Content uploaded by Dafnis N. Coudounaris
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dafnis N. Coudounaris on Feb 09, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Relationship between Caring for
Employees and the Well-being of the
Organisation
e aim of this paper is to better understand the meaning of caring for employees at the organisational level
as well as to disclose its relationship with the well-being of the organisation. It explores literature on caring
for employees at the organisational level by integrating two research streams– the relational and morality
perspectives. Building on the ndings of this literature review, a number of propositions are proposed that as-
sociate the well-being of the organisation with many antecedent factors, i.e., strategic caring, perceived organi-
sational support, disinterested organisational support, organisational caring, caring culture, caring climate
and caring leadership. is paper contributes to the literature on the well-being of the organisational members
at the level of the organisation.
Keywords: organisational caring for employees, relational and morality perspectives, employee well-being,
well-being of organisation, human welfare.
Šio straipsnio tikslas yra geriau suprasti rūpinimosi darbuotojais esmę organizaciniu lygmeniu, taip pat at-
skleisti jo ryšį su organizacijos gerove. Literatūra apie rūpinimąsi darbuotojais organizaciniu lygmeniu na-
grinėjama integruojant du tyrimų srautus– santykių ir moralės perspektyvas. Remiantis šios literatūros apž-
valgos išvadomis, siūloma keletas organizacijos gerovės sąsajų su daugeliu jos antecedentų, t.y. strateginiu
rūpinimusi, suvokiama organizacijos parama, nesuinteresuota organizacijos parama, organizacijos rūpinimu-
si, rūpinimosi kultūra, rūpinimosi klimatu ir rūpestinga lyderyste. Šis straipsnis prisideda prie literatūros apie
organizacijos narių gerovę organizacijos lygmeniu.
Raktiniai žodžiai: organizacijos rūpinimasis darbuotojais, santykių ir moralės perspektyvos, darbuotojų ge-
rovė, organizacijos gerovė, žmogaus gerovė.
Eglė POŠKIENĖ,
Dafnis N. COUDOUNARIS,
Rūta KAZLAUSKAITĖ
Eglė POŠKIENĖ– PhD student at ISM University of Management and Economics. Address: Arklių str. 18, LT
01305, Lithuania. Phone: +370 612290150. E-mail: egleposk@gmail.com
Dafnis N. COUDOUNARIS– PhD in Industrial Marketing from Lulea University of Technology, Sweden;
assoc.prof. of Innovation Management at School of Economics and Business Administration of the University of
Tartu, Estonia. E-mail: dafnis.coudounaris@ut.ee
Rūta KAZLAUSKAITĖ– Professor of Human Resource Management at ISM University of Management and
Economics, Lithuania. Address: Arklių str. 18, LT 01305, Lithuania. E-mail: rutkaz@ism.lt
© 2020 Eglė POŠKIENĖ, Dafnis N. COUDOUNARIS, Rūta KAZLAUSKAITĖ by Sciendo.
is work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License.
ISSN 1392-1142 (Print), ISSN 2335-8750 (Online)
ORGANIZACIJŲ VADYBA:
SISTEMINIAI TYRIMAI 2020.84
https://doi.org/10.1515/mosr-2020-0012
Introduction
is study develops the scientic discourse
on caring for employees in management
by drawing on the concept of caring in
dierent domains of management and
other disciplines, such as ethics, feminist
theory, positive psychology, etc. In this
paper our interest lies in personal caring,
which is not associated with particular
professions (Smylie, Murphy, Louis, 2016)
and refers to interpersonal or individual,
Eglė POŠKIENĖ, Dafnis N. COUDOUNARIS, Rūta KAZLAUSKAITĖ46
mostly face-to-face encounters where
one person cares for another (Noddings,
2002). Being fully aware that caring is not
an easy mainstream topic (Adler, Hansen,
2012) and caring as a construct is dicult
to distinguish from numerous care-
related conceptualisations, in this paper
we “dare to” (Adler, Hansen, 2012; Delios,
2010) look into organisational caring for
employees and provide suggestions for
future research. us, the research object
is organisational caring for employees,
i.e., caring exerted by the organisation
or its representatives to its internal
stakeholders.
What has particularly encouraged
us to study caring is that it, as a concern
for others, refers to the well-being
of the cared-for in its very denition
(Fine, 2006). In the organisation caring
relates to activities of the organisation
or its representatives aimed at fostering
employee well-being. us, to study caring
means to study employee well-being, the
importance of which in organisations
has been long recognised. More recently
growing attention has been given to
caring as a phenomenon and a concept
in business, social policy and research
(Delios, 2010; Gabriel, 2015; Rynes etal.,
2012; Setter, Zsolnai, 2019; Sewell, Barker,
2006). Caring, sharing and acting in the
interest of others are moral values in most
societies (Grant, 2014; Setter, Zsolnai,
2019); however, the concern for human
welfare is still more of a rhetoric than
reality in many organisations (Delios,
2010; George, 2014; Simpson, Clegg,
Freeder, 2013; Smylie etal., 2016). us
it is necessary to build organisations that
“dare to care” by fostering mutual love
and helping, a sense of community where
caring is inspired by a deep understanding
of human conditions and vulnerability,
and rooted in the DNA of the organisation
(Bouckaert, 2019; Delios, 2010; Héjj, 2019).
e current context of the global pandemic
has made it even more critical. Studying
caring for employees also contributes to
the humanistic management research,
which is growing in importance (Adler,
Hansen, 2012; Pirson, 2019; Tsui, 2013).
All of this stimulates the analysis of caring
in management and drawing implications
for research on the institutionalisation of
caring for employees.
Research still lacks a common
understanding of the character, denition
and meaning of caring (Carmeli, Jones,
Binyamin, 2016; Fine, 2007; Weber, 2014).
Furthermore, caring has been primarily
studied in the context of education (Louis,
Murphy, Smylie, 2016; Van der Vyver,
Van der Westhuizen, Meyer, 2014) and
in caregiving institutions serving their
clients via personal relationships between
caregivers and care-seekers (Kahn, 1993),
such as hospitals, social organisations or
nursing homes, which can be regarded as
extreme cases of caring environments (e.g.
Kahn, 1993; Martela, 2012). As regards
management literature, it abounds with
care-related concepts and constructs
that bring forward the idea of caring for
employees but do not use the very notion
of caring, like for instance, perceived
organisational support (Rhoades,
Eisenberger, 2002). Such care-related
constructs have been vastly studied, while
the research of caring constructs that use
the term of caring explicity, is still scarce,
with a few exceptions of quantitative
studies, such as J.D.Houghton etal. (2015)
and A.Carmeli etal. (2016).
