Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:32:21.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘Logic of Gift’: Inspiring Behavior in Organizations Beyond the Limits of Duty and Exchange

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2016

Tomás Baviera ,
William English  and
Manuel Guillén
Tomás Baviera
Affiliation:
Institute for Ethics in Communication and Organizations
William English
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Manuel Guillén
Affiliation:
University of Valencia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

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.

Keywords

logic of giftlogic of dutylogic of exchangehumanistic managementgivinggenerosity
Type
Articles
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , April 2016 , pp. 159 - 180
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adloff, F., & Mau, S. 2006. Giving social ties, reciprocity in modern society. Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 47(1): 93–123.Google Scholar
Allport, G. W. 1961. Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Ames, 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.Google Scholar
Aristotle. 1908. Nicomachean ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. 1985. Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bock, 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.Google Scholar
Borzaga, 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.Google Scholar
Bruni, L. 2006. Il prezzo della gratuità. Roma: Città Nuova Editrice.Google Scholar
Bruni, L. 2009. Fraternità e Gratuità. In Bruni, L. & Zamagni, S. (Eds.), Dizionario di economia civile: 439–444. Roma: Città Nuova Editrice.Google Scholar
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. 1961. The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Caillé, A. 2000. Anthropologie du Don: Le Tiers Paradigme. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer.Google Scholar
Caligiuri, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, J. 2001. Good to great: Why some companies make the leap … and others don’t. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1985. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Publishing Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derrida, J. 1991. Donner le temps I: La fausse monnaie. Paris: Galilée.Google Scholar
Drucker, P. F. 1989. What business can learn from nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, 67(7): 89–93.Google ScholarPubMed
Dumond, J.-P. 2007. Le Don est-il une notion de gestion? Gérer et Comprendre, 89: 63–72.Google Scholar
Faldetta, G. 2011. The logic of gift and gratuitousness in business relationships. Journal of Business Ethics, 100: 67–78.Google Scholar
Flynn, 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. The Academy of Management Journal, 46(5): 539–553.Google Scholar
Frankl, V. E. 1966. Self-transcendence as a human phenomenon. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 6: 97–106.Google Scholar
Frémeaux, S., & Michelson, G. 2011. “No strings attached”: Welcoming the existential Gift in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 99: 63–75.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 1962. Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Game, A., & Metcalfe, A. 2010. Presence of the gift. Cultural Studies Review, 16(1): 189–211.Google Scholar
Garvin, D. A. 2013. How Google sold its engineers on management. Harvard Business Review, 91(12): 74–82.Google Scholar
Ghoshal, S. 2005. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(1): 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghoshal, S., & Gratton, L. 2002. Integrating the enterprise. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(1): 31–38.Google Scholar
Godbout, J. T. 1998. The moral of the gift. Journal of Socio-Economics, 27(4): 557–570.Google Scholar
Godbout, J. T. 2000. Homo donator versus homo oeconomicus. In Vandevelde, A. (Ed.), Gifts and interests: 23–46. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Godbout, J. T., & Caillé, A. 1998. The world of the gift. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2): 161–178.Google Scholar
Graeber, D. 2012. Debt: The first 5,000 years. Brooklyn, NY: Melville House.Google Scholar
Grant, 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.Google Scholar
Grant, A. M. 2013a. In the company of givers and takers. Harvard Business Review, 91(4): 90–97.Google Scholar
Grant, A. M. 2013b. Give and take: A revolutionary approach to success. New York: Viking Penguin.Google Scholar
Grant, A. M., & Dutton, J. E. 2012. Beneficiary or benefactor: Are people more prosocial when they reflect on receiving or giving? Psychological Science, 23(9): 1033–1039.Google Scholar
Grant, 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.Google Scholar
Grant, R. W. 2012. Strings attached: Untangling the ethics of incentives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Guillén, M., Ferrero, I., & Hoffman, W. M. 2015. The neglected ethical and spiritual motivations in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(4): 803–816.Google Scholar
Hansen, M. T., & Nohria, N. 2004. How to build collaborative advantage. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(1): 22–30.Google Scholar
