Skip to main content

People and Profits: The Impact of Corporate Objectives on Employees’ Need Satisfaction at Work

Journal of Business Ethics volume 154, pages 13–33 (2019)Cite this article

Abstract

For decades, scholars have debated the corporate objective. Scholars have either advocated a corporate objective focused on generating value for shareholders or creating value for multiple groups of stakeholders. Although it has been established that the corporate objective can shape many aspects of the corporation—including culture, compensation, and decision making—to date, scholars have not yet explored its psychological impact; particularly, how the corporate objective might influence employee well-being. In this article, we explore how two views of the corporate objective affect employee self-determination, a key component of overall psychological need satisfaction and well-being. We hypothesize that a corporate objective based on creating value for multiple stakeholders will increase employee psychological need satisfaction as compared to one focused on creating value for only shareholders. Across four experimental studies and one field survey, we find consistent support for our hypotheses and test three facets of a stakeholder-focused corporate objective. Theoretical implications and future research directions are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Notes

  1. Researchers have evaluated MTurk for the quality of data and compared it to other platforms. They have concluded that MTurk samples are more representative of the US population than in-person convenience samples (Mason and Suri 2012) and that MTurk results demonstrate internal and external validity (Berinsky et al. 2012; Horton et al. 2011). Research has demonstrated that the data obtained are at least as reliable as those obtained via traditional methods (Buhrmester et al. 2011).

References

  • Aguinis, H., & Bradley, K. J. (2014). Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity (Vol. 11). New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Anginer, D., & Statman, M. (2010). Stocks of admired and spurned companies. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 36(3), 71–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baard, P. P. (2002). Intrinsic need satisfaction in organizations: A motivational basis of success in for-profit and not-for-profit settings. In: E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 255–275). University Rochester Press.

  • Baard, P. P., & Aridas, C. (2001). Motivating your church: How any leader can ignite intrinsic motivation and growth. New York: Crossroad Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and weil-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(10), 2045–2068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnard, C. I. (1968). The functions of the executive (Vol. 11). Harvard university press.

  • Bartkus, B., Glassman, M., & McAfee, B. R. (2000). Mission statements: Are they smoke and mirrors? Business Horizons, 43(6), 23–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for Interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8(3), 274–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berle, A., & Means, G. (1968). The modern corporation and private property, 1932. New York, NY: McMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, S. L., Phillips, R. A., & Wicks, A. C. (2005). Resource dependence, managerial discretion and stakeholder performance. In: Academy of management proceedings (Vol. 2005, No. 1, pp. B1–B6). Briarcliff Manor: Academy of Management.

  • 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(5), 488–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, M. M., & Stout, L. A. (1999). A team production theory of corporate law. Virginia Law Review, 85(2), 247–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2009). Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 447–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, C. C., Swim, J. K., & Jacobs, R. R. (2000). Evaluating gender biases on actual job performance of real people: A meta analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(10), 2194–2215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, M., Schipani, C. A., SundaramJ, A. K., & Walsh, P. (1999). The purposes and accountability of the corporation in contemporary society: Corporate governance at a crossroads. Law Contemporary Problems, 62(3), 9–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chudek, M., & Henrich, J. (2011). Culture–gene coevolution, norm-psychology and the emergence of human prosociality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(5), 218–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cording, M., Harrison, J., Hoskisson, R., & Jonsen, K. (2014). “Walking the talk”: A multi-stakeholder exploration of organizational authenticity, employee productivity & post-merger performance. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(1), 38–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, J. J., Jr., Smith, J. S., Gleim, M. R., Ramirez, E., & Martinez, J. D. (2011). Green marketing strategies: An examination of stakeholders and the opportunities they present. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 158–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Luque, M. S., Washburn, N. T., Waldman, D. A., & House, R. J. (2008). Unrequited profit: How stakeholder and economic values relate to subordinates’ perceptions of leadership and firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(4), 626–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinant of behavior. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L. (1976). Notes on the theory and metatheory of intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15(1), 130–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 39–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E., & Ryan, R. M. (2011). Self-determination theory. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, 1, 416–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(8), 930–942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M., Etzion, D., & Nairn-Birch, N. (2013). Triangulating environmental performance: What do corporate social responsibility ratings really capture? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(3), 255–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denning, S. (2011). The reinvention of management. Strategy & Leadership, 39(2), 9–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobbin, F., & Zorn, D. (2005). Corporate malfeasance and the myth of shareholder value. Political Power and Social Theory, 17, 179–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubreuil, P., Forest, J., & Courcy, F. (2014). From strengths use to work performance: The role of harmonious passion, subjective vitality, and concentration. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(4), 335–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Editorial Staff. (2010). Shareholder v stakeholder: A new idolatry. The Economist.

