The Logic of Gift: Inspiring behavior in organizations beyond the limits of duty and exchange

dc.contributor.affiliationFacultad de Administración y Dirección de Empresas
dc.contributor.affiliationDepartamento de Economía y Ciencias Sociales
dc.contributor.authorBaviera, Tomás
dc.contributor.authorEnglish, Williames_ES
dc.contributor.authorGuillén-Parra, Manueles_ES
dc.contributor.funderBentley Universityes_ES
dc.contributor.funderHarvard Universityes_ES
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-22T03:33:01Z
dc.date.available2020-10-22T03:33:01Z
dc.date.issued2016-04es_ES
dc.description.abstract[EN] Giving without the expectation of reward is difficult to understand in organizational contexts. In opposition to a logic based on self-interest or a sense of duty, a "logic of gift" has been proposed as a way to understand the phenomenon of free, unconditional giving. However, the rationale behind, and effects of, this logic have been under-explored. This paper responds by first clarifying the three logics of action¿the logic of exchange, the logic of duty, and the logic of gift¿and then explains how their balanced integration promises to enhance organizational life and outcomes. Having explicated the unique character and contributions of the logic of gift, the paper further suggests practical implications for management. Encouraging the logic of gift fosters more humane relationships within organizations and to enable individuals to be generous in ways that inspire trust and promote creativity.en_EN
dc.description.accrualMethodSes_ES
dc.description.bibliographicCitationBaviera, T.; English, W.; Guillén-Parra, M. (2016). The Logic of Gift: Inspiring behavior in organizations beyond the limits of duty and exchange. Business Ethics Quarterly. 26(2):159-180. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2016.26es_ES
dc.description.issue2es_ES
dc.description.referencesFlynn, F. J. (2003). HOW MUCH SHOULD I GIVE AND HOW OFTEN? THE EFFECTS OF GENEROSITY AND FREQUENCY OF FAVOR EXCHANGE ON SOCIAL STATUS AND PRODUCTIVITY. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 539-553. doi:10.2307/30040648es_ES
dc.description.referencesMaslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396. doi:10.1037/h0054346es_ES
dc.description.referencesGame, A., & Metcalfe, A. (1970). Presence of the Gift. Cultural Studies Review, 16(1). doi:10.5130/csr.v16i1.1441es_ES
dc.description.referencesHolmstrom, B., & Milgrom, P. (1991). Multitask Principal-Agent Analyses: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership, and Job Design. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 7(special), 24-52. doi:10.1093/jleo/7.special_issue.24es_ES
dc.description.referencesGrant, A., & Dutton, J. (2012). Beneficiary or Benefactor. Psychological Science, 23(9), 1033-1039. doi:10.1177/0956797612439424es_ES
dc.description.referencesOrgan, D. W. (1997). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: It’s Construct Clean-Up Time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1002_2es_ES
dc.description.referencesMelé, D. (2003). Journal of Business Ethics, 44(1), 77-88. doi:10.1023/a:1023298710412es_ES
dc.description.referencesFrankl, V. E. (1966). Self-Transcendence as a Human Phenomenon. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 6(2), 97-106. doi:10.1177/002216786600600201es_ES
dc.description.referencesInzer, L. D., & Crawford, C. B. (2005). A Review of Formal and Informal Mentoring. Journal of Leadership Education, 4(1), 31-50. doi:10.12806/v4/i1/tf2es_ES
dc.description.referencesMaes, H. (2004). Modesty, Asymmetry, and Hypocrisy. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 38(4), 485-497. doi:10.1007/s10790-005-3335-1es_ES
dc.description.referencesRousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View Of Trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404. doi:10.5465/amr.1998.926617es_ES
dc.description.referencesRagins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). MARGINAL MENTORING: THE EFFECTS OF TYPE OF MENTOR, QUALITY OF RELATIONSHIP, AND PROGRAM DESIGN ON WORK AND CAREER ATTITUDES. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1177-1194. doi:10.2307/1556344es_ES
dc.description.referencesFaldetta, G. (2011). The Logic of Gift and Gratuitousness in Business Relationships. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(S1), 67-77. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1188-zes_ES
dc.description.referencesBock L . 2015. Can Google’s rules transform your workplace? Knowledge@Wharton . http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/how-googles-rules-can-work-in-your-office/. Accessed 25 September 2015.es_ES
dc.description.referencesFrémeaux, S., & Michelson, G. (2011). ‘No Strings Attached’: Welcoming the Existential Gift in Business. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(1), 63-75. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0749-5es_ES
