Introduction

Employee engagement is a strategic asset (Shuck and Reio 2011; Shuck et al. 2011) and a source of tactical power to drive performance (e.g., Harter et al. 2002; Macey and Schneider 2008a, b; Saks 2006). Institutional malfeasance at Enron, Worldcom and others brought corporate fraud into clear focus (Bahl and Dadhich 2011). The Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 resulted to counter Enron-like behaviors (Kwak et al. 2012). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been characterized as “…development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland 1987 cited in Minton et al. 2012, p. 70).

Even as employee engagement (EE) can drive organizational performance so ethically motivated EE should also be available to energize CSR-related performance. Available on all institutional levels (Bakker et al. 2004; Harter et al. 2002; Schneider et al. 2010), “…it might be possible to identify and select for characteristics that predispose employees to be engaged” (Mayer et al. 2010, p. 64).

“If ethical culture systems such as leadership, norms, and reward policies encourage the achievement of bottom-line goals only, with no attention to ethical concerns, the culture is more likely to support unethical conduct” (Kish-Gephart et al. 2010, p. 6). The assumption of this paper is that EE can be engaged to facilitate the generation of reliable, sustainable CSR. It demonstrates how this ideal might be operationalized and illustrates mid-management’s role in that process.

Significance of the Paper

This paper is significant because ethical leadership contributes to the success of CSR initiatives (Brown and Treviño 2006; Valentine and Barnett 2007; Valentine and Fleischman 2008; Valentine et al. 2011; Valentine and Johnson 2005; Valentine et al. 2010). Students of ethics have sought for the keys to individual unethical behavior for over 30 years (Kish-Gephart et al. 2010). At the same time, there is little literature related to the interplay between CSR and institutional factors (Basu and Palazzo 2008). The relationship between personal and organizational values is also in need of study (Hemingway 2005; Shafer et al. 2007). The construct is underdeveloped in the human resource management literature (Shuck and Reio 2011). CSR “…is not very helpful in understanding what is desirable or required at the business-society interface” (Oosterhout and Heugens 2008, p. 198) and managers need CSR-related models to inform their ethical initiatives (Basu and Palazzo 2008).

This discussion is noteworthy because managers cultivate EE to counteract the disengagement or alienation contributing to low commitment and poor motivation (Saks and Gruman 2010). Evidence of CSR performance is particularly attractive to younger, idealistic employees aspiring to address social issues (Mirvis 2012). In response, some organizations are assembling attractive portfolios (p. 96) of CSR-related community service programs to which employees can subscribe and participate.

Further, research into ethics and human resource management (HRM) is underdeveloped (Greenwood 2002, 2013). HRM is inherently an ethical process “…in that its fundamental core is concerned with the treatment of humans; hence, conceptualizations of HRM automatically raise ethical considerations” (Greenwood 2013, p. 355). This paper moves the field closer to finding an “…unashamedly normative and socio-politically embedded….” approach to practice (p. 355).

Similarly, this paper is also timely because research informing the relationship between EE and CSR seems to be limited. A Boolean search of Business Source Complete and ABI/INFORM Complete (comprising of ERIC, ProQuest Education Journals, PsycINFO, and PscycARTICLES) revealed one paper (Hartog and Belschak 2012) and one dissertation (Verbos 2009) approaching the relationship in some manner. A secular query of Amazon books for this paper relating EE and CSR yielded 4,008 hits. This result reflected an increase of over 200 % since October, 2009 when Schohat and Vigoda-Gadot (2010) received 1,914 hits for a similar search. Amazon Books lists two (fairly) recent handbooks targeting work on employee engagement (Albrecht 2010; Bakker and Leiter 2010). Revealing, however, is the fact that neither volume contained one chapter related to CSR or ethics. Significantly, neither book had an index listing for CSR nor a listing for ethics.

Generating of Reliable, Sustainable Corporate Social Responsibility

This section explains how mid-managers might best encounter EE and informs readers about how they might enlist ethically engaged employees in CSR. Included is a model, “Mid-Management and the Generation of Reliable, Sustainable CSR” illustrating the role mid-managers play in producing reliable, sustainable CSR.

Reliability and Sustainability of CSR

On the assumption that the generation of CSR is a necessary and worthy organizational goal, this paper argues that middle managers are pivotal and uniquely positioned to further progress toward that objective. Middle managers are strategically located to insure the reliability and sustainability of systems in their firms. They are also important to CSR performance of their firms. Given the litigious, regulatory environment firms now face, the question raised is what kind of institutional CSR should we seek? In response, the terms reliable and sustainable have been borrowed and applied here describe the nature of CSR that might well be required. It is important, now, to describe how the terms reliable and sustainable were chosen and how they characterize the model offered.