Research on caring in organisational
science is also largely focused on caring
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CARING FOR EMPLOYEES AND THE WELL-BEING OF
THE ORGANISATION 47
as an aspect of interpersonal relationships
(Smylie etal., 2016; Weber, 2014), while a
macro perspective to caring on the organ-
isational level is missing. e literature
on caring also suggests a necessity to go
beyond caring in family and professional
caring on the individual level, and to build
caring organisations (Bear, 2019; Eng-
ster, 2004; Fuqua, Newman, 2002; Smylie
etal., 2016; Tronto, 2010). In this paper,
we focus on organisational level, since it
is organisational processes, culture and
environment that make organisational
members behave in caring or uncaring
ways. us, the aim of this paper is to
better understand the meaning of caring
for employees at the organisational level
as well as to disclose its relationship with
the well-being of the organisation. e
objectives of this paper are dened as fol-
lows: 1.to explore the origins and evolu-
tion of research on the construct of caring;
2. to analyse concepts and approaches to
caring in management; 3. to reveal how
organisational caring for employees fosters
the well-being of organisational members.
To achieve the aim and objectives
of this paper, the methods of overview,
analysis, and synthesis of scientic
literature are applied.
The evolution of the construct of
caring
is section presents the evolution of car-
ing as a separate area of management re-
search. Caring for human beings is not a
new phenomenon. It takes its roots in phi-
losophy (Aristotle, Plato and Stoics) and
spiritual traditions (Curzer, 2007; Held,
2006; Kovacs, 2019; Rynes et al., 2012).
e construct of caring has deep research
traditions in certain vocations and profes-
sional norms, ethics, identities and com-
petences dominating in them, which is
referred to as a professional caring (Smylie
et al., 2016). Research of caring in man-
agement on the individual level takes its
roots from the professional caring in hu-
man-service occupations, such as health-
care (Swanson, 1991; Watson, 2008), so-
cial services (Kahn, 1993; Martela, 2012),
ministry (Smylie etal., 2016), and educa-
tion (Noddings, 2005), where caring is an-
chored in human problems and responses
to them, and is largely oriented towards
external organisational stakeholders, i.e.
clients, patients and students. erefore re-
search on caring in organisational science
is largely focused on caring as an aspect of
interpersonal relationships (Smylie etal.,
2016; Weber, 2014). Some authors have in-
tegrated the construct of caring from these
research areas into management research
(Martela, 2012; Weber, 2014).
e majority of attempts to concep-
tualise organisational caring for manage-
ment research (e.g. Kahn, 1993; Kroth,
Keeler, 2009; Noddings, 1984) do it at
the individual level. Along with the im-
portance of professional caring, as an
integral part of services provided for cli-
ents, the relevance of caring for employ-
ees, as service providers, has been em-
phasised in work relationship literature
too. It has been recognised that client
service is highly dependent on how em-
ployees who take care of clients are taken
care of themselves (Chuang, Liao, 2010;
Kahn, 1993; Liedtka, 1996). Research on
caring in the organisational setting has
emerged in positive organisational schol-
arship together with studies on compas-
sion (Dutton, Workman, Hardin, 2014).
e understanding of caring is extended
Eglė POŠKIENĖ, Dafnis N. COUDOUNARIS, Rūta KAZLAUSKAITĖ48
from personal attitudes and behaviours
towards caring as a value and a practice
(Held, 2006; Tronto, 2010) and a cognitive
decision (Kawamura, 2013, p.116): “Hu-
mans and their organisations have always
made choices to care (or not) and where
to place their care”. Qualities and attitudes
of a caring personality are seen as values
not only between persons but also be-
tween members of caring societies (Held,
2006; Kawamura, 2013); thus, caring has
been lied to the organisational level.
To summarise, research on caring in
organisational science rests on the indi-
vidual level, which comes from profes-
sional caring.
The demarcation of the area
of caring for employees in
management
is section presents concepts and ap-
proaches to caring in management re-
search. e words “care” and “caring” in
management literature are used at dier-
ent levels in reference to caring within
and outside the organisation: institu-
tional, when talking for instance about
care for environment or particular social
groups of people (Engster, 2004; Starik,
Rands, 1995; Tronto, 2010), organisation-
al, which refers to the caring of organisa-
tions about dierent stakeholders includ-
ing employees (Liedtka, 1996; Weber,
2014), and personal caring, which looks at
caring at the group level (Houghton etal.,
2015) or individual (Carmeli etal., 2016;
Kahn, 1993; Kroth, Keeler, 2009): between
co-workers, managers and employees, etc.
Besides, dierent concepts are used in dif-
ferent level studies, as well as actors who
are involved in caring.
To date the terms of “caring” or “care”
are oen used implicitly across dierent
strands of management and organisational
behaviour research. For instance, positive
organisational scholarship (Luthans,
Youssef, 2007), sustainability and corporate
social responsibility research refer to
caring as a phenomenon in an implicit
sense (indirectly) without dening caring
as a concept. Sometimes caring, as a term,
is referred to not as a construct but as a
phenomenon (e.g. Delios, 2010). Literature
that analyses caring diers in its approach
to caring even when it uses the notions of
“care” or “caring” explicitly. For someone,
it is a philosophy of care (Simpson et al.,
2013), strategic caring (Weber, 2014), care
as practice (Tronto, 2010) and value (Held,
2006), caring climate (Victor, Cullen, 1988)
or caring managerial strategy (Kroth,
Keeler, 2009).
Moreover, the vast body of manage-
ment research refers to caring through
care-related constructs that refer to car-
ing implicitly when the term “caring” is
not mentioned. Conceptualisations us-
ing care-related constructs have made
a signicant contribution to our under-
standing of caring and its impact in the
work environment on the individual and
organisational levels. ose are compas-
sion (Dutton etal., 2014), several types of
leadership, such as servant, spiritual, and
ethical leadership (Yukl, 2013), social ex-
change-based conceptualisations, such as
perceived organisational support (Rhoad-
es, Eisenberger, 2002). It is noteworthy
that although oen used synonymously
caring is distinct conceptually from com-
passion (Fuqua, Newman, 2002; Grant,
Dutton, Rosso, 2008; Lawrence, Maitlis,
2012; Weber, 2014), since caring towards
another person does not necessarily mean
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CARING FOR EMPLOYEES AND THE WELL-BEING OF
THE ORGANISATION 49
that the other person is in pain, and car-
ing, unlike compassion, is not necessarily
induced by one’s suering.
