当代组织中的免费搭车问题:从共同利益视角汲取的经验教训

IF 3.4 2区 哲学 Q2 BUSINESS
Sandrine Frémeaux, Guillaume Mercier, Anouk Grevin
{"title":"当代组织中的免费搭车问题:从共同利益视角汲取的经验教训","authors":"Sandrine Frémeaux, Guillaume Mercier, Anouk Grevin","doi":"10.1017/beq.2024.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Free riding involves benefiting from common resources or services while avoiding contributing to their production and maintenance. Few studies have adequately investigated the propensity to overestimate the prevalence of free riding. This is a significant omission, as exaggeration of the phenomenon is often used to justify control and coercion systems. To address this gap, we investigate how the common good approach may mitigate the flaws of a system excessively focused on free-riding risk. In this conceptual paper featuring illustrative vignettes, we argue that the common good perspective is realistic and effective in preventing this excessive attention by promoting trust as an unconditional gift and a response to vulnerability. We discuss the common good perspective’s originality over the dominant approaches and propose a set of ethical and managerial recommendations that may be the best protection against this excessive focus and maybe even against free riding itself.</p>","PeriodicalId":48031,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Free-Riding Issue in Contemporary Organizations: Lessons from the Common Good Perspective\",\"authors\":\"Sandrine Frémeaux, Guillaume Mercier, Anouk Grevin\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/beq.2024.3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Free riding involves benefiting from common resources or services while avoiding contributing to their production and maintenance. Few studies have adequately investigated the propensity to overestimate the prevalence of free riding. This is a significant omission, as exaggeration of the phenomenon is often used to justify control and coercion systems. To address this gap, we investigate how the common good approach may mitigate the flaws of a system excessively focused on free-riding risk. In this conceptual paper featuring illustrative vignettes, we argue that the common good perspective is realistic and effective in preventing this excessive attention by promoting trust as an unconditional gift and a response to vulnerability. We discuss the common good perspective’s originality over the dominant approaches and propose a set of ethical and managerial recommendations that may be the best protection against this excessive focus and maybe even against free riding itself.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48031,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Business Ethics Quarterly\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Business Ethics Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2024.3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Business Ethics Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2024.3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

免费搭车是指从公共资源或服务中获益,同时避免为其生产和维护做出贡献。很少有研究对高估 "搭便车 "现象普遍性的倾向进行充分调查。这是一个重大疏漏,因为夸大这一现象往往被用来为控制和强制制度辩护。为了弥补这一不足,我们研究了共同利益方法如何减轻过度关注搭便车风险的制度缺陷。在这篇概念性论文中,我们通过一些说明性的小故事,论证了共同利益视角在防止这种过度关注方面的现实性和有效性,它将信任作为一种无条件的馈赠和对脆弱性的回应。我们讨论了共同利益视角相对于主流方法的独创性,并提出了一系列道德和管理建议,这些建议可能是防止这种过度关注的最佳保护措施,甚至可能是防止搭便车本身的最佳保护措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Free-Riding Issue in Contemporary Organizations: Lessons from the Common Good Perspective

Free riding involves benefiting from common resources or services while avoiding contributing to their production and maintenance. Few studies have adequately investigated the propensity to overestimate the prevalence of free riding. This is a significant omission, as exaggeration of the phenomenon is often used to justify control and coercion systems. To address this gap, we investigate how the common good approach may mitigate the flaws of a system excessively focused on free-riding risk. In this conceptual paper featuring illustrative vignettes, we argue that the common good perspective is realistic and effective in preventing this excessive attention by promoting trust as an unconditional gift and a response to vulnerability. We discuss the common good perspective’s originality over the dominant approaches and propose a set of ethical and managerial recommendations that may be the best protection against this excessive focus and maybe even against free riding itself.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
10.00%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Business Ethics Quarterly (BEQ) is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal that publishes theoretical and empirical research relevant to the ethics of business. Since 1991 this multidisciplinary journal has published articles and reviews on a broad range of topics, including the internal ethics of business organizations, the role of business organizations in larger social, political and cultural frameworks, and the ethical quality of market-based societies and market-based relationships. It recognizes that contributions to the better understanding of business ethics can come from any quarter and therefore publishes scholarship rooted in the humanities, social sciences, and professional fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信