  • Fligstein, N., & Shin, T. J. (2004). The shareholder value society: A review of the changes in working conditions and inequality in the United States, 1976 to 2000. Social inequality, 401–32.

  • Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. T. (1993). Does studying economics inhibit cooperation? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(2), 159–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 409–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2007). Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder theory and the corporate objective revisited. Organization Science, 15(3), 364–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business, New York Times Magazine (September 13), reprinted In K. R. Leube (Ed.), The Essence of Friedman (pp. 36–42). Stanford, Cal.: Hoover Institution Press.

  • Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational behavior, 26(4), 331–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geletkanycz, M. A., & Boyd, B. K. (2011). CEO outside directorships and firm performance: A reconciliation of agency and embeddedness views. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 335–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S., & Moran, P. (1996). Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 13–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A. M., Campbell, E. M., Chen, G., Cottone, K., Lapedis, D., & Lee, K. (2007). Impact and the art of motivation maintenance: The effects of contact with beneficiaries on persistence behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 53–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1978). Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 5(2), 103–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greguras, G. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). Different fits satisfy different needs: Linking person–environment fit to employee commitment and performance using self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J., Seder, J. P., & Kesebir, S. (2008). Hive psychology, happiness, and public policy. The Journal of Legal Studies, 37(S2), S133–S156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 58–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2012). Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(1), 97–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horton, J. J., Rand, D. G., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (2011). The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experimental Economics, 14(3), 399–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsee, C. K., Loewenstein, G. F., Blount, S., & Bazerman, M. H. (1999). Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(5), 576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilardi, B. C., Leone, D., Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). Employee and supervisor ratings of motivation: main effects and discrepancies associated with job satisfaction and adjustment in a factory setting. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(21), 1789–1805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G. (2006). Factorial survey methods for studying beliefs and judgments. Sociological Methods & Research, 34(3), 334–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. (2001). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 14(3), 8–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1979). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure (pp. 163–231). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C., & Murphy, K. J. (1990). Performance pay and top-management incentives. Journal of Political Economy, 98(2), 225–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 386–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M., Felps, W., & Bigley, G. A. (2007). Ethical theory and stakeholder-related decisions: The role of stakeholder culture. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 137–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, 74(1), 75–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasser, T., Davey, J., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Motivation and employee-supervisor discrepancies in a psychiatric vocational rehabilitation setting. Rehabilitation Psychology, 37(3), 175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keay, A. (2008). Ascertaining the corporate objective: An entity maximization and sustainability model. Modern Law Review, 71, 663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lan, L. L., & Heracleous, L. (2010). Rethinking agency theory: The view from law. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 294–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loeb, S. E. (1991). The evaluation of “outcomes” of accounting ethics education. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(2), 77–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marens, R., & Wicks, A. (1999). Getting real: Stakeholder theory, managerial practice, and the general irrelevance of fiduciary duties owed to shareholders. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(2), 273–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McVea, J. F., & Freeman, R. E. (2005). A names-and-faces approach to stakeholder management how focusing on stakeholders as individuals can bring ethics and entrepreneurial strategy together. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(1), 57–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, J. A. (2010). Economics for humans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyberg, A. J., Fulmer, I. S., Gerhart, B., & Carpenter, M. A. (2010). Agency theory revisited: CEO return and shareholder interest alignment. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1029–1049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orts, E. (1992). Beyond shareholders: Interpreting corporate constituency statutes. George Washington Law Review, 61(1), 14–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orts, E. (1997). A North American legal perspective on stakeholder management theory. In F. M. Patfield (Ed.), Perspectives on company law (Vol. II, pp. 165–179). The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 403–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, J. A., & David, F. (1987). Corporate mission statements: The bottom line. The Academy of Management Executive, 1(2), 109–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penner, L. A., Fritzsche, B. A., Craiger, J. P., & Freifeld, T. R. (1995). Measuring the prosocial personality. Advances in personality assessment, 10, 147–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirson, M., & Malhotra, D. (2011). Foundations of organizational trust: What matters to different stakeholders? Organization Science, 22(4), 1087–1104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(4), 419–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renneboog, L., Ter Horst, J., & Zhang, C. (2011). Is ethical money financially smart? Nonfinancial attributes and money flows of socially responsible investment funds. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 20(4), 562–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, S. J. (2008). Moral attentiveness: Who pays attention to the moral aspects of life? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, C. C., Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Chen, Y., & Yan, M. (2014). Perceptions of organizational politics: A need satisfaction paradigm. Organization Science, 25(4), 1026–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2013). Living well: A self-determination theory perspective on eudemonia. In The exploration of happiness (pp. 117–139). Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon, K. M., Turban, D. B., Brown, K. G., Barrick, M. R., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Applying self-determination theory to organizational research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 22, 357–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, R. C. (1992). Ethics and excellence: Cooperation and integrity in business. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinbeck, J. (1939). The grapes of wrath. New York: The Viking Press-james Lloyd.