Reliable CSR

The term reliable is used here to describe general trustworthiness of managers and the organizations they represent. Because reliability is in the eye of the beholder or the hands of those monitoring metrics. Therefore, perceptions need to be managed and metrics need to be designed and used. In either case, here reliable connotes steady, consistent, and honest CSR-related dependability that results in confidence, belief, and trust between all stakeholders. Of course, even mid-managers cannot guarantee infallible systems incapable of breakdown. That is not what is meant nor inferred here by reliable. However, management should work to avoid being perceived as undependable, exhibiting questionable behavior, or deceitful. The label reliable is employed here to describe a place between those two extremes and, hopefully, closer to the more positive ideal. Extending this thinking, reliable strategic decision making would be “…a process of decision that is clear and correct in the various alternatives, also as a strategy, it is both effective and efficient in the decision process. It reflects from its process the comprehensiveness of the problems. The strategy is seen as rapid decision and timely response to changing events, creating a competitive advantage” (Ditkaew 2013, pp. 41–42).

Sustainable CSR

Three veins of literature summoned the decision to link the term sustainable to CSR.

First, over the past few years management thought has expanded beyond materialistic and individualistic considerations (Bell and Dyck 2011) to include (1) management serving a higher purpose, (2) the incorporation of ideas related to community and citizenship in management systems, and (3) a rethinking of the philosophical foundations of management (Hamel 2009, pp. 92–93). Thinking in terms of sustainable CSR seemed appropriate next step for consideration.

Second, literature related to the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm (e.g., Barney 1991; Barney et al. 2001; Conner 1991) triggered the search for terms to describe resources available to middle managers seeking to further CSR in their firms. It also stimulated thinking of middle managers as an organizational CSR-related resource. RVB “…is perhaps the most influential framework for understanding strategic management” (Barney et al. 2001, p. 625). RBV literature and corresponding viewpoints provide researchers with a framework from which sustainable competitive advantage (i.e., Porter 1998) can be attained which will bolster organizational performance (Ditkaew 2013) in general and CSR performance in particular. Combining these first two veins of literature, then, Bell and Dyck (2011) speak of a radical resource-based view (RRBV) which “…defines the value of resources more broadly than profit maximization, rarity as an occasion for stewardship, inimitability as an opportunity for teaching, and non-substitutability as an opportunity to meet a panoply of human needs” (p. 121). This extension of RBV thinking made the term sustainable more accessible to a discussion of CSR and allowed for assumptions beyond the materialistic and individualistic perspectives discussed earlier.

Third, the term sustainability is a buzz-word typically attached to individuals, groups, and organizations who are green or environmentally friendly (Minton et al. 2012). The United Nations has defined CSR as a “…development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland 1987 cited in Minton et al. 2012, p. 70). This definition (stripped of environmentalists’ connotations) readily described what sustainability might mean to CSR. The fact that some ethical writers such as Rahman and Post (2012) have called for greater transparent measures of Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility (ECSR) bringing green and CSR together also contributed to the use of the term.

A Proposed Descriptive Model

The model presented here (see Fig. 1) contains three key elements; Mid-Management Involvement in CSR making up the focal point or centroid of the model juxtaposed with Employee Engagement in CSR associated with Employee Ethical Voice denoting how managers and workers might interact together. Mid-Management Involvement in CSR and Employee Engagement in CSR directly contribute to the Generation of Reliable, Sustainable CSR. Employee Ethical Voice is a side effect of Employee Engagement in CSR representing Employee Engagement in CSR. It indirectly contributes to the Generation of Reliable, Sustainable CSR to the extent that there is Mid-Management Attunement to Employee Ethical Voice.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Mid-management and the generation of reliable, sustainable CSR. Source original

Full size image

Mechanisms Regulating Mid-Management Involvement in CSR governs Mid-Management Involvement in CSR. Those mechanisms include the Ethicality, Values, Ethical Mindfulness, Moral Imagination, and Ethical Mindset. Mid-level managers find their way through CSR-related issues to the extent they receive employee messages through the Employee Ethical Voice. Receptiveness to Operational Evidence exhibited by mid-management calibrates Mid-Management Attunement to Employee Ethical Voice. Mechanisms Regulating Mid-Management Involvement in CSR contributes to the Hieratic Distance managers maintain between themselves and workers. Levels of Normative Myopia and Deaf Ear Syndrome are symptomatic of the Hieratic Distance separating the two. Responsiveness to Operational Evidence is the result. Mid-Management Attunement to Employee Ethical Voice is the result.

