Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:21:49.879Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The motives for cooperation in work organizations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2009

HELENA LOPES ,
ANA C. SANTOS  and
NUNO TELES
HELENA LOPES*
Affiliation:
ISCTE and DINÂMIA, Research Centre on Socioeconomic Change, Lisbon, Portugal
ANA C. SANTOS
Affiliation:
Centre for Social Studies (CES), Coimbra, Portugal
NUNO TELES
Affiliation:
DINÂMIA, Research Centre on Socioeconomic Change, Lisbon, Portugal
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

This paper aims to contribute to a better understanding of cooperation in productive ventures, conceived of as collective action endeavours that require cooperation rather than mere coordination. It is argued that cooperative behaviour is grounded on three kinds of ‘common goods’, defined as goods that are shared and recognized as beneficial by the workers. These comprise common goals, relational satisfaction, and moral norms and values. The commonly held goods are associated with motives and behavioural rules which constitute both the reasons for cooperating and the means through which the dilemmatic nature of cooperation is overcome. It is further argued that the binding character of these rules is closely linked to humans’ ability and opportunity to communicate. Normative guidelines relative to management practices and directions for future research are also derived.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , December 2009 , pp. 315 - 338
Copyright
Copyright © The JOIE Foundation 2009

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

Akerlof, G. (1982), ‘Labor Contracts as Partial Gift Exchange’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 97: 543–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akerlof, G. and Kranton, R. (2000), ‘Economics and Identity’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105 (3): 715–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akerlof, G. and Kranton, R. (2005), ‘Identity and the Economics of Organization’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19 (1): 9–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alchian, A. and Demsetz, H. (1972), ‘Production, Information Costs and Economic Organization’, American Economic Review, 62 (5): 777–795.Google Scholar
Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1992), Critical Management Studies, London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Anderson, E. (1990), ‘The Ethical Limitations of the Market’, Economics and Philosophy, 6: 179–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aoki, M. (2007), ‘Endogenizing Institutions and Institutional Changes’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 3 (1): 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, G., Gibbons, R., and Murphy, K. (2002), ‘Relational Contracts and the Theory of the Firm’, Quartely Journal of Economics, 117 (1): 39–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamberger, P. and Meshoulan, I. (2000), Human Resource Strategy – Formulation, Implementation and Impact, California: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnard, C. (1938), The Functions of the Executive, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Baron, J. N. and Kreps, D. (1999), Strategic Human Resources: Frameworks for General Managers, Willey Press.Google Scholar
Becker, M. C. (2004), ‘Organizational Routines: A Review of the Literature’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 13 (4): 643–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bewley, T. (1995), ‘A Depressed Labour Market as Explained by Participants’, American Economic Review, Paper and Proceedings, 85: 250–254.Google Scholar
Casson, M. (1991), The Economics of Business Culture, Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Coase, R. (1937), ‘The Nature of the Firm’, Economica, 4 (16): 386–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyert, M. R. and March, J. G. (1963), A Behavioural Theory of the Firm, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Davis, J. (2007), ‘Akerlof and Kranton on Identity in Economic Theory’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31 (3): 349–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demsetz, H. (1995), The Economics of the Business Firm: Seven Critical Commentaries, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durkheim, É. 1984[1893], The Division of Labour in Society, London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, J. (1985), ‘Rationality, Morality, and Collective Action’, Ethics, 96: 136–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A., Fehr, E., and Fishbacher, U. (2003), ‘On the Nature of Fair Behaviour’, Economic Inquiry, 41 (1): 20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E. and Falk, A. (2002), ‘Psychological Foundations of Incentives’, European Economic Review, 46: 687–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E. and Fischbacher, U. (2003), ‘The Nature of Human Altruism’, Nature, 425 (6960): 785–792.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fehr, E. and Gächter, S. (1998), ‘How Effective Are Trust- and Reciprocity-Based Incentives?’, in Ben-Ner, A. and Putterman, L. (eds.), Economics, Values and Organizations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 337–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E. and Gächter, S. (2000), ‘Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14 (3): 159–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, B. and Bohnet, I. (1995), ‘Institutions Affect Fairness – Experimental Investigations’, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 151 (2): 286–303.Google Scholar