  • Stern, S. (2010). Outsider in a hurry to shake up unilever. Financial Times.

  • Stout, L. A. (2012). The shareholder value myth: How putting shareholders first harms investors, corporations, and the public. Oakland: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundaram, A. K., & Inkpen, A. C. (2004). Stakeholder theory and “the corporate objective revisited”: A reply. Organization Science, 15(3), 370–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swales, J. M., & Rogers, P. S. (1995). Discourse and the projection of corporate culture: The mission statement. Discourse & Society, 6(2), 223–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., Sattath, S., & Slovic, P. (1988). Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review, 95(3), 371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C. H., & Rosen, C. C. (2016). A Review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1195–1229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Quaquebeke, N., & Felps, W. (2016). Respectful inquiry: A motivational account of leading through asking open questions and listening. Academy of Management Review. doi:10.5465/amr.2014.0537.

  • Walsh, J. P. (2004). Introduction to the “corporate objective revisited exchange”. Organization Science, 15(3), 349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, G. M., Cohen, G. L., Cwir, D., & Spencer, S. J. (2012). Mere belonging: The power of social connections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werhane, P., Radin, T. J., & Bowie, N. E. (2008). Employment and employee rights. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wicks, A. C., Gilbert, D. R. Jr., Freeman, R. E. (1994). A feminist reinterpretation of the stakeholder concept. Business Ethics Quarterly, 475–497.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the Darden School of Business Administration; no grants were given.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Darden School of Business, University of Virginia, 100 Darden Blvd, Charlottesville, VA, 22903, USA

    Bidhan L. Parmar, Adrian Keevil & Andrew C. Wicks

Authors
  1. Bidhan L. Parmar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adrian Keevil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew C. Wicks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bidhan L. Parmar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Bidhan Parmar declares that he has no conflict of interest. Adrian Keevil declares that he has no conflict of interest. Andrew C. Wicks declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Self-determination at work questionnaire (Ilardi et al. 1993).

  • Need for autonomy

    • I feel free to express my ideas and opinions in this job.

    • I feel like I can be myself at my job.

    • At work, I often feel like I have to follow other people’s commands.

    • If I could choose, I would do things at work differently.

    • The tasks I have to do at work are in line with what I really want to do.

    • I feel free to do my job the way I think it could best be done.

    • In my job, I feel forced to do things I do not want to do.

  • Need for competence

    • I don’t really feel competent in my job.

    • I really master my tasks at my job.

    • I feel competent at my job.

    • I doubt whether I am able to execute my job properly.

    • I am good at the things I do in my job.

    • I have the feeling that I can even accomplish the most difficult tasks at work.

  • Need for relatedness

    • I don’t really feel connected with other people at my job.

    • At work, I feel part of a group.

    • I don’t really mix with other people at my job.

    • At work, I can talk with people about things that really matter to me.

    • I often feel alone when I am with my colleagues.

    • At work, people involve me in social activities.

    • At work, there are people who really understand me.

    • Some people I work with are close friends of mine.

    • At work, no one cares about me.

    • There is nobody I can share my thoughts with if I would want to do so.

Appendix 2

Questions for stakeholder and shareholder focus (study 2)

  • I believe that my organization values profits above all else.

  • My organization predominantly emphasizes the bottom line.

  • Leaders in my organization care predominantly about profits.

  • To perform my role well I need to focus on increasing profits.

  • I believe my organization cares about multiple-stakeholder groups including: employees, customers, suppliers, the community, and shareholders/lenders.

  • My organization emphasizes more than the bottom line.

  • Leaders in my organization care about a broad group of stakeholders.

  • To perform by role well I need to focus on more than the bottom line.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Parmar, B.L., Keevil, A. & Wicks, A.C. People and Profits: The Impact of Corporate Objectives on Employees’ Need Satisfaction at Work. J Bus Ethics 154, 13–33 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3487-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3487-5

Keywords

  • Self-determination theory
  • Stakeholder theory
  • Corporate objective
  • Business ethics