William C. Frederick
Bio: William C. Frederick is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Philosophy of logic & Business ethics. The author has an hindex of 5, co-authored 11 publications receiving 557 citations.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors apply the strategic logic of the Bartlett and Ghoshal typology to the realm of corporate social responsibility (CSR) to international organizational strategy and find that institutional pressures, rather than strategic analysis of social issues and stakeholders, are guiding decision-making with respect to CSR.
Abstract: What is the relationship of global and local (country-specific) corporate social responsibility (CSR) to international organizational strategy? Applying the strategic logic of the Bartlett and Ghoshal typology to the realm of CSR, multinational firms should respond to pressures for integration and responsiveness from salient stakeholders. However, an institutional logic would suggest that multinational firms will simply replicate the existing product-market organizational strategy (multidomestic, transnational, global) in their management of CSR. These alternative approaches are tested with a survey instrument sent to MNEs operating in Mexico. The results of this study are consistent with the proposition that institutional pressures, rather than strategic analysis of social issues and stakeholders, are guiding decision-making with respect to CSR. We develop implications for MNE management and research, as well as public policy.
TL;DR: In this paper, a so-called role model of responsible leadership is proposed, which gives a gestalt to a responsible leader and describes the different roles he or she takes in leading stakeholders and business in society.
Abstract: We understand responsible leadership as a social-relational and ethical phenomenon, which occurs in social processes of interaction. While the prevailing leadership literature has for the most part focussed on the relationship between leaders and followers in the organization and defined followers as subordinates, we show in this article that leadership takes place in interaction with a multitude of followers as stakeholders inside and outside the corporation. Using an ethical lens, we discuss leadership responsibilities in a stakeholder society, thereby following Bass and Steidelmeier’s suggestion to discuss “leadership in the context of contemporary stakeholder theory” (1999: 200). Moreover, from a relational and stakeholder perspective we approach the questions: What is responsible leadership? What makes a responsible leader? What qualities are needed? Finally, we propose a so-called “roles model” of responsible leadership, which gives a gestalt to a responsible leader and describes the different roles he or she takes in leading stakeholders and business in society.
TL;DR: This article argued that the preferred alternative is not to split the difference, but to move beyond the positivism vs. antipositivism debate and work from an alternative framework, which allows researchers to put this debate to the side and, in the process, develop research that is focused on serving human purposes.
Abstract: The central claim of this paper is that organization studies needs to be fundamentally reshaped. Such change is needed to provideroom for ethics and to increase the relevance of research. We argue that the new pragmatism provides critical resources forthis change. Pragmatism is a particularly helpful tool to use in that it highlights the moral dimensions of organizing (is thisuseful for our purposes?) while at the same time avoiding entrenched epistemological distinctions that marginalize ethicsand make research less useful. The paper begins by discussing the relative absence of ethics within the mainstream of organization studies, indicates why this relative absence is problematic, and proceeds to show how pragmatism offers a preferable approach. Epistemology-specifically the debate between positivists and anti-positivists-becomes a central issue because the framework of positivism is overtly hostile to ethics (and other nonquantitative approaches to studying organizations), rendering it a marginal subject. While anti-positivism holds promise for overcoming this hostility towards ethics, it retains some of the destructive elements of positivism that create new and equally troubling difficulties. The paper claims, in contrast to the proposals of others (e.g., Zald's 1993 position) that the preferred alternative is not to split the difference, but to move beyond the positivism vs. antipositivism debate and work from an alternative framework. Pragmatism allows researchers to put this debate to the side and, in the process, develop research that is focused on serving human purposes-i.e., both morally rich and useful to organizations and the communities in which they operate.
TL;DR: The authors reviewed research on Chinese Guanxi and social networking in the past twenty years and identified the major perspectives, theories, and methodologies used in guanxi research at micro and macro levels.
Abstract: In this article we review research on Chinese guanxi and social networking in the past twenty years and identify the major perspectives, theories, and methodologies used in guanxi research at micro and macro levels. We summarize the main findings of over 200 journal articles on guanxi research in terms of its conceptual definitions and measurements, its antecedents and consequences, and its dynamics and processes. Furthermore, we identify the gaps between different levels of guanxi research and discuss future directions to advance our understanding of the complex and intricate guanxi phenomenon.
TL;DR: This paper finds the logic LP of propositions and proofs and shows that Godel's provability calculus is nothing but the forgetful projection of LP, which achievesGodel's objective of defining intuitionistic propositional logic Int via classical proofs and provides a Brouwer-Heyting-Kolmogorov style provability semantics for Int which resisted formalization since the early 1930s.
Abstract: In 1933 G¨ odel introduced a calculus of provability (also known as modal logic S4 )a nd left open the question of its exact intended semantics. In this paper we give as olution to this problem. We find the logic LP of propositions and proofs and show that G¨ odel's provability calculus is nothing but the forgetful projection of LP .T his also achieves G¨ odel's objective of defining intuitionistic propositional logic Int via classical proofs and provides a Brouwer-Heyting-Kolmogorov styleprovability semantics forIntwhich resisted formalization since the early 1930s. LP may be regarded as a unified underlying structure for intuitionistic, modal logics, typed combinatory logic and ! -calculus.