Employee Ethical Voice represents the intentional or unintentional over flow, consequence, or aftereffect of Employee Engagement in CSR. Extending beyond verbal communication or reporting, it represents the general demonstration of attitudes and perspectives exhibited in any number of ways. Employee Ethical Voice results in signals retrieved and interpreted by mid-management. Employee Ethical Voice is most readily revealed through the messages and actions of key participants such as Whistle-Blowers, Job Crafters, Ethical Champions, and Truth Tellers are representative. Employee Ethical Voice mirrors the enthusiasms that engaged employees have for positive aspects of their work. Employee Ethical Voice has an antenna representing broadcast and Mid-Management Attunement to Employee Ethical Voice has an antenna to receive those signals.

Employees engaged in CSR make up the most vocal and easily discerned source of Employee Ethical Voice. Employee Engagement in CSR is a function of the Intensity of Employee Engagement. The intensity of EE extends positively from Full Engagement through to the opposite Disengagement and the proactive Negative Engagement countering organizational strategy and policy. Mid-managers seeking to influence the Intensity of Employee Engagement in CSR provide Employee Engagement Support consisting of Psychological Meaningfulness, Psychological Safety, and Psychological Availability. An arrow connecting Mid-Management Involvement in CSR to Employee Engagement Support shows the relationship.

Middle Managers and CSR

Mid-Management is the group uniquely positioned to influence organizational goal attainment, sustain employee well-being, and to promote EE (Nielsen and González 2010). The emotions of mid-level managers can influence the moods of subordinates (Sy et al. 2005). When employees feel attached to their leaders, they are more likely to embrace their values (Hartog and Belschak 2007). Leaders serve as role models of behavior which others emulate (De Hoogh and Hartog 2008; Hartog and Belschak 2012). A contagion results precipitating similar behaviors within the organization (Bakker 2010; Bakker and Demerouti 2009; Bakker and Xanthopoulou 2009).

In the model, mechanisms regulating mid-management involvement in CSR and mid-management attunement to employee ethical voice preside over mid-management involvement in CSR. Management’s receptiveness to operational evidence and their hieratic Distance determine the amount of management attention paid to employee voice.

Mechanisms Regulating Mid-Management Involvement in CSR

Ethicality, values, ethical mindfulness, moral imagination, and ethical mindset of individual mid-managers aggregate in mechanisms regulating mid-management involvement in CSR.

Ethicality of Mid-Managers

Ethical leadership influences employee behavior (e.g., Brown and Treviño 2006; Hartog and Belschak 2012; Valentine and Barnett 2007; Valentine and Fleischman 2008; Valentine et al. 2011; Valentine and Johnson 2005; Valentine et al. 2010). For example, workplace ethicality is associated with lower turnover (Valentine et al. 2011). The routine promotion of ethical standards (Valentine and Fleischman 2008) and review of codes of ethics during employee orientation (Valentine and Johnson 2005) bring positive ethical results.

Organizational practices affect employee behavior and EE can contribute to corporate performance (Sparrow and Balain 2010). Employees are amenable to the “…morally justified principles and values….” (Becker 1998, p. 157) exhibited by company leaders, and the word/deed alignment of superiors (Simons 2002). Employees who perceive their superiors as ethical exhibit more positive ethical work attitudes in response (Davis and Rothstein 2006; Valentine et al. 2010). Employees experiencing congruency between institutional values and their own exhibit higher organizational commitment on the job (Valentine and Barnett 2003). To the contrary, subordinates answering to Machiavellian leadership report being less ethically engaged than their counterparts (Hartog and Belschak 2012).

Values of Mid-Managers

There is not space here to explore the role values play in generating CSR. There is, however, ample literature demonstrating a relationship between values, attitudes, and behavior (Hemingway 2005). Values, beliefs, attitudes, and norms contribute to or thwart the development of CSR (e.g., Barnett and Vaicys 2000; Hemingway and Maclagan 2004; Kim and Kim 2010). An egoistic environment (Victor and Cullen 1988) dominated by self interest will likely to result in individual unethical choices (Barnett and Vaicys 2000; Peterson 2002; Kish-Gephart et al. 2010). Managers agnostic to ethical values can smother the positive self-identity and personal self-esteem of those ethically inclined (Hemingway 2005). “However, the reverse relationship is found where there is a climate that focuses employees’ attention on the well-being of multiple stakeholders, such as employees, customers, and the community (benevolent climate), or on following rules that protect the company and others (principled climate)” (Kish-Gephart et al. 2010, p. 5).

Ethical Mindfulness

There is no standard definition of mindfulness (Brown et al. 2007b). But, mindfulness does include “…interpretive work directed at weak signals, differentiation of received wisdom, and reframing, all of which can enlarge what is known about what was noticed” (Weick et al. 1999, pp. 89–90). Managers are mindful of issues that attract and hold their attention. This paper assumes “…. mindfulness may even permit better choices about whether and when to control the self in the service of chosen ends, and when it might be better to step out of the parade” (Brown et al. 2007a, p. 276).