Caring is dicult to distinguish from
numerous care-related conceptualisa-
tions; however, dierent approaches to
caring share several commonalities: (a)
caring is particularistic and situational,
which means it is specically appropriate
in addressing the immediate needs of em-
ployees (Engster, 2004, 2011; Fine, 2006;
Louis etal., 2016; Smylie etal., 2016); (b)
caring has distinctive features, such as au-
thenticity, orientation to and interest in
another person, responsiveness to others’
needs (Carmeli etal., 2016; Kroth, Keeler,
2009; Louis etal., 2016; Tronto, 2010); (c)
caring is mutual, and those who are car-
ing for others can become cared for in
another situation, which assumes agency
for all parties (Kahn, 1993; Liedtka, 1996;
Louis etal., 2016; Luthans, Youssef, 2007;
Smylie etal., 2016; Von Krogh, 1998); (d)
intentions to do good for others underly
the actions of caring (Finkenauer, Meeus,
2000; Hamington, Sander-Staudt, 2011;
Held, 2006; Lawrence, Maitlis, 2012; We-
ber, 2014).
e latter two features of caring de-
serve more attention as they provide a
basis for building our propositions for
future research. Since caring is used in
reference to activities concerning the
well-being of the cared for, in an organi-
sation it may refer to its activities aimed
at fostering employee well-being. It is not
only belonging to an organisation, team
or social network, but caring for particu-
lar individuals that fosters well-being of
employees in the organisation who are
mutually dependent on other internal or-
ganisational members for their well-being
(Tronto, 2010). People in caring relations
seek to preserve or promote a relation be-
tween themselves and particular others;
thus, as a result caring between individu-
als generates the cooperative well-being
of the organisation. It follows that this
study focuses on employee well-being on
both the individual and organisational
levels. e well-being of the organisation
constitutes the well-being of those in the
relation and the well-being of the rela-
tion itself, in which extremes and conict
situations (egoism versus altruism, self-
ishness versus abstract humanity) may be
avoided (Held, 2006). Overall, well-being
research, as well as research on caring, has
been primarily performed at the individu-
al level of analysis (George, 2014). ere-
fore, at this point, this paper contributes
to the knowledge of the well-being of the
organisation.
Researchers of caring dier in their
understanding of individual well-being.
For instance, the ethics of care approach
is primarily concerned about the “growth”
(Gilligan, 1982) of a person, i.e. “moving
[the cared for] toward the use and devel-
opment of their full capacities, within the
context of their self-dened needs and
aspirations” (Liedtka, 1996, p.185). Van
der Vyver etal. (2014) regard caring as di-
rected at the well-being of an employee as
a human being per se.
To summarise, prior research is lack-
ing the denition and operationalisation
of caring as a construct. Besides caring
can inict further caring: networks of car-
ing constitute an environment where peo-
ple share their knowledge and learn about
caring from experiencing it, and the total-
ity of caring that person experience in an
organisation leads to a spread of caring
and its positive outcomes.
Eglė POŠKIENĖ, Dafnis N. COUDOUNARIS, Rūta KAZLAUSKAITĖ50
Relational perspective to
organisational caring
In this section, caring is studied from
the relational perspective. Approaches
or theories of caring in management put
forward relationships among individu-
als, i.e. treat caring as relational. Research
on caring acknowledges the relevance of
relationships and interconnectedness as
an indispensable part of humans (Fotaki,
Prasad, 2015; Grant, 2007) by putting for-
ward employees as humans, not merely
a resource or human capital (Héjj, 2019;
Kawamura, 2013). Multiple dimensions of
relationships (Ferris et al., 2009) pertain
to caring, such as trust, support, aect, re-
spect, accountability, etc. As emotions are
embedded in relationships, caring is also a
largely emotional construct in the major-
ity of caring theorizing (e.g. Bell, Richard,
2000; Kahn, 1993). Care is by and large
associated with many positive emotions,
such as sympathy, empathy, sensitiv-
ity, responsiveness (Held, 2006). Clearly,
not all relationships are caring (Faldetta,
2016). For instance, positive organisa-
tional scholarship embeds caring in high
quality relationships (Cameron, Dutton,
Quin, 2003). Transactions like economic
leader-member exchange are hardly asso-
ciated with caring. Caring is a quality, or
a property of relationships (Smylie etal.,
2016), and values of caring are especially
articulated in caring relations, rather than
in persons as individuals (Held, 2006).
Research on caring stresses respon-
siveness and mutuality in a caring re-
lationship, which refers not only to the
responsiveness of the caregiver but the
cared-for too (Finkenauer, Meeus, 2000;
Held, 2006; Kroth, Keeler, 2009; Martela,
2012; Noddings, 2005). For those who
provide care it is necessary to evaluate its
appropriateness, i.e., see if caring is ap-
preciated as such and recognised by the
cared-for (Noddings, 2005). Recipients of
care sustain caring relationships through
their responsiveness (Held, 2006). e
ethics of care (e.g. Held, 2006) puts rela-
tions of caring and mutual responsiveness
at both the intrapersonal and wider so-
cial levels. e personal attitude to show
concern for another person becomes an
organisational-level value of caring (Held,
2006).
According to an ethics of the care
theorist N. Noddings (1984, 2002), caring
provides conditions to grow in relation-
ships and to sustain them. Rooting ethi-
cal caring in maternal relations (so-called
“natural caring”) allows approaching it
as a continuous source of receptivity, re-
latedness, and responsiveness for people
(Noddings, 1984). As the ethics of care
infuses caring into a continuous relation-
ship, from the positive organisational
scholarship point of view caring is also
found in discrete interactions that emerge
on certain occasions (Stephens, Heaphy,
Dutton, 2012). Positive organisational
scholarship tends to view caring as a mi-
cro-relational mechanism (Carmeli etal.,
2016; Stephens etal., 2012). In this strand
of literature being respected and cared for
in a relationship means being regarded
positively (Stephens etal., 2012; Wiegand,
Geller, 2005).
Morality perspective to
organisational caring
e morality perspective to caring
embraces ethics and morale-based views
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CARING FOR EMPLOYEES AND THE WELL-BEING OF
THE ORGANISATION 51
to caring. Its core conceptual framework
of caring is known as the ethics of care
(Gilligan, 1982; Noddings, 1984). e
ethics of care refers to the notions of care
and caring explicitly and argues for a
system of morality that places particular
and situational needs of individuals ahead
of abstract and universal judgments of
right or wrong and ideal virtues since
general rules and policies violate particular
and variable needs of individuals (Engster,
2004; Simola, Barling, Turner, 2010;
Tronto, 2010).
Caring is a disposition and attitude
of attending to others that is motivated
by morality. As an „active virtue“ caring
needs to be enacted not only naturally but
also based on a moral commitment (“I
must”) (Held, 2006). N.Noddings (2002,
p. 13) proposes consciousness in caring
relations like “what we are like” when we
engage in caring. Caring from the moral-
ity perspective for some is consistent with
an altruistic orientation (Gabriel, 2015),
or responsibility and benevolence (Fuqua,
Newman, 2002). An important distinction
made in the ethics of care is that caring is
not the same as benevolence or altruism.
Benevolence is an individual state and car-
ing is a social relation, which is more than
an individual state (Held, 2006). Caring
involves concern not only for others but
also for oneself and one’s own well-being
within the relations of care (Engster, 2004;
Held, 2006) when persons in a caring rela-
tion are not competitors for benets; thus,
caring may not be equalled to altruism ei-
ther (Held, 2006).
