Vol. 3 No. 1 (2015)
Social Entrepreneurship and Socio-Economic Development

Articles

Link between Work-Related Prosocial Orientation and Professional Capability of Employees: A Preliminary Exploratory Investigation

Published 2015-05-05

  • Małgorzata Adamska-Chudzińska

Małgorzata Adamska-Chudzińska
Cracow University of Economics

Abstract

The paper explores the link between work-related prosocial orientation of organizations and professional capabilities of employees suggesting that the prosocial orientation impacts the level of professional capability and proactive engagement.

The article applies three main methods: literature studies, in-depth questionnaire surveys and multi-person method of assessment. The applied sub-measures for both leading constructs were formed and collinearity was tested using linear correlation coefficient.

In prosocial environments psychological predispositions as essential aspects of personality and determinants of human behaviour, activate and stimulate professional activity. The implementation of a prosocial orientation leads to significant growth in professional capability and can influence employees’ entrepreneurial behaviour.

An important aspect of employee proactive behaviour is building an internal policy based on prosocial mechanisms. Effective stimulation of prosocial and proactive attitudes and actions requires the creation of an environment where activities are realized alongside social values and with respect for individual personal determinants of activity.

Considerations and findings presented in the paper contribute to the area of determinants of effective and lasting proactive employee development. The use of the multi-person method can be considered valuable in behavioural research in entrepreneurship.

Keywords

work-related prosocial orientation, professional capability, proactive employee development

PDF

References

  1. Adamska-Chudzińska, M. (2012). Uwarunkowania sprawności zawodowej człowieka w organizacji. Aspekt prospołeczny. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie.
  2. Aggarwal, R., & Simkins, B. (2001). Open-book management—Optimizing human capital. Business Horizons, 44(5), 5-13.
  3. Barnett, M.L., & Salomon, R.M. (2012). Does it pay to be really good? Addressing the shape of the relationship between social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(11), 1304–1320. DOI: 10.1002/smj.1980.
  4. Bąk, M., Bednarz, P., Kulawczuk, P., Rataj, R., Szcześniak, A., & Zając, P. (2007). Analiza korzyści ekonomicznych ze stosowania zasad społecznej odpowiedzialności biznesu (CSR) w polskich przedsiębiorstwach. Streszczenie i wnioski. In P. Kulawczuk, & A. Poszewiecki (Eds.), Wpływ społecznej odpowiedzialności biznesu i etyki biznesu na zarządzanie przedsiębiorstwami (pp. 55-112). Warszawa: IBnDiPP, EQUAL.
  5. Beard, A., & Hornik, R. (2011). It’s Hard to Be Good. But it’s worth it. Here are five companies whose success is built on responsible business practices, Harvard Business Review, November, 88-96.
  6. Brief, A.P., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11, 710-725.
  7. Chabior, J. (2014). [online] Potencjał biznesowy zaangażowanych pracowników. HR Mobilny 1-4.08.2014. Retrieved on August 4, 2014 from: <http://hrmobilny.pl/artykuly hr/ potencjal biznesowy zaangazowanych pracownikow/page-4>.
  8. Franken, R.E. (2007). Human Motivation. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
  9. Gałdowa, A. (1999). Klasyczne i współczesne koncepcje osobowości, Tom 1. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
  10. Gasparski, W. (Ed.). (2012). Biznes, etyka, odpowiedzialność. Warszawa: PWN.
  11. Jiménez-Moreno, J.J., & Wach, K. (2014). The entrepreneurial profile of students participating in the academic entrepreneurship course: pilot study results. Horyzonty Wychowania, 13(26), 121-144.
  12. Kanter, M.E. (2009). SuperCorp: How Vanguard Companies Create Innovation, Profits, Growth, and Social Good. New York: Crown Business.
  13. Kidwell, R.E., & Scherer, P.M. (2001). Layoffs and their ethical implications under scientific management, quality management and open-book management. Journal of Business Ethics, 29(1/2), 113-124.
  14. Koh, P.-S., Qian, C., & Wang, W. (2014). Firm litigation risk and the insurance value of corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(10), 1464-1482.
  15. Kuraszko, I., & Augustyniak Sz. (2009). 15 polskich przykładów społecznej odpowiedzialności biznesu. Warszawa: Forum Odpowiedzialnego Biznesu.
  16. Pervin, L.A. (2002). Psychologia osobowości. Gdańsk: GWP.
  17. Peters, T.J., & Waterman, R.H. (2004). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies. Boston: Harper Business.
  18. Przetacznik-Gierowska, M., & Tyszkowa, M. (2007). Psychologia rozwoju człowieka. Zagadnienia ogólne, Tom 1. Warszawa: PWN.
  19. Ratajczak, Z. (2007). Psychologia pracy i organizacji. Warszawa: PWN.
  20. Tomaszewski, T. (1998). Główne idee współczesnej psychologii. Warszawa: Żak.
  21. Wach, K. (2015), Impact of Cultural and Social Norms on Entrepreneurship in the EU: Cross-Country Evidence based on GEM Survey Results. Zarządzanie w Kulturze, 16(1), 15-29. DOI: 10.4467/20843976ZK.15.002.3037
  22. Weber, W.G., Unterrainer, Ch., & Höge, Th. (2008). Sociomoral atmosphere and prosocial and democratic value orientations in enterprises with different levels of structurally anchored participation. Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, 22(2), 171-194.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.