IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/stabus/1981.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Including Corporate Social Responsibility, Environmental Sustainaibility, and Ethics in Calibrating MBA Job Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Montgomery, David B.

    (Stanford U and Singapore Management U)

  • Ramus, Catherine

    (U of California, Santa Barbara)

Abstract

Our research studies 759 MBA's graduating from eleven business schools to gain insight into what MBA's in the 21st Century care about during their job searches. We update the MBA job preference literature by using adaptive conjoint analysis to calibrate the relative importance of a wide variety of job factors combining factors found in previous research in disparate fields (general management, applied psychology, corporate social performance, ethics, and marketing). Our results show the relative importance of organizational reputation related to caring for employees, ethical products and practices, and social and environmental responsibility, compared to factors like financial package, job challenge, etc. to 759 MBA's graduating from eleven business schools--eight in North America and three in Europe. Study limitations and some mitigations of these are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Montgomery, David B. & Ramus, Catherine, 2007. "Including Corporate Social Responsibility, Environmental Sustainaibility, and Ethics in Calibrating MBA Job Preferences," Research Papers 1981, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:1981
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://gsbapps.stanford.edu/researchpapers/library/RP1981.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Green, Paul E & Helsen, Kristiaan & Shandler, Bruce, 1988. "Conjoint Internal Validity under Alternative Profile Presentations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(3), pages 392-397, December.
    2. David Reibstein & John E. G. Bateson & William Boulding, 1988. "Conjoint Analysis Reliability: Empirical Findings," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 271-286.
    3. Darmon, Rene Y. & Rouzies, Dominique, 1999. "Internal Validity of Conjoint Analysis Under Alternative Measurement Procedures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 67-81, September.
    4. Krishnamurthi, Lakshman, 1983. "The Salience of Relevant Others and Its Effect on Individual and Joint Preferences: An Experimental Investigation," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 10(1), pages 62-72, June.
    5. Christensen-Szalanski, Jay J. J. & Willham, Cynthia Fobian, 1991. "The hindsight bias: A meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 147-168, February.
    6. V. Srinivasan & Allan Shocker, 1973. "Linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of preferences," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 38(3), pages 337-369, September.
    7. Montgomery, David B. & Ramus, Catherine A., 2003. "Corporate Social Responsibility Reputation Effects on MBA Job Choice," Research Papers 1805, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    8. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Di Giuli, Alberta & Kostovetsky, Leonard, 2014. "Are red or blue companies more likely to go green? Politics and corporate social responsibility," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 158-180.
    2. Lee, Young-eun & Cave, Adam, 2014. "Case Study: Does Korea Telecom’s (KT) Sustainability Achievements Follow the Ten Steps Approach?," MPRA Paper 63773, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Harald Bergsteiner & Gayle Avery, 2012. "When Ethics are Compromised by Ideology: The Global Competitiveness Report," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(4), pages 391-410, September.
    4. Peter M. Madsen & Zachariah J. Rodgers, 2015. "Looking good by doing good: The antecedents and consequences of stakeholder attention to corporate disaster relief," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(5), pages 776-794, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Olivier Toubia & Duncan I. Simester & John R. Hauser & Ely Dahan, 2003. "Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 273-303.
    2. Teichert, Thorsten Andreas, 1997. "Schätzgenauigkeit von Conjoint-Analysen," Manuskripte aus den Instituten für Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Universität Kiel 444, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre.
    3. Theodoros Evgeniou & Constantinos Boussios & Giorgos Zacharia, 2005. "Generalized Robust Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 415-429, May.
    4. Vetschera, Rudolf & Weitzl, Wolfgang & Wolfsteiner, Elisabeth, 2014. "Implausible alternatives in eliciting multi-attribute value functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(1), pages 221-230.
    5. Adriane Hartmann & Henrik Sattler, 2004. "Wie robust sind Methoden zur Präferenzmessung?," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 3-22, February.
    6. Mishra, Sanjay & Umesh, U. N., 2005. "Determining the quality of conjoint analysis results using violation of a priori signs," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 301-311, March.
    7. Rajshekhar G. Javalgi & Hemant K. Jain, 1988. "Integrating multiple criteria decision making models into the decision support system framework for marketing decisions," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(6), pages 575-596, December.
    8. de Bont, Cees J. P. M. & Schoormans, Jan P. L., 1995. "The effects of product expertise on consumer evaluations of new-product concepts," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 599-615, December.
    9. Henrik Sattler, 2006. "Methoden zur Messung von Präferenzen für Innovationen," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 58(54), pages 154-176, January.
    10. Gineo, Wayne M., 1990. "A Conjoint/Logit Analysis Of Nursery Stock Purchases," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 19(1), pages 1-10, April.
    11. Ghaderi, Mohammad & Kadziński, Miłosz, 2021. "Incorporating uncovered structural patterns in value functions construction," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    12. Darmon, Rene Y. & Rouzies, Dominique, 1999. "Internal Validity of Conjoint Analysis Under Alternative Measurement Procedures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 67-81, September.
    13. U. Umesh & Sanjay Mishra, 1990. "A Monte Carlo investigation of conjoint analysis index-of-fit: Goodness of fit, significance and power," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 33-44, March.
    14. Ronny Baierl, 2018. "Understanding Entrepreneurial Team Decisions: Measuring Team Members’ Influences With The Metricized Limit Conjoint Analysis," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(2), pages 21582440187, May.
    15. Park, Chan Su, 2004. "The robustness of hierarchical Bayes conjoint analysis under alternative measurement scales," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(10), pages 1092-1097, October.
    16. Winfried Steiner & Harald Hruschka, 2002. "A Probabilistic One-Step Approach to the Optimal Product Line Design Problem Using Conjoint and Cost Data," Review of Marketing Science Working Papers 1-4-1003, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    17. Merja Halme & Kari Linden & Kimmo Kääriä, 2009. "Patients’ Preferences for Generic and Branded Over-the-Counter Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(4), pages 243-255, December.
    18. Dufhues, T. & Buchenrieder, G., 2004. "Der Beitrag der Conjoint Analyse zur nachfrageorintierten Entwicklung des ländlichen Finanzsektors in Vietnam," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 39.
    19. Martinovici, A., 2019. "Revealing attention - how eye movements predict brand choice and moment of choice," Other publications TiSEM 7dca38a5-9f78-4aee-bd81-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    20. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:1981. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gsstaus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.