Grossman, S. and Hart, O. (1986), ‘The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration’, Journal of Political Economy, 94 (4): 691–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gui, B. (2000), ‘Beyond Transactions: On the Interpersonal Dimensions of Economic Reality’, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 71 (2): 139–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gui, B. (2005), ‘From Transactions to Encounters: The Joint Generation of Relational Goods and Conventional Values’, in Gui, B. and Sugden, R. (eds.), Economics and Social Interactions: Accounting for Interpersonal Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. (1973), ‘Travail et interaction’, in La technique et la science comme idéologie, Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1984), The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Hobbes, T. (1968), Leviathan, Baltimore: Penguin.Google Scholar
Jensen, M. C. and Meckling, W. H. (1976), ‘Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure’, Journal of Finance, 3: 305–360.Google Scholar
Ledyard, J. (1995), ‘Public Goods: A Survey of Experimental Research’, in Roth, J. H. and Kagel, A. E. (eds.), The Handbook of Experimental Economics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lopes, H. and Caldas, J. (2008), ‘Firms: Collective Action and Its Supportive Values’, in Davis, J. and Dolfsma, W. (eds.), The Elgar Companion to Social Economics, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Lutz, M. (1999), Economics for the Common Good: Two Centuries of Economic Thought in the Humanistic Tradition, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. (1992), Economics, Organization and Management, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Minkler, L. (2004), ‘Shirking and Motivations in Firms: Survey Evidence on Worker Attitudes’, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22: 863–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minkler, L. and Miceli, T. (2004), ‘Lying, Integrity and Cooperation’, Review of Social Economy, 62 (1): 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohlin, E. and Johannesson, M. (2008), ‘Communication: Content or Relationship?’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 65 (3–4): 409–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, J. (2001), ‘The Separative Firm: Androcentric Bias and Business Ethics’, Process Perspectives, 24 (3). [Online] Available at: http://www.ctr4process.org/publications/SeminarPapers/243Nelson.rtf [Accessed 20 October 2008].Google Scholar
Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of the Economic Change, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., and Nagata, A. (2000), ‘A Firm as Knowledge-creating Entity: A New Perspective on the Theory of the Firm’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 9: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, M. (1971), ‘The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups’, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2000), ‘A Behavioural Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action’, American Political Science Review, 92 (1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2007), ‘Challenges and Growth: The Development of the Interdisciplinary Field of Institutional Analysis’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 3 (3): 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pareto, V. 1909[1968], ‘Manuel d'Économie Politique (Ophélimité)’, in A. N. Page (1968), Utility Theory: A Book of Readings, New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Rob, R. and Zemsky, P. (2002), ‘Social Capital, Corporate Culture, and Incentive Intensity’, RAND Journal of Economics, 33 (2): 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rotemberg, J. (2006), ‘Altruism, Reciprocity and Cooperation in the Workplace’, in Kolm, S. C. and Mercier, J. (eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, North-Holland, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1: 1371–1407.Google Scholar
Sally, D. (1995), ‘Conversation and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Meta-Analysis of Experiments from 1958–1992’, Rationality and Society, 7: 58–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, P. (1938), ‘A Note on the Pure Theory of Consumer's Behaviour’, Economica, 5 (5): 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. (2001), Rationality in action, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (2005), ‘What is an institution?’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 1 (1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. (1967), ‘Isolation, Assurance and the Social Rate of Discount’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 81: 112–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. (1973), ‘Behaviour and the Concept of Preference’, Economica, 40: 241–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. (1977), Development as Freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (1990), ‘Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioral Foundation of Economics’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6 (4): 317–344.Google Scholar
Simon, H. (1957), Models of Man, New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. and Ullmann-Margalit, E. (2001), ‘Solidarity Goods’, The Journal of Political Philosophy, 9 (2): 129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thévenot, L. (1989), ‘Équilibre et rationalité dans un univers complexe’, Revue économique, 2: 147–197.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. and Blader, S. (2000). Cooperation in Groups – Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Behavioural Engagement, Philadelphia, PY: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Walzer, M. (1983), Spheres of Justice: A Defence of Pluralism and Equality, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Williamson, O. (2005), ‘The Economics of Governance’, AEA Papers and Proceedings, May 2005.Google Scholar