Heyd, D. 1982. Supererogation: Its status in ethical theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hicks, D. 2011. Dignity: Its essential role in resolving conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Holmstrom, B., & Milgrom, P. 1991. Multitask principal-agent analyses: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 7(special issue): 24–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inzer, L. D., & Crawford, C. B. 2005. A review of formal and informal mentoring: Processes, problems, and design. Journal of Leadership Education, 4(1): 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, L., & Higgins, C. 2001. Corporate volunteering: Ad-hoc interaction or route to dialogue and partnership? Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 1(4): 79–90.Google Scholar
Lersch, P. 1938. Aufbau der person. München: Barth.Google Scholar
Light, P. C. 2002. The content of their character: The state of the nonprofit workforce. Nonprofit Quarterly, 9(3): 6–16.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, A. 1999. Dependent rational animals: Why human beings need the virtues. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Maes, H. 2004. Modesty, asymmetry, and hypocrisy. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 38: 485–497.Google Scholar
Marion, J.-L. 2002. Being given: Toward a phenomenology of givenness. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Maslow, A. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4): 370–396.Google Scholar
Maslow, A. 1971. The further reaches of human nature. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
Mauss, M. 1924. Essai sur le Don: Forme et Raison de l’Echange dans le Sociétés Archaïques. L’année Sociologique, 1: 30–186.Google Scholar
McClelland, D. C. 1961. The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Melé, D. 2003. The challenge of the humanistic management. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(1): 77–88.Google Scholar
Montes, 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.Google Scholar
Myerson, 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.Google Scholar
Naughton, M. J., Buckeye, J. G., Goodpaster, K. E., & Maines, T. D. 2015. Respect in action: Applying subsidiarity in business. St. Paul, MN: University of St. Thomas and UNIAPAC.Google Scholar
North, D. C. 2005. Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Organ, D. W. 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct cleanup time. Human Performance, 10(2): 85–97.Google Scholar
Pink, D. H. 2009. Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Pirson, M. A., & Lawrence, P. R. 2010. Humanism in business – Towards a paradigm shift? Journal of Business Ethics, 93(4): 553–565.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., & Podsakoff, P. M. 2009. Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1): 122–141.Google Scholar
Polo, L. 1987. Tener y Dar. In Fernández Rodríguez, F. (Ed.), Estudios sobre la encíclica Laborem Excersens: 222–230. Madrid: BAC.Google Scholar
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. 2002. The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12): 56–68.Google Scholar
Quirke, D. 1999. Employee volunteering. Human Resources, February: 2–4.Google Scholar
Ragins, 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. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(6): 1177–1194.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, P. 1990. Liebe und Gerechtigkeit. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
Rousseau, 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.Google Scholar
Sandel, M. J. 2012. What money can’t buy: The moral limits of markets. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Simmel, G. 1950. Faithfulness and gratitude. In Wolff, K. H. (Ed.), The sociology of Georg Simmel: 379–395. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Simons, R. 1995. Control in the age of empowerment. Harvard Business Review, 73(2): 80–88.Google Scholar
Smith, A. 1976a. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Smith, A. 1976b. The theory of moral sentiments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Solomon, R. C. 1998. The moral psychology of business: Care and compassion in the corporation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(3): 515–533.Google Scholar
Titmuss, R. M. 1970. The gift relationship: From human blood to social policy. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Tuffrey, M. 1995. Employees and the community. London: PRIMA Europe.Google Scholar
van Ackere, A. 1993. The principal/agent paradigm: Its relevance to various functional fields. European Journal of Operational Research, 70(1): 83–103.Google Scholar
von Balthasar, H. U. 1972. Die Wahrheit ist symphonisch. Ensiedel: Johannes Verlag.Google Scholar
West, M. A. 2012. Effective teamwork: Practical lessons from organizational research, vol. 3rd. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Wright, R. F. 2000. Strategies for avoiding the micro management trap. Management Decision, 38(5): 362–364.Google Scholar
Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B. 1997. Jobs, careers, and callings: People’s relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality, 31: 21–33.Google Scholar
Zamagni, S. 2008. L’economia del bene comune. Roma: Città Nuova Editrice.Google Scholar