Caring about employees is also
implied in with the underlying ethics
of “doing good” in corporate social
responsibility as well as in sustainability
initiatives that integrate social justice,
environmental, economic, and human
factors to achieve the triple bottom line
(De Bakker, Groenewegen, Den Hond,
2005). is research, like the ethics of
care, also views caring from an ethics lens;
however, it refers to caring implicitly. From
a holistic view of corporate sustainability
(Starik, Kanashiro, 2013; Van Marrewijk,
2003), each individual and organisation
have universal responsibility towards all
other human and non-human beings for
resource regeneration and renewal. Social
sustainability, also referred to as social
responsibility or human sustainability
(Pfeer, 2010), is one of the key dimensions
of corporate sustainability and embraces
organisational obligations to its social
stakeholders in respect to its economic,
social and environmental performance (De
Bakker etal., 2005). Sustainability research
also emphasises the relevance of meeting
human needs and taking care of the
social welfare of both internal (including
employees) and external social stakeholders
of the organisation seeking for long-term
quality of life (Starik, Rands, 1995).
Caring, like the notion of corporate
sustainability (Pfeer, 2010), is a repre-
sentation of internal values and beliefs,
such as protection, respect, acceptance,
empathy, preservation, restoration, rec-
ognition, altruism, to name just a few, as
opposed to external values such as an ob-
session with the continued attainment of
material wealth and excess consumption
(Florea, Cheung, Herndon, 2013; Held,
2006; Starik, Kanashiro, 2013). e pri-
mary motives of corporate social respon-
sibility are based on maintaining ethical
standards and moral principles (Aguilera
etal., 2007), which refer to the common
understanding of corporate social respon-
sibility as corporate actions targeted at
Eglė POŠKIENĖ, Dafnis N. COUDOUNARIS, Rūta KAZLAUSKAITĖ52
furthering some social good, beyond and
above the self (mostly economic) interests
and mandatory (mostly legal) require-
ments (Aguinis, Glavas, 2012).
To summarise, the conceptual frame-
works related to the morality perspective,
bring into play the interests and needs of
other organisational stakeholders beyond
shareholders, employees among them.
e morality perspective emphasises
particular organisational and individual
values and attitudes that guide personal
and caring work behaviours. Respectively
organisational caring, being relational
and mutual, becomes a responsibility, a
natural duty and an obligation enacted by
aection and regard. It addresses genu-
ineness and volunteering and is not pre-
scribed in one’s job description.
Antecedents of organisational
well-being: propositions
e literature reviewed above suggests
that relational and moral perspectives
should be combined and viewed as
constituent parts of organisational caring.
Organisational responsibility is a moral
element that manifests through responsible
actions; however, it cannot be attained
without the relationality of caring, which
is embedded in relationships between
individuals (Poškienė, Kazlauskaitė, 2015;
Van Marrewijk, 2003). us, future studies
should approach caring for employees
from a combination of relational and
morality perspectives.
In this section, rst, we review car-
ing and care-related constructs oered
in management literature on these per-
spectives. Further on, propositions on
the relationships between these con-
structs and organisational well-being are
suggested.
Caring for employees at the organisa-
tional level has been studied through stra-
tegic caring (Weber, 2014), perceived or-
ganisational support (Rhoades, Eisenberger,
2002), organisational care (Liedtka, 1999),
caring climate (Victor, Cullen, 1988), caring
organisational culture (Galanaki, Papagian-
nakis, 2015), and caring leadership (Gabriel,
2015; Smylie etal., 2016) that are presented
below.
T. Weber (2014) oered a construct
of strategic caring, dened as actions
taken by top managers within the con-
text of ongoing stakeholder relationships
to improve the joint well-being of both
the stakeholders and the organisation. It
implies that top management of the or-
ganisation that is guided by strategic car-
ing will exert caring behaviors towards its
employees, shareholders, suppliers, cus-
tomers, communities, other stakeholders,
and itself. According to T.Weber (2014),
many manifestations of strategic caring
are similar to corporate social responsi-
bility. ough the denition of strategic
caring is broader than the focus of this
paper, which is caring for employees, it is
proposed that:
Proposition 1: Strategic caring is posi-
tively related to the well-being of the
organization.
Perceived organisational support
(Rhoades, Eisenberger, 2002) is a widely
researched construct and the organisa-
tional level placeholder among care-relat-
ed constructs. It is dened as an employ-
ee’s global belief about the extent to which
the organisation they work for values
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CARING FOR EMPLOYEES AND THE WELL-BEING OF
THE ORGANISATION 53
their contribution and cares about their
well-being (Rhoades, Eisenberger, 2002).
M.Kroth and C.Keeler (2009) however
argue that an organisation might value an
employee’s contribution without caring
for an employee at all. In agreement with
them and providing some critique to per-
ceived organisational support in regards
to its excessive emphasis on the norm of
reciprocity, which always embraces inter-
est from the giving party, K. Mignonac
and N. Richebé (2013) have oered the
notion of disinterested organisational sup-
port. ey argue that based on the norm
of disinterestedness (i.e. acting beyond
and above self-interests and legal require-
ments), disinterested organisational sup-
port could contribute to a better under-
standing of how employees subjectively
evaluate organisational investment that
are beneficial to them. Hence, it can be
proposed that:
Proposition 2: e perceived organisa-
tional support and disinterested organisa-
tional support are positively related to the
well-being of the organisation.
In line with the ethics of care perspec-
tive, J. M. Liedtka (1999) has proposed
the term of organisational care, which is
an organisation-focused phenomenon
reecting perceptions regarding a broad
provision of care by the organisation to all
its employees (McAllister, Bigley, 2002).
It diers from perceived organisational
support, which is an individual-centred
phenomenon representing the perceived
individualised receipt of support by an
employee from the organisation (McAl-
lister, Bigley, 2002). e essence of or-
ganisational care lies in the “deep struc-
ture” of values and organising principles
that over time and across situations bring
coherence to organisational routines and
practices (Liedtka, 1999). us, it is pro-
posed that:
Proposition 3: Organisational care is
positively related to the well-being of the
organisation.
In a caring organisational culture
high degree of being in communion, be-
longingness and meaningfulness is cul-
tivated: executives and leaders develop
and maintain trust among the members
of the organisation, share responsibility,
build strong and open relationships with
team members, listen to their feedback,
and encourage voices of all organisation-
al members (Engster, 2004; Kawamura,
2013; Smylie etal., 2016). Caring cultures
are people-centred and are based on col-
lectivism and humane orientation under
which 1) all people are important; 2) peo-
ple shape the culture; 3) people working
together perform at higher levels; and 4)
all people should benet (Black, Venture,
2017; Galanaki, Papagiannakis, 2015).
e value of caring needs to be encapsu-
lated in management culture over time
(Florea etal., 2013; Liedtka, 1999) and is
likely to be reected through beliefs and
managerial practices that create and sup-
port caring culture. erefore, it can be
proposed that:
Proposition 4: Caring organisational
culture is positively related to the well-
being of the organisation.