Moral Imagination

Moral imagination represents thought separate from decision-making processes (Caldwell and Moberg 2007). It represents the critical ability necessary for innovative exercise of employee decision making and avoidance of untoward activity (Whitaker and Godwin 2013 p. 62). Persons with moral imagination are sensitive to the context and aspects of ethical living. They are drawn to peripheral circumstantial factors including the points of view of those involved. Thoroughly considering ethical elements of a situation, they apprehend ethical situations from various perspectives. They create unconventional alternatives and scenarios actualizing new context-independent possibilities that can inform decision making (Johnson 1993). The generation of reliable, sustainable CSR requires Moral Imagination of a sophisticated and mature nature (Caldwell and Moberg 2007; Johnson 1993; Werhane 1998, 1999, 2002, 2008; Yang 2013).

Ethical Mindset

Individual mindset reflects the actual estimates people make of their abilities (Heslin 2010). Fixed mindset is stable and static where a growth mindset is malleable and receptive to change to those believing it possible. “Persons with a growth mindset may be more likely to become engaged because of their hunger for development, willingness to expend effort, psychological presence….” (p. 219). For the purpose of this paper, the term Ethical Mindset refers to the feelings of self-efficacy (e.g., Bandura, 1997) mid-managers entertain concerning their ability to discern, thoughtfully consider, and organizationally address ethical issues. Engagement in CSR would be most likely undertaken by individuals with a growth mindset and/or a strong sense of ethics related self-efficacy.

Mid-Management Attunement to Employee Ethical Voice

Mid-Management Attunement to Employee Ethical Voice directly affects Mid-Management Involvement in CSR. Hieratic Distance represents the separation mid-managers establish between themselves and workers. The corresponding attitude calibrates managers’ Receptiveness to Operational Evidence. Mirroring Hofstede’s (2001) concept of power distance, Hieratic Distance infers all of the agathokakological, good and evil, human tendencies inherent in organizational behavior and decision making. Normative Myopia (Swanson, 1999, p. 512) and Deaf Ear Syndrome (Beugré 2010, p. 178) are potential indicators.

Normative Myopia

Normative myopia is a term coined by Swanson (1999, p. 512) descriptive of neglect occurring when executives avoid honoring values at stake in decisions (Orlitzky et al. 2006). Such neglect can formally be disseminated through manipulation of command structures and feedback mechanisms (formal reports, evaluations, selective communication) limiting the scope of decision-making options available to employees. It can be consciously or unconsciously informally propagated through persuasion or coercion. Through contagion (Berger 2013; Burt 1987; Hatfield et al. 1994), leader myopia might morph into a collective myopia (Chikudate 2002, p. 289) further institutionalizing the effect of corporate neglect.

Deaf Ear Syndrome

Alternatively, mid-managers afflicted with Deaf Ear Syndrome (Beugré 2010, p. 178) discourage subordinates from passing information forward. They weary from trying to make their perspectives known. The importance employees attach to being heard is a function of how much they value the opportunity to do so, how much of what they report and say is taken seriously, and the work climate or culture present. Where mid-managers lend a deaf ear to information willingly provided, employee disengagement might well result.

Employee Engagement in CSR

Uniquely mid-managers can influence organizational goal attainment, sustain employee well-being, and encourage EE (Nielsen and González 2010). According to the model, Employee Engagement in CSR contributes directly to the Generation of Reliable, Sustainable CSR and indirectly through Employee Ethical Voice. Employee Engagement in CSR waxes and wanes with the Intensity of Employee Engagement resulting from the support given them for such activity by their leadership. This section presents these segments of the model. A later section contains a consideration of Employee Ethical Voice.

A Note about Engagement

Engagement is a part of the positive organizational behavior literature (Segers et al. 2010). Perhaps the first (Mayer et al. 2010), Kahn (1990) defined EE as: “…the harnessing of organizational members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances” (p. 694). Alternative meanings have been suggested since (e.g., Harter et al. 2002; Macey and Schneider 2008a).

This paper assumes that EE is an individual trait, a state, behavioral tendency (Macey and Schneider 2008a, b), or “dispositional orientation” (Mayer et al. 2010, p. 64) reflected in “…adaptive behavior intended to serve an organizational purpose, whether to defend and protect the status quo in response to actual or anticipated threats or to change and/or promote change in response to actual or anticipated events” (Macey and Schneider 2008a, p. 18).

Macey and Schneider (2008a) identify three types of engagement; (1) trait engagement, inferring “…an inclination to experience the world from a particular vantage point…,” (2) state engagement, involving “…feelings of energy and absorption in one’s work…,” and (3) behavioral engagement “…defined in terms of discretionary effort or a specific form of in-role behavior…..” (Beugré 2010, p. 174). Feelings define engagement for individuals (Schneider et al. 2010) and conscious psychological engagement drives work behavior (George 2010). EE is a psychological state consisting of both cognitive (thinking) and affective (feeling) components (Schaufeli et al. 2006) during which individuals “…employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally….” (Kahn 1990, p. 694) while at work. Engaged employees exhibit vigor, dedication, and absorption in their tasks (Mayer et al. 2010) while investing time and effort into work issues that matter to them.

