resources - an abstraction that goes against the very essence of economic progress.
Page 4 of 21
In contrast, others, with a bit of tone down, relying on human spirit and capability to deliver solutions calls upon our common consensus on a formulation known as "Sustainability" or "Sustainable Development". But the message is somewhat convoluted through a plethora of conflicting strategies, definitions, mandates and regulatory measures. The obfuscation has created deviation in the discourse of "sustainability" measures without addressing systemic discord with sustainability challenges at organizational and societal level, and societal and ecological level. My quest to this abstraction is to find a simple yet powerful solution that uncovers systemic conflicts with sustainability challenges prescribing an epitome of behavioral competence that benefit us all; at organizational level it gives the model for long term viability, at societal and ecological level it formulates institutional response to reduce entropy towards interconnected economic and biospheric system. This survey provides prelude to my research and depicts an interesting result. I believe the survey result furnished herein will immensely benefit corporations to be effective at organizational, financial, societal and environmental level.
Methodology
This web survey is ongoing and distributed electronically to different e-groups worldwide. It uses a sampling technique known as "convenience sampling" (Lund, 2010) and efforts are made to collect samples randomly. The survey questionnaires are crafted in four different sections: Demography, Work Environment, OCB (Organ, 1998, 1990, 1997; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Chowdhury, 2011; Organ, Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 2006) level and sustainability. The number of respondents thus far participated totaled 134.
Demography
Efforts are made to draw representations from many countries. No personal data is collected. Respondents are requested to participate in the survey anonymously. Among the respondents - 51% are from USA, UK-8%, Canada -8%, India-7%, Netherlands - 6%, Australia - 4%, Argentina -1%, Austria -1%, France - 1%, Grenanda -1%, Hong Kong - 1%, Isreal - 1%, Italy -1%, New Zealand - 1%, Switzerland -1% and United Arab Emirates - 1% while 1% of respondents did not identify their country. Respondents from few countries e.g. China and Japan that were expected to participate in this survey till date have not done so. I expect to have an improved number of respondents within few months.
Page 6 of 21
Interestingly, respondents from different industry segments and job functions have participated in the survey. Industry representations include 19% from telecom & technology, 19% - Consulting firms, 10% - University & Research Institutions, 19% - Computer Hardware & Software, 6% - energy sector, 3% - Building & Construction firms, 3% - Banking & Finance, 3% - Manufacturing, 3% - Healthcare & Hospitals, 1% - Utilities Sector, 1% - Services Sector, 1% - Non Profit, 1% - Civic Organization & Foundations, 1% - Food & Beverage, 7% - Other and 1% abstain from answering industry question.
Representations at "Job Responsibility" level are as follows: 32% - individual contributor, 26% - 1st& 2nd level Managers, 13% - Self Employed and/or Contractors, 11% - Director or Sr. Director Level, 6% - C level Executives including GM, Sr. VP CFO, CIO, CEO etc, 10% - others, 1% - Board Members and 1% abstain from identifying job responsibility.
Page 8 of 21
What matters most in corporate survival?
Organizations that failed and organizations that triumphed, their success and failure are corollary of their resilience to overcome endogenous and exogenous challenges. Among respondents, those participated in this survey, 55% believe internal or endogenous issues hinder progress or eventually become threat to corporate survival. On the contrary, 45% believe external or exogenous issues hinder corporate progress or become threat to corporate existence. Many scholarly works however emphasized that internal factors are essential to corporate survival than external factors. This hypothesis has been argued in many researches and ample of literatures support the contention. Essential to this argument is the concept of OB (Organizational Behavior) and phenomena of collective behavioral response. This implies a collective behavioral reflection that a corporation depicts. The imperatives of human elements in defining corporate personality cannot be underestimated. Corporation is for that matter a micro society and reflects collective behavioral phenomena of it's coalitional biological agents (SBE, 2004; Vecchio, 2006; Chowdhury, 2011).
Few months before, I conducted an "Opinion Poll" through linkedin.com (Chowdhury, 2011a) on the question, "What is the root cause of Corporate failure?" - Respondents have participated in this poll directly (sample size N = 85) and also commented through various e-groups discussions (sample size N = 340).
Page 10 of 21
Around 57% of the respondents in e-forum discussions and 48% respondents of the "Opinion Poll" indicated "Lack of Effective Leadership" as the single most important endogenous causal factor in corporate failure. Literatures sprinkled with evidence of such findings and my naturalistic observation also support the findings of "opinion poll". Leadership is one of the important elements among few key factors that collectively define organization's endogenous quality. However, "Leadership" may itself is affected by the corporations dormant norms and normative that are often overlooked. These norms and normative are effect of "Organizational Behavior (OB)" and rudimental sediments of the OB. Since organization is driven by coalitional biological agents that are acting collectively (SBE, 2004), careful consideration of "human elements" within an entity is essential.
This said is true when respondents are asked to identify single most important element that helped their organization become successful, 55.32% indicated People including employee and leaders are important while 37.23% identified Innovative Products & Services. Organizations e.g. Google (T+D, 2010; Doing & Choo, 2008; Mercuri & Pundrich, 2010) that have been phenomenally successful counted on their people to deliver innovative products & services, create customer loyalty &Trust and so forth. Emphasis for those organizations that have been inexplicably successful was the endogenous quality -a capability building strategy to develop behavioral competence. An important way to measure organization's endogenous quality is to examine some of the essential attributes such as "Trust".
