Who Holds the Stakes? A Case Study of Stakeholder Identification at Two Nuclear Weapons Production Sites

Traditional risk assessments, including those involving the United States Department of Energy (USDOE), are often criticized for producing useless or noncredible management responses because they did not meaningfully involve the public. The first step to involve the public is to identify appropriate active participants (stakeholders). This study was done to understand the processes used to identify stakeholders to serve on advisory boards established at the two largest remediation sites in the United States: the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. The Hanford stakeholder identification process produced an interest-based board whereas the Savannah River Site strategy produced population-based representation. The basic goals of the stakeholder advisory groups were similar. However, different processes were used to identify the participants for the groups in part because of distinctly different social and cultural conditions in the areas affected by the operations of the two facilities, and in part because of the different level of trust of the USDOE and their contractors at Hanford compared with Savannah River. The discussion analyzes their different needs and potential for successful citizen participation.     

The management of managers: Disputing in an executive hierarchy

This paper focuses on the relationship between organizational rank and respectability and the way top managers handle their interpersonal grievances, conflicts, and disputes in an executive hierarchy. Formal grievance procedures are rarely used. Downward grievances (from a superior to a subordinate) are often settled unilaterally by the superior. Upward grievances are typically handled covertly by subordinates. Titular equals opt for a range of covert and confrontational tactics, many of which evolve into disputes and are settled by a common superior. Respectability within the executive ranks appears to enhance the ability of superiors to impose outcomes on grievances, conflicts, and disputes between and within subordinates, to decrease the hostility of upward grievances, and to decrease vulnerability of subordinates to sanctions by their superiors.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association, Washington, DC, June 1987.     

INFORMING RETIREMENT SAVINGS DECISIONS: A FIELD EXPERIMENT ON SUPPLEMENTAL PLANS

Although supplemental saving plans can be an important part of an individual's financial security in retirement, contribution rates remain low, particularly among those with lower salaries and less education. We report findings from an intervention that provided information on key aspects of the employer‐provided supplemental saving plans to older public employees in North Carolina. Among workers participating in a supplemental plan, individuals who received an informational flyer increased their contributions in the months following the intervention relative to the control group. In contrast, individuals who were not enrolled in a retirement saving plan were not moved to begin contributing to a supplemental plan. The results suggest that informational interventions can induce workers who are already engaged in the saving process to reassess their level of retirement preparedness. (JEL C93, D14, D9)     

CSR and Accounting: Drawing on Weber and Aristotle to Rethink Generally Accepted Accounting Principles

The purpose of this article is to discuss and provide an alternative, less materialist–individualist approach to interpret the four assumptions of generally accepted accounting principles: economic entity, unit measure, periodic reporting, and going concern. The article draws from and builds on arguments first developed by Weber and Aristotle to demonstrate how a materialist–individualist moral point of view influences the conventional interpretation of the four basic assumptions for generally accepted accounting principles. We then propose an ideal‐type conceptual framework upon which to critique mainstream accounting theory and to develop alternative accounting theory that balances multiple forms of well‐being (including financial, but also social, physical, spiritual, and ecological well‐being) for multiple stakeholders (including owners, employees, customers, suppliers, competitors, neighbors, future generations, and so forth).     

It's Not What You Do,But Who You Are: Informal Social Control,Social Status,and Normative Seriousness in Organizations

This paper analyzes the impact of managerial social status on the normative evaluation of managerial acts in organizational contexts. We test several propositions on the relationship between social status and normative evaluation derived from Donald Black's theoretical framework on social control. The research design consists of a factorial survey of 200 managers. Each respondent evaluated the seriousness of a normatively questionable managerial act. In each vignette, the perpetrator's social status was systematically manipulated in either a high or a low condition. The results generally support the argument that the higher a manager's social status the less vulnerable that individual is to unfavorable normative evaluations, holding constant the act. The paper closes with discussion of our findings in light of social structural and rational choice perspectives on informal social control in organizations. Additionally, we discuss methodological issues related to experimental research on informal social control in organizations, the consistency of our findings with those from previous studies of social control across diverse settings, potential theoretical applications and extensions of Black's framework in organizational contexts, and practical implications for the implementation of corporate codes of conduct and corporate dispute resolution systems.     

Toward an Organizational Perspective on Identifying and Managing Formal Gatekeepers

In this article, we present an institutionalist organizational perspective on formal gatekeeping, arguing along two fronts: First, identifying gatekeepers provides useful analytic devices for learning about the vocabularies of structure in an organization. Second, successfully managing gatekeepers requires that one understands the vocabularies of structure in use in an organization. We ground our perspective in field experiences gleaned from eleven public sector organizations who participated in our health promotion and research program, the Arizona 5 a Day Project. Field data and insights from institutional organizational and decision-making theory frame a matrix of organizational types and formal gatekeeping. We conclude by linking our perspective with analytic perspectives on organizational charters and organizational change.