Employee Engagement Support

Institutional support catalyzes employee engagement (Eisenberger et al. 1986; Sparrow and Balain 2010). The Intensity of Employee Engagement depends upon three points of Employee Engagement Support for life; (1) the psychological meaningfulness of work to individuals, (2) the extent to which there is psychological safety available to workers, and (3) psychological availability (Kahn 1990). Psychological Meaningfulness involves the “…simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s ‘preferred self’ in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to others, personal presence (physical, cognitive, and emotional) and active, full role performance….” (Kahn 1990, p. 700). Psychological Safety is unmistakable where people can exhibit their true selves without fear of retribution. Psychological Availability is palpable where physical, emotional, and psychological support is available for role attainment (Saks and Gruman 2010, p. 298). May et al. (2004) have found meanginfulness, safety, and availability significantly related to engagement.

Intensity of Engagement

“Individuals who place a high priority on ethical and altruistic behavior should more strongly support ethics and social responsibility in a business or corporate context” (Shafer et al. 2007, p. 233). Jones (1991) and others (Kish-Gephart et al. 2010) have suggested ethics research include a greater focus on the moral intensity of various situations. The model includes Intensity of Employee Engagement in the model for at least these reasons.

The Intensity of Employee Engagement represents the degree to which individuals can be involved in CSR-related issues. The fully engaged will be the most active. Such involvement is most likely to be identified through observation of Whistle-Blowers, Job Crafters, Ethical Champions, Truth Tellers, and others. Alternatively, Disengagement is “…the uncoupling of selves from work roles; in disengagement, people withdraw and defend themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances” (Kahn 1990, p. 694). Individuals do not always act positively (Macey and Schneider 2008a, b) particularly under darker circumstances (Frese 2008) or under difficult conditions (George and Zhou 2007). Through Negative Engagement, individuals disrupt the Generation of Reliable, Sustainable CSR.

Evidence of Employee Engagement in CSR

To channel employee engagement into worthwhile endeavor, middle managers must be able to identify those individuals so engaged and be able to capture the insights they provide. An arrow from Employee Engagement in CSR to Generation of Reliable, Sustainable CSR indicates that these persons may work “under the radar” in any number of ways. Delving into the vagaries of those relationships are outside the scope of this paper. Employee voice, however, is appropriate to cover and is considered here. Employee Ethical Voice is a major source of evidence about the content of Employee Engagement CSR.

A Note about Voice

Employee voice (Hirschman 1970) describes “…actively and constructively trying to improve conditions through discussing problems with a supervisor or co-workers, taking action to solve problems, suggesting solutions, seeking help from an outside agency like a union or whistle-blowing” (Rusbult et al. 1988, p. 601). Voice provides a medium through which employees can convey dissatisfaction (Beugré 2010), indirectly influence conditions (Korsgaard and Roberson 1995), or enhance existing conditions (Hirschman 1970). Employee Ethical Voice and middle management sensitivity to signals emanating from it are critical to Generation of Reliable, Sustainable CSR.

Employees value available voice to the degree which “…(1) the value of voice, (2) the extent to which voice is considered by decision makers, (3) the extent to which voice is expected, and (4) voice as corresponding to cultural values” (Beugré 2010, p. 178). Individuals with access to adequate voice (Folger 1977) and to procedures allowing for expression (Beugré 2010) consider their work places fairer than do others. They also tend to be more engaged in their work than those without such advantages.

Employee Ethical Voice

Mid-managers must know what is going on in their units to produce reliable, sustainable CSR. The model suggests that ethically engaged employees are the persons most likely to broadcast CSR-related information. So how do we tap into that source of insight? Who might be the most obvious source of information? Employee Ethical Voice holds a possible answer.

One might expect that whistle-blowers represent the first line of defense when things go wrong. However, they speak up when a situation is already in progress or after the damage is unpreventable. They also have ready access to government regulators, the media, and social networks to make their complaints known. Unlike Whistle-Blowers, Job Crafters, Ethical Champions, and Truth Tellers may well transmit weaker signals representing advanced warning of ethical disruption. Probably, the three will only communicate their ethical concerns in-house.

The model suggests that individuals fully engaged in ethical and CSR-related issues will most likely be included in one of these four categories; Whistle-Blowers, Job Crafters, Ethical Champions, and Truth Tellers. These individuals convey their concerns through actions and words included as Employee Ethical Voice. Mid-Management Attunement to Employee Ethical Voice determines the cues which management will recognize. A broadcast antenna and a receiving satellite dish represent this relationship. It is important to recognize alerts emanating from Employee Ethical Voice. It is necessary to discern message patterns hidden here, as well.

