Then I want to tell you that this lecture is not a moral sermon, it is really related to you. Why? Have you ever thought that the dominant factor of corporate social responsibility may be internal rather than external? In other words, the reason is rooted in the hearts of every employee. What's going on here? Be specific.
It should be pointed out that the social responsibility I am talking about here is a general concept, which includes both contributing to society and industry. We call this kind of altruistic behavior, which is not aimed at directly obtaining remuneration, civic behavior. For example, getting a quality control manual that has been released to the whole industry is a kind of civic behavior. Just for the convenience of everyone, I collectively call it taking social responsibility.
Why do enterprises, especially large enterprises, feed back society and industry? Or we can lower the standard a little, at least enterprises can't do bad things. If you do bad things, you will come to no good end. Why?
Traditionally, we believe that all kinds of regulatory measures at the national level are at work. Such as law, media publicity, tax system. However, organizational behavior has found that there are two phenomena that cannot be explained by these reasons.
First, if an enterprise does something that violates social morality, even if the salary level remains unchanged, the employee's intention to leave will become higher.
20 18 One of the biggest scandals in the business world is Facebook leak. According to the Wall Street Journal, Facebook conducts an internal survey of 29,000 employees every year. In 20 17, 84% of employees said they would not resign in the short term. But after the leak, the data dropped to 52%.
Meanwhile, at least seven Facebook executives announced their resignations on 20 18. Although some people finally retained the cooperative relationship with the company, and Zuckerberg also revealed on various occasions that personnel changes were planned, no one believed that these were not affected by the leak.
Second, the more social responsibilities enterprises undertake, the more organizational citizenship behaviors employees show. Let me explain. Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is a term that refers to employees' selfless help to other colleagues and service teams. In other words, the more an enterprise is like a qualified social citizen, the more employees are like a qualified organizational citizen.
What's going on here? We should know that organizing citizenship behavior is beneficial to enterprises, because this kind of mutual assistance promotes information sharing and teamwork, and enterprises do not have to pay extra wages.
These two phenomena show that the motivation for enterprises to assume social responsibility comes not only from external pressure, but also from the inside. If anyone doesn't follow this "hidden rule", then the building will collapse from the inside first. Is there any basis for this statement? Next, I will talk about it in detail. And many students asked me about the relationship between organizational behavior and behavioral economics, and I will give you an answer by the way.
We are of course familiar with the concept of reciprocity. If you ask someone for help, he will help you because he knows that you will repay him in the near future.
However, there are still some behaviors that will not be rewarded in the future, such as selfless dedication and sacrifice. These behaviors are called "strong reciprocity" behaviors. Economists are puzzled by the strong reciprocal behavior, because it does not conform to the traditional model of "rational man". It is certainly "irrational" to do things for others without asking for anything in return, so others will take advantage. But what is the logic behind it, everyone has been unclear.
In 2002, Professor ernst fel of the University of Zurich put forward a hypothesis: the essence of strong reciprocity is a kind of "altruistic punishment". What is altruistic punishment?
I must interject an introduction about ernst fel here. He is the chief economist and behaviorist of the National Economic Laboratory of the University of Zurich. You may know that richard taylor and Phil, winners of the 20 17 Nobel Prize in Economics, are in the same circle with him. 1994, sailor held a round table on behavior in Berkeley, and all the masters like Kahneman attended, including Phil, showing his position.
People like Phil and Sylar care about people's irrationality. Integrating human "irrational" factors into economics is behavioral economics; If we explain organizational phenomena, it is organizational behavior; If we explain financial phenomena, it is behavioral finance. Generally speaking, these disciplines are such a relationship.
All right, come back. Next, the logic is a bit complicated. Please follow me. What is the purpose of Phil's "altruistic punishment"? Maybe you found it, yes, to answer the question of evolution How is the strong reciprocal tendency selected and retained in reproduction? Will altruism not be eliminated in the competition?
Phil suggested that when we introduce the concept of group to look at this problem, it won't be strange. Different from other animals and plants, our natural selection is divided into intra-group selection and inter-group selection. Those who show strong reciprocal behavior are disadvantageous in group selection. For example, if you are a selfless person and I am a hitchhiker and take advantage of it, then my competitive advantage will be greater than yours.
But your behavior will benefit the whole group, such as the tribe, so the choice between groups is biased towards the same tribe as you. In other words, if a tribe wants to win a tribal war, it must evolve a hedging mechanism to protect you from people like me using you. This mechanism is "altruistic punishment".