Another organisational environment-
based notion close to caring culture is
that of caring climate. e employee-
oriented, or caring climate, as a facet of
Eglė POŠKIENĖ, Dafnis N. COUDOUNARIS, Rūta KAZLAUSKAITĖ54
organisational climate, or a specic type
of climate, is conceptualized dierently
in literature. From the perspective of the
Ethical Climate eory (Victor, Cullen,
1988) organisational caring climate refers
to a few of its theoretical types: friendship
(benevolence – individual) and team
interest (benevolence – local) (Galanaki,
Papagiannakis, 2015; Simha, Cullen,
2012) that are best illustrated by sample
items of their measures „Our major
concern is always what is best for the
other person“, “What is best for everyone
in the company is the major consideration
here“ (Victor, Cullen, 1988; Wang, Hsieh,
2012). us, it is proposed that:
Proposition 5: Caring climate is posi-
tively related to the well-being of the
organisation.
Leadership is however central in re-
search on the caring environment in or-
ganisations, since caring leaders cultivate
caring environments (Smylie etal., 2016).
Caring leadership is mostly researched in
education management (Louis etal., 2016;
Van der Vyver etal., 2014) and may be de-
ned as inuencing followers through the
caring matter, manner, and motivation of
leader actions and interactions that goes
beyond the call of duty in dispatching a
leader’s responsibilities (Gabriel, 2015;
Hasu, Lehtonen, 2014; Smylie etal., 2016).
From a leadership perspective, managers’
caring is well articulated in ethical leader-
ship, which according to G.A.Yukl (2013),
includes transforming, servant, spiritual
and authentic leadership. Although dier-
ent these schools of leadership have much
in common. ey emphasize the same
values, such as integrity, altruism, humili-
ty, empathy and healing, personal growth,
fairness and justice, and empowerment
(Yukl, 2013). eir comparison demon-
strates that the broad domain of ethical
leadership includes a moral element, is
highly people-focused and stimulates in-
trinsic motivation of followers. Hence, it
can be proposed that:
Proposition 6: Caring leadership is
positively related to the well-being of the
organisation.
Conclusions
Our review has revealed that being con-
text-specic, caring is particularistic and
situational, thus specically appropriate
in addressing the immediate needs of em-
ployees. is also means that caring may
pertain to dierent things in diverse set-
tings: workplace, education, consulting
or professional care work. It is therefore
necessary to support the existing theoreti-
cal considerations with future empirical
investigations of the caring concept in dif-
ferent research contexts. While research
on caring in management is in a nascent
stage, inductive empirical research would
be valuable to provide answers on how
caring for employees manifests in various
organisational contexts, prot-oriented
business environments in particular,
where empirical research on caring is still
lacking. is literature review is not an ex-
haustive study of caring for employees. It
has included those studies that allowed to
gain a better understanding of organisa-
tional caring for employees at the organi-
sational level. Additionally, it takes a mul-
tidisciplinary view by reviewing literature
from several disciplines. Looking beyond
management disciplines, the study argues
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CARING FOR EMPLOYEES AND THE WELL-BEING OF
THE ORGANISATION 55
that caring has rmly established its place
in the research of human-service profes-
sions, such as nursing, and education
research. Further research on caring in
management requires a multidisciplinary
approach combining psychology, educa-
tion, organisational behaviour, leadership
and elds of management research, where
research on caring is more mature.
is review also showed that relational
and morality approaches to organisation-
al caring for employees should be applied
in combination. Connections in social
networks, interaction and sharing are pri-
mary motives for caring for organisation-
al members. erefore, caring is best ar-
ticulated within research frameworks, the
ethics of care among them, that embrace
both the relationality and morality of car-
ing. However, to date, the relationship-
based literature and research on morality
in the form of pro-social behaviours have
been largely evolving as separate direc-
tions in management and organisational
behaviour research. One of the contribu-
tions of this study is the combination of
two research streams, i.e. the relational
and morality perspectives, which helps to
better understand organisational caring
for employees.
is study has also demonstrated the
variety of terms and concepts used in or-
ganisational sciences in regards to study-
ing caring at the organisational level, or
organisational activities concerning em-
ployee well-being, such as strategic car-
ing, perceived organisational support,
disinterested organisational support,
organisational caring, caring culture, car-
ing climate and caring leadership. eir
variety allows proposing to view caring as
a phenomenon and umbrella term for the
concepts, notions and constructs that ex-
plicitly or implicitly refer to caring for em-
ployee well-being. When studying caring
for employees, it is suggested to choose
between caring and other care-related
constructs, including those analysed in
this review, to best serve the aims of the
study.
Since the domain of caring in man-
agement is still lacking clear boundaries,
further research is needed to investigate
whether the existing care-related con-
structs cover the relational and morality
dimensions of the phenomenon of car-
ing in the eld of management at the or-
ganisational level. Empirical research on
the nomothetic network of caring and
care-related constructs is needed to un-
derstand whether the distinct construct
of “caring” is needed, or it would be exces-
sive in the existing diversity of care-related
constructs.
is paper also contributes to the
knowledge on well-being of the organi-
sation by suggesting an array of its ante-
cedents as constructs appropriate for the
study of caring at the organisational level.
Future research could also study other an-
tecedents of employee and organisational
well-being and may test empirically the re-
lationships proposed in this study as well
as their mechanisms; therefore, mediators
and boundary conditions of the proposed
relationships need to be explored.
Eglė POŠKIENĖ, Dafnis N. COUDOUNARIS, Rūta KAZLAUSKAITĖ56
References
1. Adler, N. J., Hansen, H. (2012). Daring to
Care: Scholarship that Supports the Courage
of our Convictions // Journal of Management
Inquiry. Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 28–139. doi:
10.1177/1056492611427801
2. Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A.,
Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S Back in
Corporate Social Responsibility: A Multilevel
Theory of Social Change in Organizations
// Academy of Management Review.
Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 836–863. doi: 10.5465/
amr.2007.25275678
3. Aguinis, H., Glavas, A. (2012). What we
Know and don’t Know about Corporate Social
Responsibility: A Review and Research Agenda
// Journal of Management. Vol. 38, No. 4,
pp.932–968. doi: 10.1177/0149206311436079
4. Bear, J. B. (2019). e Caregiving Ambition
Framework // Academy of Management
Review. Vol.44, No.1, pp.99–125. doi: 10.5465/
amr.2016.0424
5. Bell, D. C., Richard, A. J. (2000). e Search for a
Caregiving Motivation // Psychological Inquiry.
Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 124–128. doi: 10.1207/
S15327965PLI1102_03
6. Black, J., Venture, K. L. (2017). e Human
Factor to Protability: People-Centered
Cultures as Meaningful Organizations //
Journal of Organizational Psychology. Vol. 17,
No. 2, 24–34. Internet access: http://www.na-
businesspress.com/JOP/BlackJ_Web17_2_.pdf
[accessed August 16, 2019].
7. Bouckaert, L. (2019). Caring for Being and
Caring for the Other / In Caring Management
in the New Economy: Socially Responsible
Behaviour rough Spirituality, ed. O. Setter
and L. Zsolnai.– Cham, Switzerland: Springer,
pp.47–61.