Whistle-Blowers

Near and Miceli (1985) define whistle-blowing as “…the disclosure by organization members of illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practices under the control of their employers, to persons or organizations that may be able to effect action….” (p. 4). While Sarbanes–Oxley supports mandatory protection of whistle-blowing, formal protective mechanisms do not always insure voluntary participation given potential retaliation (Bahl and Dadhich 2011). Immediate supervisors can stimulate organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Kamdar and Van Dyne 2007; Podsakoff et al. 2000) and whistle-blowing is evidence of such behavior (Bahl and Dadhich 2011; Treviño and Weaver 2001).

Job Crafters

Employees form their jobs and adapt to their work to make it more fulfilling (Bakker 2010). Conservation of Resources Theory (Hobfoll 1989, 2002) explains why such “job crafting” (Wrzesniewski and Dutton 2001, p. 179) takes place. In effect, Job Crafters maneuver to align person/job relationships. They adjust physical and cognitive aspects of their tasks and relational boundaries to avoid harm (Bakker 2010). Managers can show the path to fulfilling those aspirations (e.g., House 1996), respond to their expectations (e.g., Vroom 1964), and at least tacitly provide adequate freedom for them to do so (Baard et al. 2004; Bakker 2010). Employee Engagement Support must be available to them.

Ethical Champions

Champions naturally stimulate organizational change (Chandy and Tellis 1998; Day 1994; Howell 2005; Kelley and Lee 2010). Ethical Champions are relevant to the Generation of Reliable, Sustainable CSR. As corporate social entrepreneurs (Hemingway 2005, p. 233), they promote aspects of CSR of personal interest to them. In the manner of lean start-up, they adopt bricolage to accomplish their aims. Practitioners of organizational improvisation (e.g., Weick 2001), they use observational talent to gather information about circumstances and available for action. Like self-monitors (e.g., Snyder and Gangestad 1986), they self-correct their actions (Weick 2001).

Truth Tellers

Downes and Nunes (2013) coined the term “truth tellers” (p. 54) a reference to individuals who reveal secrets to move the plot in soap operas. Truth Tellers can appear from anywhere. They are easier to spot than to accept. Their eccentricity and lucidity may be mistaken for arrogance or stubbornness.

Summary

Ethical leadership contributes to the success of CSR initiatives (Brown and Treviño 2006; Valentine and Barnett 2007; Valentine and Fleischman 2008; Valentine et al. 2011; Valentine and Johnson 2005; Valentine et al. 2010). Further, employee engagement is an antidote for disengagement and alimentation (Saks and Gruman 2010). Organizations exhibiting socially responsible behavior attract younger, idealistic employees (Mirvis 2012). There is little literature relating CSR to institutional factors (Basu and Palazzo 2008). Managers need CSR-related models to inform their ethical initiatives. These conditions prompted this paper. A précis is now in order.

The purpose of this paper was to show how employee engagement can be used to generate reliable, sustainable CSR. A corresponding model illustrates (see Fig. 1). In it, middle managers are integral to the promotion of CSR because of their unique ability to do so (Nielsen and González 2010). The paper explains how middle managers might recognize EE, interpret the behavior of those so engaged, and direct the corresponding enthusiasm into positive policy and behavior. The involvement of both middle managers and employees engaged in socially responsible issues contribute directly to the production of reliable, sustainable CSR. Employees voicing concerns about and support of CSR is evidence of their engagement in those positive aspects of their work. The degree to which managers pick up on the cues contained in employee voice, they contribute to mid-management’s participation in CSR and the generation of reliable, sustainable CSR.

This paper has explored employee engagement from the perspective of CSR. New insights into the underlying and multifaceted dimensions of EE have been revealed. Exploring literature surrounding EE and CSR informs scholarship and aids human resource development professionals in a practical way. A number of issues are raised by this paper and corresponding model.

Discussion

Standards of fairness and unfairness may change through time with societal and/or economic changes (Schneider et al. 2010, p. 167). The first is certainly important. The second is critical. Final comments concerning the model and generation of reliable, sustainable CSR are in order at this point.

The Critical Path to Generation of Reliable, Sustainable CSR

Positively disposed middle managers have the critical role to play in generation of reliable, sustainable CSR. They provide Employee Engagement Support which contributes to the Intensity of Employee Engagement exhibited. Employee Ethical Voice is evidence of the Employee Engagement in CSR that results. Communication between ethically engaged employees and management is dependent upon Mid-Management Attunement to Employee Ethical Voice. It is at this point that efforts to generate reliable, sustainable CSR will break down. The influence of employee voice is a function of the strength of employee engagement in the process and the willingness of management to listen. Hopefully, managers will entertain Whistle-Blowers before they go public. They should also routinely identify and monitor the actions and messages of Job Crafters, Ethical Champions, and Truth Tellers who provide more subtle clues to organizational behavior than Whistle-Blowers.