dc.description.referencesCaligiuri, P., Mencin, A., & Jiang, K. (2013). Win-Win-Win: The Influence of Company-Sponsored Volunteerism Programs on Employees, NGOs, and Business Units. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 825-860. doi:10.1111/peps.12019es_ES
dc.description.referencesMcClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. doi:10.1037/14359-000es_ES
dc.description.referencesWrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Jobs, Careers, and Callings: People’s Relations to Their Work. Journal of Research in Personality, 31(1), 21-33. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1997.2162es_ES
dc.description.referencesMyerson R. B . 2007. Perspectives on mechanism design in economic theory . http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/2007/myerson_lecture.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2014.es_ES
dc.description.referencesDeci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7es_ES
dc.description.referencesNorth, D. C. (2005). Understanding the Process of Economic Change. doi:10.1515/9781400829484es_ES
dc.description.referencesLee, L., & Higgins, C. (2001). Corporate Volunteering. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2001(4), 79-90. doi:10.9774/gleaf.4700.2001.wi.00008es_ES
dc.description.referencesAmes, D. R., Flynn, F. J., & Weber, E. U. (2004). It’s the Thought That Counts: On Perceiving How Helpers Decide to Lend a Hand. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(4), 461-474. doi:10.1177/0146167203261890es_ES
dc.description.referencesVan Ackere, A. (1993). The principal/agent paradigm: Its relevance to various functional fields. European Journal of Operational Research, 70(1), 83-103. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(93)90234-ees_ES
dc.description.referencesPirson, M. A., & Lawrence, P. R. (2009). Humanism in Business – Towards a Paradigm Shift? Journal of Business Ethics, 93(4), 553-565. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0239-1es_ES
dc.description.referencesMontes, L. (2003). Das Adam Smith Problem: Its Origins, the Stages of the Current Debate, and One Implication for Our Understanding of Sympathy. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 25(1), 63-90. doi:10.1080/1042771032000058325es_ES
dc.description.referencesGouldner, A. W. (1960). The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161. doi:10.2307/2092623es_ES
dc.description.referencesGodbout, J. T. (1998). The moral of the gift. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 27(4), 557-570. doi:10.1016/s1053-5357(98)80007-3es_ES
dc.description.referencesGrant, A. M. (2012). Giving Time, Time After Time: Work Design and Sustained Employee Participation in Corporate Volunteering. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 589-615. doi:10.5465/amr.2010.0280es_ES
dc.description.referencesPodsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122-141. doi:10.1037/a0013079es_ES
dc.description.referencesWright, R. F. (2000). Strategies for avoiding the micro management trap. Management Decision, 38(5), 362-364. doi:10.1108/00251740010340544es_ES
dc.description.referencesBorzaga, C., & Tortia, E. (2006). Worker Motivations, Job Satisfaction, and Loyalty in Public and Nonprofit Social Services. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(2), 225-248. doi:10.1177/0899764006287207es_ES
dc.description.referencesGhoshal, S. (2005). Bad Management Theories Are Destroying Good Management Practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75-91. doi:10.5465/amle.2005.16132558es_ES
dc.description.referencesSolomon, R. C. (1998). The Moral Psychology of Business: Care and Compassion in the Corporation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(3), 515-533. doi:10.2307/3857435es_ES
dc.description.referencesGuillén, M., Ferrero, I., & Hoffman, W. M. (2014). The Neglected Ethical and Spiritual Motivations in the Workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(4), 803-816. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1985-7es_ES
dc.description.referencesAdloff, F., & Mau, S. (2006). Giving Social Ties, Reciprocity in Modern Society. European Journal of Sociology, 47(1), 93-123. doi:10.1017/s000397560600004xes_ES
dc.description.referencesMarion, J.-L., & Kosky, J. L. (2002). Being Given. doi:10.1515/9780804785723es_ES