8. Cameron, K., Dutton, J., Quin, R. E. (2003).
Positive Organizational Scholarship:
Foundations of a New Discipline. San Francisko,
CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
9. Carmeli, A., Jones, C. D., Binyamin, G. (2016).
e Power of Caring and Generativity in
Building Strategic Adaptability // Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology.
Vol. 89, No. 1, pp. 46–72. https://doi.
org/10.1111/joop.12106
10. Chuang, C. H., Liao, H. (2010). Strategic Human
Resource Management in Service
Context: Taking Care of Business by Taking
Care of Employees and Customers // Personnel
Psychology. Vol. 63, No. 1, pp. 153–196. doi:
10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01165.x
11. Curzer, H. J. (2007). Aristotle: Founder of the
Ethics of Care // e Journal of Value Inquiry.
Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 221–243. doi: 10.1007/
s10790-007-9088-2
12. De Bakker, F. G., Groenewegen, P., Den
Hond, F. (2005). A Bibliometric Analysis of 30
Years of Research and eory on Corporate
Social Responsibility and Corporate Social
Performance // Business & Society. Vol.44, No.3,
pp.283–317. doi: 10.1177/0007650305278086
13. Delios, A. (2010). How can Organizations be
Competitive but Dare to Care? // Academy
of Management Perspectives. Vol. 24, No. 3,
pp.25–36. doi:10.5465/AMP.2010.52842949
14. Dutton, J. E., Workman, K. M., Hardin, A. E.
(2014). Compassion at Work // Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior. Vol.1, No.1, pp.277–304. doi:10.1146/
annurev-orgpsych-031413-091221
15. Engster, D. (2004). Care Ethics and Natural
Law eory: Toward an Institutional
Political eory of Caring // e Journal
of Politics. Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 113–135.
doi:10.1046/j.1468-2508.2004.00144.x
16. Engster, D. (2011). Care Ethics and Stakeholder
eory / In Applying Care Ethics to Business,
ed. M. Hamington and M. Sander-Staudt. –
Dordrecht: Springer. Vol. 34, pp. 93–110.
doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9307-3_5
17. Faldetta, G. (2016). Organizational Caring and
Organizational Justice: Some Implications for
the Employment Relationship // International
Journal of Organizational Analysis.
Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 64–80. doi: 10.1108/
IJOA-07-2013-0697
18. Ferris, G. R., Liden, R. C., Munyon, T. P.,
Summers, J. K., Basik, K. J., Buckley, M. R.
(2009). Relationships at Work: Toward a
Multidimensional Conceptualization of
Dyadic Work Relationships // Journal of
Management. Vol.35, No.6, pp.1379–1403. doi:
10.1177/0149206309344741
19. Fine, M. D. (2006). A caring Society? Care and
the Dilemmas of Human Service in the twenty-
First Century.– Palgrave Macmillan.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CARING FOR EMPLOYEES AND THE WELL-BEING OF
THE ORGANISATION 57
20. Fine, M. D. (2007). e Social Division of
Care // Australian Journal of Social Issues.
Vol.42, No.2, pp.137–149. doi: 10.1002/j.1839-
4655.2007.tb00045.x
21. Finkenauer, C., Meeus, W. (2000). How (Pro-)
Social is the Caring Motive? // Psychological
Inquiry. Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 100–103. Internet
access: www.jstor.org/stable/1449023 [accessed
September 8, 2019].
22. Florea, L., Cheung, Y. H., Herndon, N. C.
(2013). For all Good Reasons: Role of Values
in Organizational Sustainability // Journal of
Business Ethics. Vol. 114, No. 3, pp. 393–408.
doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1355-x
23. Fotaki, M., Prasad, A. (2015). Questioning
neoliberal capitalism and economic inequality
in business schools // Academy of Management
Learning & Education. Vol.14, No.4, pp.556–
575. doi: 10.5465/amle.2014.0182
24. Fuqua, D. R., Newman, J. L. (2002). Creating
Caring Organizations // Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research. Vol. 54, No.2,
pp.131–140. doi: 10.1037/1061-4087.54.2.131
25. Gabriel, Y. (2015). e Caring Leader - What
Followers Expect of their Leaders and Why?
// Leadership. Vol.11, No.3, pp.316–334. doi:
10.1177/1742715014532482
26. Galanaki, E., Papagiannakis, N. (2015). Eects
of the Discrepancy between Ideal and Actual
Caring Culture on Employee Commitment
and Satisfaction. - Paper presented at the 2015
European Academy of Management Conference,
Warsaw, June 17-20.
27. George, J. M. (2014). Compassion and
Capitalism: Implications for Organizational
Studies // Journal of Management. Vol.40, No.1,
pp.5–15. doi: 10.1177/0149206313490028
28. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Dierent Voice:
Psychological eory and Women’s
Development. – Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
29. Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational Job Design and
the Motivation to Make a Prosocial Dierence //
Academy of Management Review. Vol.32, No. 2,
pp.393–417. doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.24351328
30. Grant, A. M. (2014). Give and Take: Why
Helping Others Drives our Success.– Penguin.
31. Grant, A. M., Dutton, J. E., Rosso, B. D. (2008).
Giving Commitment: Employee Support
Programs and e Prosocial Sensemaking
Process // Academy of Management Journal.
Vol. 51, No. 5, pp. 898–918. doi: 10.5465/
amj.2008.34789652
32. Hamington, M., Sander-Staudt, M. (2011).
Introduction: Care Ethics and Business
Ethics / In Applying Care Ethics to Business,
ed. M. Hamington and M. Sander-Staudt. –
Dordrecht: Springer, Vol.34, pp.vii–xxii.
33. Hasu, M., Lehtonen, M. (2014). Leadership
with Care–Constructing Responsibility as
‘Shared Caring’in a Complex Public Service
Organisation // Scandinavian Journal of Public
Administration. Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 9–28.
Internet access: http://ub016045.ub.gu.se/
ojs/index.php/sjpa/article/view/3052/2608
[accessed December 11, 2015].
34. Héjj, T. (2019). Dignity, Love and Servant-
Leadership / In Caring Management in
the New Economy: Socially Responsible
Behaviour rough Spirituality, ed. O. Setter
and L. Zsolnai.– Cham, Switzerland: Springer,
pp.139–162.
35. Held, V. (2006). e Ethics of Care: Personal,
Political, and Global.– NY: Oxford University
Press. Internet access: https://e-docs.eplo.int/
phocadownloadpap/userupload/aportinou-
eplo.int/e-Ethics-of-Care-Personal-Political-
and-Global-by-Virginia-Held.pdf [accessed
August 29, 2019].