The model suggested here portrays middle managers as central to CSR-related activities where, organizationally, they play quasi-gate-keeping roles. This is problematic because of the power distance relationship they have with frontline workers who principally interact with their immediate supervisors. That power distance differential stifles middle managers’ ability to “hear” and perhaps “willingness to engage” with those frontline employees. Further, middle managers are the “glue” holding the top of the pyramid and the bottom of the pyramid together. There is a tension between the two that middle managers recognize, feel, and deal with daily. Those higher in the organization have strategic issues in mind and certainly profitability is one that dominates. When CSR-related ideas and bottom-line practices are misaligned, it is likely that bottom-line considerations will take precedent. This is not the fault of middle managers and rightly so. Institutional viability is, after all a true consideration. Reliable, sustainable CSR will also be at risk where there is a disparity between departments, roles, and functions. Vertical connectivity and horizontal connectedness are both necessary.

The onus is on management, then, to support and trigger employee engagement. It is managers’ responsibility to listen for the report. The relationship between Employee Ethical Voice and Mid-Management Attunement to Employee Ethical Voice is the most critical connection in the process. Mechanisms Regulating Mid-Management Involvement in CSR governs Mid-Management Involvement in CSR and Hieratic Distance. At best, organizations can be receptive to operational and ethical matters raised by employees. At worst, they can be Aspergian in response to CSR-related concerns.

Supporting Employee Engagement

Employee Engagement Support is important to Employee Engagement in CSR. What does that mean in practice?

Employee Engagement and Employee Relations

Employee engagement is dependent upon strong employee relations. Mirvis (2012) proposes three drivers of employee engagement; (1) the transactional approach, (2) the relational approach, and (3) the developmental approach. Supporting the model, each of these reflects an Ethical Mindset governing Mid-Management Involvement in CSR. Managers taking a transactional approach view employee relations in terms of a quid pro quo. If customers and prospective employees expect CSR, management will meet their expectations. The relational approach appears where employees and management share a joint commitment to CSR. It is a matter of personal and group identities. The work climate is characterized by trust. The developmental approach is proactive. Employee Engagement Support is available. Representing the best intentions included in virtue ethics (Russell 2013), all employees work to further CSR ideals and promote the common good for everyone. Generation of Reliable, Sustainable CSR requires at least a relational approach to employee relations and CSR. The developmental approach is better.

Supplying Resources

Research indicates that resources are related to work involvement (Bakker 2010). Three psychological sources of Employee Engagement Support have been introduced. Citing others (Schaufeli and Bakker 2004; Bakker and Demerouti 2007), Bakker (2010) aptly suggests that job resources, active jobs, and psychological capital also support EE. Job resources meet basic autonomy, relatedness, and competence needs. It insures that tasks are completed and goals attained. In the vernacular, active jobs (Karasek 1979) are not routine. They provide circumstances in which individuals must develop and grow to meet the demands presented (Bakker 2010). Psychological capital is a positive psychological state characterized by a sense of self-efficacy, an optimistic outlook, an attitude of hope, and enduring resilience (Luthans et al. 2007, p. 3). Each is necessary to the development of EE and, by inference, engagement in CSR. These resources will support EE in general and Employee Engagement in CSR in particular.

Work Climate

An ethical work climate encourages ethical decision-making (O’Fallon and Buttetfield 2005). Ethical work climate “…was not conceived as a normative construct for measuring how ethical a given organization was; rather it was developed as a descriptive indicator of the prevailing mode of ethical thought within an organization” (VanSandt et al. 2006, p. 410). “Research suggests that certain types of ethical climates, especially those characterized by a concern for others (benevolence) and/or by a concern for adherence to rules/codes (principled) are associated with individuals’ ethical perceptions” (Valentine and Barnett 2002, p. 198). Mid-Management Attunement to Employee Ethical Voice, Mid-Management Involvement in CSR, and the effort managers apply to the support of employee engagement all contribute to an ethical work climate.

Disengagement/Negative Engagement in CSR

The flip-side or (more accurately) the downside of EE in CSR cannot be overlooked. It is not omitted, but is illustrated in the model as well. Specifically, the model shows Employee Engagement Support as contributing to the Intensity of Employee Engagement. The Intensity of Employee Engagement can range from Disengagement and Negative Engagement on the left to Full Engagement on the right. Arrows running from both extremes to Employee Engagement in CSR represent their influence over Whistle-Blowers, Job Crafters, Ethical Champions, and Truth Tellers. Positively, intense EE can result in Full Engagement in CSR initiatives and activities. Negatively, Disengagement and Negative Engagement can have an opposite effect. Both can be evidenced in the actions of the four types of CSR orientated and engaged employees. How employees demonstrate their engagement in CSR will determine if the organization’s CSR strategy will be positively or negatively affected.

