دانلود رایگان ترجمه مقاله فساد به عنوان یک فرایند سازمانی (نشریه الزویر 2017) (ترجمه رایگان – برنزی ⭐️)
این مقاله انگلیسی ISI در نشریه الزویر در 16 صفحه در سال 2017 منتشر شده و ترجمه آن 8 صفحه میباشد. کیفیت ترجمه این مقاله رایگان – برنزی ⭐️ بوده و به صورت ناقص ترجمه شده است.
دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی + خرید ترجمه فارسی | |
عنوان فارسی مقاله: |
فساد به عنوان یک فرایند سازمانی: درک منطق انحراف فساد |
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله: |
Corruption as an organizational process: Understanding the logic of the denormalization of corruption |
|
مشخصات مقاله انگلیسی (PDF) | |
سال انتشار | 2017 |
تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی | 16 صفحه با فرمت pdf |
رشته های مرتبط با این مقاله | مدیریت |
گرایش های مرتبط با این مقاله | مدیریت سازمان های دولتی |
چاپ شده در مجله (ژورنال) | حسابداری و مدیریت – Contaduría y Administración |
رفرنس | دارد ✓ |
کد محصول | F1309 |
نشریه | الزویر – Elsevier |
مشخصات و وضعیت ترجمه فارسی این مقاله | |
وضعیت ترجمه | انجام شده و آماده دانلود |
تعداد صفحات ترجمه تایپ شده با فرمت ورد با قابلیت ویرایش | 8 صفحه با فونت 14 B Nazanin |
کیفیت ترجمه | کیفیت ترجمه این مقاله متوسط میباشد |
توضیحات | فقط دو بخش از این مقاله ترجمه شده است. |
فهرست مطالب |
1 مقدمه |
بخشی از ترجمه |
1 مقدمه |
بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی |
1. Introduction It is common, in the literature on corruption (e.g., Nye, 1967; Rose-Ackerman, 1978) to define it as an act of an individual, an inappropriate or deviated act according to certain parameters or social values that are relatively accepted in a society or group. This definition even opens the possibility to understand that, beyond the inappropriateness of the behavior of the person, it could be considered, under certain circumstances, as a rational or calculated behavior. In other words, corruption, from this analytical angle, is the decision made by an individual during a transaction with another individual or group of individuals, (unduly) taking advantage of from a specific position in this relation or transaction. This individualistic vision is sustained on a starting point: that the individual knows or understands in a broad manner, the situation in which she is and has calculated that behaving corruptly is convenient or beneficial to her. This way, a very particular interaction model is formed between actors that consciously calculate and act, measuring the consequences with a certain logic and intention. In this way, when placing emphasis in calculating individuals that act substantively thanks to this calculation ability (i.e., based on a conscious behavior), corruption is seen as a decision made by individuals under a certain and particular value context. In thislogic of conscious and calculating individuals we can inferseveral things: first, that corruption is inevitable in social relations, as it is funded in the calculations of rational actors. Second, fighting it is basically a matter of affecting the balance between cost and benefit that the individuals are able to calculate. The main issue to be considered in this article is that this individualistic vision is incredibly limited, first, to understand the phenomenon in its entirety and therefore, as a second point, to propose long-term solutions. The main objective of this document is to demonstrate, through a review of the literature on organizational corruption, that corruption is not a phenomenon where individuals enter discreet relations, but rather a dense social phenomenon. It is a social relation, in other words. And this social logic is both true for corruption in the private sector as it is in the public one, thus this article does not make a particular distinction between them. In other words, we speak of corruption in organizations of any type. From the review of this organizational literature of corruption we seek to fairly identify how corruption may be normalized as a social process with stages and socialization processes and rationalization. The way in which the argument is developed is by analyzing how the studies of organizational corruption place significant emphasis in the group and social space where the decision is made and where the behavior generates. In this manner, we arrive to very different diagnoses andconclusions, which a lot of the time are counterintuitive with regard to the individualistic vision. The point of departure is therefore that corruption is generated and thrives in the world of social relations, where the individuals, their agency, their behavior, are closely linked and affected by the interactions and context where they play and build their own image, their own will (de Graff, 2007). The behavior is a product that is rational, emotional and relational (Chugh, Bazerman, & Banaji, 2005, p. 79), where the interactions and rules and structures within which the people behave do matter. In this article, we will follow the perspective of Chibnall and Saunders where corruption is seen as a “negotiated classification of a behavior before an inherent quality on the behavior itself” (1977, p. 139). In other words, the concept of corruption is a very particular social construct of a society that, in its imaginary standards, has tried to separate the private from the public in the clearest and strictest way possible. Only this way is it feasible to find definitions that establish that corruption is, for example, the abuse of an organizational position to illegitimately gain benefits (Ananad et al., 2004, p. 40). This classic definition implicitly speaks of a clear differentiation of the private benefit over the collective or group benefit; it is a permanent essence of the different contemporary definitions of corruption.1 To discuss the huge social and normative burden that the classic definitions of corruption have, the following is important. Stating that corruption is a wrongful act, requires to define the following: for whom is it wrongful? In what context A vision based on the idea of “wrongful” implies that there is an external, clear, legit parameter that surrounds an individual and a group, which clearly marks with relative clarity what makes a behavior correct or corrupt. Even if this does sound reasonable and easy to understand, it is not really so in practice. For example, if the definition is so clear on what is wrongful then it should be clear on the contrary as well: how can you define a no-corruption state? (Philp, 1997). To answer such question is no easy task, therefore, we’ve tried to form definitions that are not of the corruption phenomenon as it is, but of some of its characteristics. People have attempted to generate clear distinctions on what acts of legitimate benefit means, for example (using political strategies to rise to higher levels in the organization in order to earn more money and prestige is legitimate, but helping a relative into the organization is not). A person can suspect being in a conflict of interest; for example, if they had a friend for several years and now, in a new position, it could negatively affect their judgment. Socially speaking, conceptual negotiation would imply that the person evaluatesthese possibilities in at least three complex steps: first, if the friendship has the power to influence, second, if said influence could clearly be illegitimate or only improper (to the eyes of certain actors), and third, define what the consequences of such influence could be. Each step implies a profound reflection and understanding of the context of the situation on behalf of the actor. This makes it possible to propose that all definitions of corruption are, in essence, fighting to negotiate a classification of behaviors, suspecting that that classification explains the nature of the phenomenon.. |
دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی + خرید ترجمه فارسی | |
عنوان فارسی مقاله: |
فساد به عنوان یک فرایند سازمانی: درک منطق انحراف فساد |
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله: |
Corruption as an organizational process: Understanding the logic of the denormalization of corruption |
|