dc.description.referencesGrant, A. M., Dutton, J. E., & Rosso, B. D. (2008). Giving Commitment: Employee Support Programs and The Prosocial Sensemaking Process. Academy of Management Journal, 51(5), 898-918. doi:10.5465/amj.2008.34789652es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipWe would like to thank the Center for Business Ethics at Bentley University, which supported Tomas Baviera with a research fellowship from October 2012 to March 2013 during which he began working on this manuscript. Prof. Pamela Carpenter was extremely helpful in revising the early drafts of the text, and Prof. Jeffrey Moriarty provided invaluable comments on the final draft. Manuel Guillen is likewise thankful for the support of Bentley University's Center for Business Ethics, which has regularly hosted him as a visiting scholar, and for the support of the Real Colegio Complutense at Harvard University, where he worked on this manuscript as a research fellow in 2013 and 2014. Finally, we would like to thank our three anonymous reviewers whose feedback and insights dramatically improved the text.es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpfin180es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpinicio159es_ES
dc.description.volume26es_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1017/beq.2016.26es_ES
dc.identifier.issn1052-150Xes_ES
dc.identifier.urihttps://riunet.upv.es/handle/10251/152823
dc.languageIngléses_ES
dc.publisherCambridge University Presses_ES
dc.relation.ispartofBusiness Ethics Quarterlyes_ES
dc.relation.pasarelaS\357254es_ES
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2016.26es_ES
dc.relation.references10.2307/30040648es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1037/h0054346es_ES
dc.relation.references10.5130/csr.v16i1.1441es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1093/jleo/7.special_issue.24es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1177/0956797612439424es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1207/s15327043hup1002_2es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1023/A:1023298710412es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1177/002216786600600201es_ES
dc.relation.references10.12806/V4/I1/TF2es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1007/s10790-005-3335-1es_ES
dc.relation.references10.5465/AMR.1998.926617es_ES
dc.relation.references10.2307/1556344es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1007/s10551-011-1188-zes_ES
dc.relation.references10.1007/s10551-011-0749-5es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1111/peps.12019es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1037/14359-000es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1006/jrpe.1997.2162es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1515/9781400829484es_ES
dc.relation.references10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2001.wi.00008es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1177/0146167203261890es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/0377-2217(93)90234-Ees_ES
dc.relation.references10.1007/s10551-009-0239-1es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1080/1042771032000058325es_ES
dc.relation.references10.2307/2092623es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1016/S1053-5357(98)80007-3es_ES
dc.relation.references10.5465/amr.2010.0280es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1037/a0013079es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1108/00251740010340544es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1177/0899764006287207es_ES
dc.relation.references10.5465/AMLE.2005.16132558es_ES
dc.relation.references10.2307/3857435es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1007/s10551-013-1985-7es_ES
dc.relation.references10.1017/S000397560600004Xes_ES
dc.relation.references10.1515/9780804785723es_ES
dc.relation.references10.5465/AMJ.2008.34789652es_ES
dc.rightsReserva de todos los derechoses_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsAbiertoes_ES
dc.subjectLogic of giftes_ES
dc.subjectLogic of dutyes_ES
dc.subjectLogic of exchangees_ES
dc.subjectBenevolencees_ES
dc.subjectGratitudees_ES
dc.subjectUnconditionalityes_ES
dc.subject.classificationCOMERCIALIZACION E INVESTIGACION DE MERCADOSes_ES
dc.titleThe Logic of Gift: Inspiring behavior in organizations beyond the limits of duty and exchangees_ES
dc.typeArtículoes_ES
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiones_ES
dspace.entity.typePublication
person.identifier30136
person.identifier.orcid0000-0002-2331-6628
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationc6f84dae-4b9a-40f8-90bb-0e25a96f7bc0
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryc6f84dae-4b9a-40f8-90bb-0e25a96f7bc0
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication67c03db1-c7ed-41d2-8506-f61e5b5de340
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication1562846a-1e62-49bb-a253-92b3901edd08
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscovery67c03db1-c7ed-41d2-8506-f61e5b5de340
upv.uuidfccf7a5e-d191-4df5-97df-ee6c119ff1aees_ES

Archivos

Bloque original

Mostrando 1 - 2 de 2
Cargando...
Miniatura
Nombre:
Baviera;English;Guillén-Parra - The Logic of Gift: Inspiring behavior in organizations beyond the....pdf
Tamaño:
442.83 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descripción:
Versión del Autor.
Cargando...
Miniatura
Nombre:
2016 BEQ - The Logic of Gift.pdf
Tamaño:
180.13 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descripción:
Versión editorial