Stakeholder Considerations and Action Orientation among Managers in the Military

Year 2015, Volume: 3 Issue: 1, 4 - 12, 07.01.2015

Ravi Chinta , Melvin Hagan Fiona Sussan

https://doi.org/10.17858/jmisci.91209

Cited By: 1

https://izlik.org/JA24PC44XT

Abstract

Regimented experience in the military is believed to train internal managers in the military to focus their attention on internal hierarchical orders with relatively lesser attention given to considerations of outside stakeholders. Data from 102 managers working in U.S. military were used to empirical test the impact of stakeholder considerations on action orientation.  Findings show military managers’ perceptions of stakeholders’ impact their intentions to act.  The study also found the perceived strength of the stakeholder attributes had a direct relationship to both intention to take action and timeliness of intended response.  The paper concludes with implications for future research

Keywords

Stakeholders; Military managers; Decision making; Action orientation; timeliness

References

• Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 507-525.
• Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449.
• Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S. & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 488-506.
• Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595-616.
• Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of management Review, 32(3), 946-967.
• Clapp-Smith, R., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Avey, J. B. (2009). Authentic Leadership and Positive Psychological Capital The Mediating Role of Trust at the Group Level of Analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(3), 227-240.
• Cludts, Stephan (1999) Organization theory and the ethics of participation. Journal of Business Ethics, 21(2-3), 157-171.
• Donaldson, T. & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65-91.
• Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman/Ballinger.
• Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge University Press.
• Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and Practice. Oxford University Press.
• George, D. & Mallery, P. (2001). SPSS for Windows. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Harrison, J. S. & Freeman, R. E. (1999). Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance: Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 479-485.
• Hummels, H. (1998). Organizing ethics: A stakeholder debate. Journal of Business Ethics 17 (13), 1403-1419.
• Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 404-437.
• Jones, T. M. & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 206-221.
• Kochan, T. A. & Rubinstein, S. (1997). Toward a stakeholder theory of the firm: The case of the Saturn partnership. MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper available at http://imvp.mit.edu/papers/98/161a.pdf.
• Litz, R. A. (1996). A resource-based-view of the socially responsible firm: Stakeholder interdependence, ethical awareness, and issue responsiveness as strategic assets. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(12), 1355-1363.
• Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management review, 30(1), 166-179.
• Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. B. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 1-13.
• Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
• Northouse, P. G. (2012). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.
• Resick, C. J., Hargis, M. B., Shao, P., & Dust, S. B. (2013). Ethical leadership, moral equity judgments, and discretionary workplace behavior. Human Relations, 0018726713481633.
• Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22, 887 – 910.
• Ruf, B. M., Muralidhar, K., Brown, R. M., Janney, J. A., & Paul, K. (2001). An empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance: A stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 32(2), 143-156.
• Simmons, J., Iles, P., & Yolles, M. (2002). Identifying Those on Board the Moving Train: Towards a Stakeholder-focused Methodology for Organizational Decision-Making. Paper presented at the 46th Meeting of the International Society for Systems Science (ISSS), Shanghai, China, August 2002. Available at: http://www.wujinet.com/isss/paper.asp.
• Trevino, L. K. & Weaver, G. R. (1999). Response: The stakeholder research tradition: Converging theorists – not convergent theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 222-227.
• Trochim, William M. K. (2004). Center for Social Research website. Available at http://www.socialresearchmethods.net.
• Ulmer, W. F. (1998). Military leadership into the 21st century: Another" bridge too far?" Parameters, 28, 4-25.
• Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228-1261.
• Van Wart, M. (2014). Contemporary Varieties of Ethical Leadership in Organizations. International Journal of Business Administration, 5(5), p27.
• Winn, M. I. (2001). Building Stakeholder Theory with a Decision Modeling Methodology. Business and Society, 40(2), June 2001, 133-166.
• Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic Leadership: Development and Validation of a Theory-Based Measure†. Journal of management, 34(1), 89-126.
• Wang, H., & Qian, C. (2011). Corporate philanthropy and corporate financial performance: The roles of stakeholder response and political access. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1159-1181.
• Wolfe, R. A. and Putler, D. S. (2002). How Tight are the Ties that Bind Stakeholder Groups? INFORMS, 13(1), January-February 2002, 64-80.
• Wong, L., Bliese, P., & McGurk, D. (2003). Military leadership: A context specific review. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 657-692.