Page 12 of 21
The survey indicates an interesting phenomenon when "Trust" is examined in conjunction with other important endogenous attributes. Respondents who answered "Yes" to the question" Do you trust your organization to do what is right?" also ranked their employers "high" (7 to 8 in a likert scale of 1 to 10; 1 being worst and 10 being excellent) "Proactive" and "Creative" competence. In contrast, those answer "No" to the question ranked their employer relatively low (3 to 3.5) in "Proactive" and "Creative" competence.
The same observation is also prevailing in other questions related "Profitability & Shareholder's Capital", "Market Leadership" and "Innovation".
The respondents who answered "Yes" to the question, "Do you Trust your Organization to do what is rights?" ranked their employer high (6.9 to 7.8 in a likert scale of 1 to 10; 1 being worst and 10 being excellent) in "Profitability & Shareholder's Capital", "Market Leadership" and "Innovation". Conversely, those who answered "No" ranked their employer relatively low (4 to 5) in "Profitability &Shareholder's Capital", "Market Leadership" and "Innovation".
Similarly, the survey also depicts employees who fear their job ranked their employer low in "Proactive" and "Creative" competence. Page 14 of 21
Conversely, those do not fear performing their job ranked employers high in "Proactive" and "Creative" competence. In contrast, respondents who say they love their job ranked their employer high in "Proactive" and "Creative" competence.
Similarly, those who say they love their jobs also ranked their corporation high in "Profitability", "Market Leadership" and "Innovation". These observations underscore that some of the corporations that have done well at financial, social and ecological level seems to foster certain attributes of endogenous qualities.
Putting things into perspective
The "bivariate" statistical correlation analysis of survey result finds variables (that depicts corporations endogenous quality) e.g. "Employees who loves their Job" having strong "Pearson" correlations with Innovation [.522, Sig (2-tailed) <.000], Profitability [.345, Sig (2-tailed) <.002], Market Leadership [.373, Sig (2-tailed) <.001], Corporate Citizenship [.398, Sig (2-tailed) <.000], Environmental
Page 16 of 21
Responsibility [.323, Sig (2-tailed) <.004] and Governance [.388, Sig (2-tailed) <.000].
Furtherance to this, above "bivariate" correlation chart depicts how each variable is correlated to others emphasizing on interdependencies. For examples, governance can easily be obtained if corporation's behavioral competence is fostered and so do innovation, profitability and environmental performance. This explains the benefits of developing behavioral competence as it relates to corporation's own survival and that of our common goods. However, the challenge is how to develop this behavioral competence of eliminating systemic conflict with sustainability challenges.
I find a better way to approach this is to begin with the implementation of a latent behavioral construct known as OCB (Organizational Citizenship Behavior). In this survey, I carefully crafted few questions to understand universal applicability of the OCB in corporation's sustainability response which I term OCBS (Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Sustainability) (Chowdhury, 2011a). Interestingly, my global survey results when statistically analyzed depicts stronger correlation (.580, P<.000 and .599, P<.000 respectively) between OCB and that of two moderators "Proactive" and "Creative" competence.
Both of the moderators are having stronger correlations with "Profitability", "Market Leadership", "Environmental Performance", "CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility)", "Innovation" and "Human Capital".
Page 18 of 21
Conclusion
Addressing systemic conflicts with sustainability challenges is essential to our continued existence but trying to achieve it through complex mandates, definitions and formulations will be futile. A simple yet powerful formulation is needed - it is in essence a capability building strategy; a behavioral competence that brings together human values and institutions.
The survey result shows OCBS as latent behavioral construct has universal applicability and possibly capable of developing behavioral competence corporations need. It allows corporations to formulate value ingrained response towards sustainability challenges at organizational, financial, societal and ecological level. However, survey result is based on a relatively small sample size and margin of error would be around 8.47% till date.
Page 20 of 21
Reference
Chowdhury, D., 2011. Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Sustainability (OCBS). Aberdeen Business School, The Robert Gordon University. Chowdhury, D., 2011a. what is the root cause of Corporate failure? - A linkedin Poll. Available online at http://www.linkedin.com/osview/canvas?_ch_page_id=1&_ch_panel_id=1&_ch_app_id=80&_applicati onId=1900&_ownerId=2665170&osUrlHash=fKaa&trk=hb_side_apps Diong, A. & Choo, D., 2008. Transformative Innovation for Growth. Industrial Management. Institute of Industrial Engineers. Lund, 2010. Convenience Sampling: an overview. Lund Research Ltd. Available online at http://dissertation.laerd.com/articles/convenience-sampling-an-overview.php Mercuri, S. & Pundrich, A.P, 2010. Can slow thinking reinforce the results of corporate social responsibility strategies? An Analysis of decision making process inside Google Inc.: France and Brazil. Unpublished working paper. Magellan Research Center, IAE, University Jean Moulin Lyon 3. Organ, W.D., 1988. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA. Organ, W.D., 1990. Fairness, productivity and organizational citizenship behavior: Tradeoffs in student and manager pay decisions. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, San Francisco. Organ, W.D., 1997. Towards an explication of 'morale": In search of the "m" factor . In C.I. Copper & S.E. Jacksons (Eds) creating tomorrow's organizations. John Wiley & Sons. Organ, W.D, Podsakoff, M.P. & MacKenzie, B.S., 2006. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, antecedents, and Consequences. Foundation for Organizational Science: SAGE Publications. Organ, W. D. & Ryan, K., 1995. A Meta-Analytic Review of Attitudinal and Dispositional Predictors of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Personnel Psychology Inc. SBE, 2004. Business, Science and Ethics. The Ruffin Series No. 4. Society for Business Ethics (SBE). T+D, 2010. Work Example: Google. American Society for Training & development. Vecchio, P.R., 2006. Organizational Behavior: Core Concepts, 6th Edition. Thomson South-Western.
doc_793227184.docx