36. Houghton, J. D., Pearce, C. L., Manz, C. C.,
Courtright, S., Stewart, G. L. (2015). Sharing
is Caring: Toward a Model of Proactive Caring
through Shared Leadership // Human Resource
Management Review. Vol.25, No.3, pp. 313–
327. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2014.12.001
37. Kahn, W. A. (1993). Caring for the Caregivers:
Patterns of Organizational Caregiving //
Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 38,
No.4, pp.539–563. doi: 10.2307/2393336
38. Kawamura, K. M. (2013). Understanding the
Concept of Care in Cross-Cultural Settings:
Toward a Resource Denition of Care in Work
Organizations // Cross Cultural Management:
An International Journal. Vol. 20, No. 2,
pp.100–123. doi: 10.1108/13527601311313373
39. Kovacs, G. (2019). e Caring Attitude of
Christian and Buddhist Entrepreneurs / In
Caring Management in the New Economy:
Socially Responsible Behaviour rough
Spirituality, ed. O. Setter and L. Zsolnai. –
Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp.81–196.
40. Kroth, M., Keeler, C. (2009). Caring as a
Managerial Strategy // Human Resource
Development Review. Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 506–
531. doi: 10.1177/1534484309341558
Eglė POŠKIENĖ, Dafnis N. COUDOUNARIS, Rūta KAZLAUSKAITĖ58
41. Lawrence, T. B., Maitlis, S. (2012). Care and
Possibility: Enacting an Ethic of Care through
Narrative Practice // Academy of Management
Review. Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 641–663. doi:
10.5465/amr.2010.0466
42. Liedtka, J. M. (1996). Feminist Morality and
Competitive Reality: A Role for an Ethic of
Care? // Business Ethics Quarterly. Vol.6, No.2,
pp.179–200. doi: 10.2307/3857622
43. Liedtka, J. M. (1999). Linking Competitive
Advantage with Communities of Practice //
Journal of Management Inquiry. Vol. 8, No.1,
pp.5–16. doi: 10.1177/105649269981002
44. Louis, K. S., Murphy, J., Smylie, M. (2016).
Caring Leadership in Schools: Findings
from Exploratory Analyses // Educational
Administration Quarterly. Vol. 52, No. 2,
pp.310–348. doi: 10.1177/0013161X15627678
45. Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging
Positive Organizational Behavior // Journal of
Management. Vol. 33, No.3, pp.321–349. doi:
10.1177/0149206307300814
46. Martela, F. (2012). Caring Connections-
Compassionate Mutuality in the Organizational
Life of a Nursing Home. – PhD diss., Aalto
University, Espoo.
47. McAllister, D. J., Bigley, G. A. (2002). Work
Context and the Denition of Self: How
Organizational Care Inuences Organization-
Based Self-Esteem // Academy of Management
Journal. Vol. 45, No. 5, pp. 894–904. doi:
10.5465/3069320
48. Mignonac, K., Richebé, N. (2013). ‘No
Strings Attached?’: How Attribution of
Disinterested Support Aects Employee
Retention // Human Resource Management
Journal. Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 72–90. doi:
10.1111/j.1748-8583.2012.00195.x
49. Noddings, N. (1984). Caring, a Feminine
Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. –
Berkeley: University of California Press.
50. Noddings, N. (2002). Starting at Home. Caring
and Social Policy. – Berkeley: University of
California Press.
51. Noddings, N. (2005). e Challenge to Care
in Schools: An Alternative Approach to
Education.– New York: Teachers College Press.
52. Pfeer, J. (2010). Building Sustainable
Organizations: e Human Factor // Academy
of Management Perspectives. Vol. 24, No. 1,
pp.34–45. doi: 10.5465/amp.24.1.34
53. Pirson, M. (2019). A Humanistic Perspective for
Management eory: Protecting Dignity and
Promoting Well-Being // Journal of Business
Ethics. Vol.159, No.1, pp.39–57. doi: 10.1007/
s10551-017-3755-4
54. Poškienė, E., Kazlauskaitė, R. (2015). Translating
Sustainability Principles into HRM. – Paper
presented at the 2015 European Academy of
Management Conference, Warsaw, June 17-20.
55. Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R. (2002).
Perceived Organizational Support: A Review
of the Literature // Journal of Applied
Psychology. Vol. 87, No. 4, pp. 698–714. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698
56. Rynes, S. L., Bartunek, J. M., Dutton, J. E.,
Margolis, J. D. (2012). Care and Compassion
through an Organizational Lens: Opening up
New Possibilities // Academy of Management
Review. Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 503–523. doi:
10.5465/amr.2012.0124
57. Setter, O., Zsolnai, L. (2019). e Sgnicance of
Care in the Dark Times/ In Caring Management
in the New Economy: Socially Responsible
Behaviour rough Spirituality, ed. O. Setter
and L. Zsolnai.– Cham, Switzerland: Springer,
pp.293–298.
58. Sewell, G., Barker, J. R. (2006). Coercion
versus Care: Using Irony to Make Sense of
Organizational Surveillance // Academy of
Management Review. Vol.31, No.4, pp. 934–
961. doi: 10.5465/amr.2006.22527466
59. Simha, A., Cullen, J. B. (2012). Ethical Climates
and their Eects on Organizational Outcomes:
Implications from the Past and Prophecies
for the Future // Academy of Management
Perspectives. Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 20–34. doi:
10.5465/amp.2011.0156
60. Simola, S. K., Barling, J., Turner, N. (2010).
Transformational Leadership and Leader Moral
Orientation: Contrasting an Ethic of Justice and
an Ethic of Care // e Leadership Quarterly.
Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 179–188. doi: 10.1016/j.
leaqua.2009.10.013
61. Simpson, A. V., Clegg, S. R., Freeder, D. (2013).
Compassion, Power and Organization // Journal
of Political Power. Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.385–404.
doi: 10.1080/2158379x.2013.846558
62. Smylie, M. A., Murphy, J., Louis, K. S. (2016).
Caring School Leadership: A Multidisciplinary,
Cross-Occupational Model // American Journal
of Education. Vol.123, No.1, pp.1–35. https://
doi.org/10.1086/688166
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CARING FOR EMPLOYEES AND THE WELL-BEING OF
THE ORGANISATION 59
63. Starik, M., Kanashiro, P. (2013). Toward a eory
of Sustainability Management: Uncovering and
Integrating the Nearly Obvious // Organization
& Environment. Vol. 26, No.1, pp.7–30. doi:
10.1177/1086026612474958
64. Starik, M., Rands, G. P. (1995). Weaving an
Integrated Web: Multilevel and Multisystem
Perspectives of Ecologically Sustainable
Organizations // Academy of Management
Review. Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 908–935. doi:
10.5465/amr.1995.9512280025
65. Stephens, J. P., Heaphy, E., Dutton, J. E.
(2012). High Quality Connections / In e
Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational
Scholarship, ed. K. S. Cameron and G. M.
Spreitzer. – New York, US: Oxford University
Press, pp.385–399.
66. Swanson, K. M. (1991). Empirical Development
of a Middle Range eory of Caring // Nursing
Research. Vol.40, No.3, pp.161–166. Internet
access: http://nursing.unc.edu/les/2012/11/
ccm3_032548.pdf [accessed January 1, 2016].