For example, negative images of the company can be spread by whistle-blowers. Allowing ethical champions to promote their agendas alone may dilute existing CSR initiatives by transferring focus away from current strategies. Champions are not to be throttled, but their engagement should be channeled into advantageous organizational CSR activities. If that is not possible, perhaps CSR strategy needs to be aligned with their thinking. Certainly, tot auctioning employee ideas and recommendations may result in Disengagement or Negative Engagement. Hieratic Distance evidenced by Normative Myopia and Deaf Ear Syndrome contribute to such a condition. Before managers open the “black-box” of idea generation, they need to count the costs of doing so and determine how that process might be best implemented. Identifying and labeling Whistle-Blowers, Job Crafters, Ethical Champions, and Truth Tellers is a perilous undertaking. It is operationally difficult and prone to error. Generating reliable, sustainable CSR does not automatically result in a “win–win” outcome.

Management and Control of Employee Engagement in CSR

“A key challenge for organizations seeking to improve the management of innovation lies in determining when to lend direct managerial support, and how much support, to those championing such projects” (Kelley and Lee 2010, p. 1007). This issue is also important to engaging employees in CSR. Two examples of management and control of employee engagement in CSR illustrate. The use of CSR-related rewards and sanctions represents a policy decision. Providing support to Ethical Champions informs behavioral issues associated with Employee Engagement in CSR.

CSR-Related Rewards and Sanctions

An extensive review of related literature (O’Fallon and Buttetfield 2005) concluded that rewarding unethical behavior tends to increase the frequency of such behavior while effective sanctions decrease such behavior. CSR-related rewards and sanctions clearly indicate management’s ethical preferences (Ford and Richardson 1994; Loe et al. 2000; O’Fallon and Buttetfield 2005). Intrinsic rewards are key to this process. For example, formal and informal channels can be created through which ethical matters can be brought to the attention of management. Mid-Management Attunement to Employee Ethical Voice will result providing an intrinsic reward for those engaged in CSR. Managers actively listen without uncritically accepting the views represented. Having the opportunity to voice ethical concerns without fear of retribution will be reward enough for many to participate in CSR activity.

Supporting Ethical Champions

Kelley and Lee (2010), following a review of literature related to innovation champions, suggested a number of ways champions bring about the change they envision. They assert such champions leverage any power or influence (Kanter 1989), take risks to confront opposition (Howell 2005; Howell and Higgins 1990; Kelley and Lee 2010), circumvent “the rules”, by-pass gatekeepers (Shane 1994), and lobby for resources (Howell and Shea 2006). Because all of these characteristics are relevant to the transmission of Employee Ethical Voice and contribute to the generation of reliable, sustainable CSR, Ethical Champions are included in the model. Enlisting persons to champion ethical initiatives is essential to sustaining CSR. How should the management of Innovation Champions be approached by middle management?

Champions who are willing and able to participate promote the innovation process (Dougherty and Hardy 1996; Kelley and Lee 2010). Allowing them autonomy is desirable under conditions of uncertainty (McGrath 2001). Too much critical attention can smother the interest of champions (Kelley and Lee 2010). Champions sponsored by a higher-level manager can change the influence equation (Lewis et al. 2002). It is common for champions to operate without adequate training for the role (Smith 2007) or direct organizational support (Dougherty and Hardy 1996). Middle managers can provide administrative support, enable champions to fit their efforts to institutional objectives, procure resources, and offer advice (Garud and Van de Ven 1992; Kuratko et al. 2005; Rhoades et al. 1978).

Employee Risk

Employee engagement involves personal risks which workers will accept in a psychologically safe (Kahn 1990) and trusting environment (Swift and Hwang 2013). A work climate characterized by integrity and understanding (Mayer et al. 1995; Kim et al. 2009), cooperation (Konovsky and Pugh 1994; McAllister 1995; Lewicki et al. 2006) and mutual consideration (Konovsky and Pugh 1994) is necessary. Affective and cognitive trust increases the sharing of information (Adler 2001; Butler 1999; Hezlett and Gibson 2007; Holste and Fields 2010; Lee et al. 2010; Levin and Cross 2004; McEvily et al. 2003; Mooradian et al. 2006; Morrow et al. 2004; Sankowska 2013). Management seeking an engaged workforce “…needs to attend to all of the features that promote and sustain trust, and conversely, avoid those actions that erode trust” (Schneider et al. 2010, p. 161). Sankowska (2013) equates trust with knowledge transfer.