To put it bluntly, evolution can't make everyone become you, but it can make everyone hate me and punish me unscrupulously, thus hedging your pressure and ensuring fairness.
But is there any evidence of all this? The best thing about Phil is that he not only put forward a conjecture, but also found the traces left by dragon evolution at the individual level with the most advanced brain science and technology.
This experiment is very complicated. I attached the name of the paper to the manuscript area. Simply put, when there is a person in the group who undermines fairness and justice, others will have the desire to punish him. When this desire is satisfied, individuals will enjoy great pleasure, and the activity of relevant brain regions is obviously higher than the average level. Actually, have you thought about it? Do you have a good feeling when you see the bad guys being punished? That's the truth.
This class is a bit brain-burning. Don't be distracted. Far from the end, Phil's statement opened the door. The next question is, what percentage of people are in favor of his punishment tendency?
There are three assumptions:
The current evidence supports hypothesis 3, because it is found that even if the initial frequency of a group's strong reciprocal behavior is zero, after a period of time, a few strong reciprocal people and most altruistic punishers will divide. I personally support hypothesis 3, because it is consistent with the phenomenon observed by organizational behavior.
Let's go back to the original topic. So it's not hard for you to understand why Facebook employees quit. Tribal wars have long since ceased to exist, and fairness and justice in groups have also evolved into social morality, which is guaranteed by laws and other means, but the remaining altruistic punishment mechanism in our bodies has not disappeared.
When an employee finds that the enterprise has destroyed social fairness and justice and made immoral things, he has the impulse to punish the enterprise for pleasure. What is the worst punishment? Of course I resigned and parted ways.
By the same token, when he finds out that you are taking social responsibility and being a strong reciprocal person with selfless dedication, the altruistic punishment mechanism will play a role in turn, so that he can learn from you and make more contributions to organizing civic behavior, helping others and serving the team. At this time, the labor cost paid by the enterprise remains unchanged, and the profit is invisibly improved.
How effective can this be? I will give you some data. The University of Michigan has conducted a wide-ranging survey, which is of course aimed at large enterprises such as IBM and Microsoft. The survey found that 75% of new employees will list corporate social responsibility as one of the primary criteria for choosing employers.
CEB, a famous business research company, found that in their research data, enterprises can reduce the job-hopping rate of employees by 87% and improve team effectiveness by 20% by increasing their investment in social welfare undertakings.
Coca-Cola, which we are particularly familiar with, has cooperated with China to establish a disaster relief system since 20 13. Many people think it is to increase exposure. This is a good understanding. But I read a report that between 20 13 and 20 15, more than 4,000 employees participated in various social assistance activities. These employees spontaneously cooperate with others and relay all kinds of work. During the Ya 'an earthquake, many employees spontaneously rushed back to work during their vacation. Do you think this momentum has brought benefits to enterprises in disguise?
Today's lecture, I think there are three inspirations:
First, the altruistic punishment mechanism itself is an "irrational" behavior. In other words, if an enterprise is lucky enough to think that money can settle everything, then you are not using human nature, but fighting against it.
For example, a large food processing enterprise was exposed to a food safety incident that shocked the whole country. After that, its executives can be said to be queuing to leave. The company has taken various remedial measures in terms of treatment, but to no avail. Why? The reckless and cost-free nature of altruistic punishment can be explained.
Second, corporate social responsibility will bring tangible and intangible benefits. Visible refers to external interests, such as the promotion of reputation and word of mouth; Invisible refers to internal interests, that is, the increase of employee organizational citizenship behavior.
Step forward. Intangible benefits can multiply with the increase of the number of employees. Many enterprises don't realize this. They only calculated the advertising value of a social welfare behavior, but did not calculate more value created by employees.
Third, as I have repeatedly mentioned, taking social responsibility is mainly the mission of large enterprises. But small enterprises can't do bad things, because the altruistic punishment mechanism at the individual level can't be treated differently.
1) There are external and internal reasons for enterprises to assume social responsibility;
2) Human beings have evolved altruistic punishment mechanism to ensure fairness and justice, but this is an "irrational" behavior;
3) Employees' own altruistic punishment mechanism restricts enterprises from doing whatever they want, and indirectly encourages organizations to make contributions to society.
& lt& lt& lt get notes about organizational behavior.