67. Tronto, J. C. (2010). Creating Caring Institutions:
Politics, Plurality, and Purpose // Ethics and
Social Welfare. Vol.4, No.2, pp.158–171. doi:
10.1080/17496535.2010.484259
68. Tsui, A. S. (2013). 2012 Presidential Address—
On Compassion in Scholarship: Why Should
We Care? // Academy of Management Review.
Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 167–180. doi: 10.5465/
amr.2012.0408
69. Van der Vyver, C. P., Van der Westhuizen, P. C.,
Meyer, L. (2014). Caring School Leadership: A
South African Study // Educational Management
Administration & Leadership. Vol. 42, No. 1,
pp.61–74. doi: 10.1177/1741143213499257
70. Van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and
Denitions of CSR and Corporate Sustainability:
Between Agency and Communion // Journal of
Business Ethics. Vol.44, No.2, pp.95–105. doi:
10.1023/A:1023331212247
71. Victor, B., Cullen, J. B. (1988). e
Organizational Bases of Ethical Work Climates
// Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 33,
No.1, pp.101–125. doi: 10.2307/2392857
72. Von Krogh, G. (1998). Care in Knowledge
Creation // California Management
Review, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 133–153.
doi:10.2307/41165947
73. Wang, Y., Hsieh, H. (2012). Toward a Better
Understanding of the Link between Ethical
Climate and Job Satisfaction: A Multilevel
Analysis // Journal of Business Ethics.
Vol. 105, No. 4, pp. 535–545. doi: 10.1007/
s10551-011-0984-9
74. Watson, J. (2008). Nursing: e Philosophy and
Science of Caring. Revised edition. – Boulder,
Colorado: University Press of Colorado.
75. Weber, T. (2014). e Antecedents and Eects
of Strategic Caring: A Cross-National Empirical
Study. – PhD diss., Old Dominion University,
Norfolk, Virginia.
76. Wiegand, D. M., Geller, E. S. (2005). Connecting
Positive Psychology and Organizational
Behavior Management // Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management. Vol.24,
No.1–2, pp.3–25. doi: 10.1300/j075v24n01_02
77. Yukl, G. A. (2013). Ethical, Servant, Spiritual
and Authentic Leadership / Leadership in
Organisations. 8th ed. G. A. Yukl.– New York:
Pearson Education, pp.340–359.
e paper submitted: May 14, 2020
Prepared for publication: December 10, 2020
Eglė POŠKIENĖ, Dafnis N. COUDOUNARIS, Rūta KAZLAUSKAITĖ
RYŠYS TARP ORGANIZACIJOS RŪPINIMOSI DARBUOTOJAIS IR JOS GEROVĖS
Santrauka
Šios literatūros apžvalgos tikslas – geriau supras-
ti rūpinimosi darbuotojais esmę organizaciniu
lygmeniu, taip pat atskleisti jo ryšį su organiza-
cijos gerove. Šiame darbe tyrimo objektas yra as-
meninis rūpinimasis, nesiejamas su tam tikromis
profesijomis (Smylie, Murphy, Louis, 2016). Jis
remiasi individualiais santykiais, dažniausiai as-
meniniais susitikimais, kai vienas asmuo rūpinasi
kitu (Noddings, 2002). Straipsnyje siekiama pateikti
rekomendacijas tyrimams rūpinimosi darbuotojų
gerove atlikti, nes atsižvelgti į žmonių gerovę yra
labai svarbi organizacijų atsakomybė, kuri, deja, ne
visuomet atsispindi organizacijų vadybos realybėje.
Eglė POŠKIENĖ, Dafnis N. COUDOUNARIS, Rūta KAZLAUSKAITĖ60
Šis straipsnis papildo mokslinę literatūrą apie orga-
nizacijos narių gerovę organizacijos lygmeniu.
Literatūros apžvalga atskleidė, kad rūpinimąsi
sunku atskirti nuo daugybės su rūpinimusi susi-
jusių teorinių sampratų; tačiau skirtingi teoriniai
požiūriai išskiria rūpinimosi situacinį aspektą, o tai
reiškia, kad rūpinimasis ypač tinka patenkinti dar-
buotojams aktualius poreikius (Engster, 2004, 2011;
Fine, 2006; Louis ir kt., 2016; Smylie ir kt., 2016).
Taigi, rūpinimasis gali būti susijęs su skirtingais
dalykais skirtingose situacijose ir aplinkybėse,todėl
būtina atlikti rūpinimosi sampratos empirinius ty-
rimus siekiant atskleisti, kaip rūpinimasis pasireiš-
kia įvairiuose organizaciniuose kontekstuose, ypač
į pelną orientuoto verslo aplinkoje, kur vis dar sto-
kojama tokių tyrimų. Vienas iš šio tyrimo indėlių
yra dviejų tyrimų srautų– santykių ir moralės –
derinys, padedantis geriau suprasti organizacijos
rūpinimąsi darbuotojais. Šios literatūros apžvalga
atskleidė, kad santykių ir moralės požiūriai į rūpini-
mąsi darbuotojais turėtų būti suderinti.
Pastebėta terminų ir sąvokų įvairovė tiriant rū-
pinimąsi vadybos moksle. Dėl šios įvairovės straips-
nyje daroma išvada, kad rūpinimasis darbuotojais
galėtų būti suprantamas kaip reiškinys ir skėtinis
terminas sąvokoms, pavadinimams ir konstruk-
tams, kurie tiesiogiai ar netiesiogiai nurodo rū-
pinimąsi darbuotojų gerove. Kadangi rūpinimosi
sampratai ir tyrimų sričiai vadyboje vis dar trūks-
ta aiškių ribų, reikia atlikti papildomus tyrimus
siekiant išsiaiškinti, ar esami su rūpinimusi susiję
konstruktai aprėpia rūpinimosi reiškinio santykių ir
moralės aspektus.
Tolesniems rūpinimosi darbuotojais vadybos
mokslo tyrimams atlikti reikia tarpdalykinio požiū-
rio, jungiančio psichologijos, švietimo, organizaci-
nės elgsenos, lyderystės ir vadybos tyrimų kryptis,
kur rūpinimasis labiau ištirtas. Remiantis literatūros
apžvalgos išvadomis, siūloma keletas darbuotojų
gerovės organizaciniu lygmeniu sąsajų su daugeliu
gerovės antecedentų, t. y. strateginiu rūpinimusi,
suvokiama organizacijos parama, nesuinteresuota
organizacijos parama, organizacijos rūpinimusi, rū-
pinimosi kultūra, rūpinimosi klimatu ir rūpestinga
lyderyste. Būsimuose tyrimuose siūloma empiriškai
patikrinti šiame straipsnyje siūlomus ryšius. Reikia
ištirti ir šių ryšių mechanizmą, t.y. tarpinius veiks-
nius ir ribines sąlygas.
