Seminar Paper (TUM) - Prosocial Motivation

Technische Universitt Mnchen
TUM School of Management

PROSOCIAL
MOTIVATION
Seminar Paper

Chair: Prof. Dr. Isabell M. Welpe, Lehrstuhl fr Strategie und Organisation

Author: Alejandro Aznar Argelich, Matr. Nr. 03295680

Prosocial motivation
Alejandro Aznar Argelich

2

OVERVIEW

1. Introduction page 3

2. Personal networks

2.1. Definitions page 4
2.2. Relational job design and prosocial motivation page 6
2.3. Prosocial motivation at work page 13
2.4. Intrinsic and prosocial motivation page 14

3. Conclusions page 16

4. References page 22


3

1. INTRODUCTION

The present paper aims at giving a deep insight on prosocial motivation. Adam
M. Grant, an award-winning teacher, researcher, and management professor at Wharton
Business School, has published several articles on prosocial motivation. Grants
experience and level of expertise on several fields among business psychology have
made him a very good option when selecting papers about motivation at a business
level. The paper has been mainly based on three of his latest articles, since they provide
a very deep insight on the topic and also present new ideas and future lines of research
on prosocial motivation. These mentioned articles have helped in a significant manner
to the composition of the paper.

Prosocial motivation is a very important resource that significantly contributes to
the improvement of the workers performance and productivity. This paper focuses on
three main topics within the context of prosocial motivation: first, the relational
architecture of jobs, defining in several jobs and closely related to personal
relationships; second, the collective orientation of employees, so as to achieve global
visions and goals within the company; and third, the intensifying effect of intrinsic
motivation in employees making a prosocial difference.

In relation to the future, more research should be done to close the remaining
gaps existing in the current literature. Some of the main issues would be the negative
aspects or consequences of prosocial motivation, which can hinder employees
performance and productivity, a deeper understanding of the varied relational
characteristics of jobs and the way they affect relationships and employees actions and

4

identities, or prosocial motivation related to social entrepreneurship, CSR, and
sustainability issues such as climate change or oil depletion.

The paper will proceed with the following structure: first, the present
introduction, on which brief comments about the paper and its structure are made;
second, the main part, on which definitions, explanation of the relational job design,
prosocial motivation in the context of work, and the difference between prosocial and
intrinsic motivation will be given; third, the conclusion, on which a general overview
from the whole paper and comments on the limitations and possible future lines of
research will be provided.

Regarding citations, they will be inserted in the paper directly after the thought
they refer to, according to APA-style.

2. PROSOCIAL MOTIVATION

2.1 Definition

Motivation denotes a desire or reason to act, and prosocial means for the
benefit of others or with the intention of helping others (Oxford English Dictionary,
2009).

Prosocial behavior is the behavior that benefits others or has positive social
consequences and it can take many forms, including helping behaviors, cooperation and

5

solidarity (Moivas, 1996).

Prosocial motivation takes place when employees are willing to carry out the
activities related to a determined job with the aim of helping and improving the quality
of life of customers, co-workers and communities (Grant, 2007).

Prosocial motivation can operate as an enabling condition for outcomes that are
often viewed as positive for employees, such as meaningful work and strengthened
social bonds, and for organizations, such as effort, persistence, performance, creativity,
citizenship and proactive behavior. It can also serve as a lens for understanding
employees quests to create positive outcomes for others, providing insight into how
employees experience and pursue the desire to protect and promote the well-being of
coworkers, customers, and communities (Grant and Berg, 2011).

Psychologists have argued that prosocial motivation operates at three
hierarchical levels of generality: global, contextual, and situational (Vallerand, 1997).
Global motivation focuses on an employees relatively stable dispositional orientation
toward particular goals and actions across time and situations. Contextual motivation
focuses on an employees motivation toward a specific domain or class of behavior, and
is moderately variable across time and situations. Situational motivation focuses on an
employees motivation toward a particular behavior in a particular moment in time, and
is highly variable. Thus, at the extremes, global motivation can be viewed as a traitlike
concept, while situational motivation matches prototypes of psychological states
(Chaplin, John, & Goldberg, 1988).


6

2.2 Relational job design and prosocial motivation

In this part of the paper, work contexts and their relationship with prosocial
motivation will be analyzed. Also the way jobs spark the motivation of employees to
make a prosocial difference, as well as the way prosocial motivation affects their actions
and decisions. The most important and new fact compared to other existing literature
that Grant (2007) throws light on is the way relational architecture of jobs shapes the
motivation to make a prosocial difference.

Employees have in mind making a positive difference in other peoples lives
(Borstein, 2004). This motivation to make a prosocial difference is defining in several
jobs. Some examples of jobs on which prosocial motivation is an important pillar would
be firefighting they need to risk their life for people almost every day- or inner-city
attorneys as they get emotionally attached to their clients, they work more and for less
money just to help them.

It is usually important that employees count on altruistic values so as them to be
willing to make a positive difference in others lives. But which would be the way
companies have to encourage their employees to follow a prosocial motivation?
According to Hackman and Oldham (1980), this could be the task significance or the
extent to which employees work affects other people health and well-being- that makes
the employees considering their work as meaningful. Also interpersonal relationships
play key role in enabling employees to experience their work as important and
meaningful (Barry & Crant, 2000).

7

Prosocial motivation can be regarded as a relational phenomenon, closely
attached to the concept of interpersonal relationships and its importance at work. In the
literature researched, this has been found to be a popular topic, independently from the
year of publication. Currently, it could be said that this importance is greater since these
relationships- both the external and the internal- are one of the most important aspects
of the service sector, and this sector is the most significant one in the US, and it is
growing very fast in Europe. Employees are increasingly being encouraged to have
good relationships and therefore improve the lives of their co-workers, supervisors,
clients and customers (Grant, 2007).

When analyzing prosocial motivation, it is also crucial to discuss how jobs
cultivate the motivation to make a prosocial difference. A very good model to explain
this is the relational job design (Hackman and Oldham, 1980; Grant, 2007).

The relational job design signifies that jobs are designed with elaborate
relational architectures that affect employees interpersonal interactions and
connections (Grant, 2007). These relational architectures are important in the
development of relationships with co-workers and customers, and also with regard to
cooperation and collaboration. Relational job design has an influence on the impact of
employees on the beneficiaries individuals benefited from the work of employees,
such as co-workers, supervisors, subordinates, clients and customers. The two
dimensions on relational job design are job impact and contact with beneficiaries, both
of which will be explained further in this paper.


8

Regarding relational architecture of jobs, we can affirm that it refers to the
structural properties of work that shape employees opportunities to connect and interact
with other people (Grant, 2007). For instance, firefighting jobs or jobs related to the
delivery of emergency medical services have an enriched impact and high frequency of
contact with beneficiaries, completely opposed to janitorial jobs. There can also be
difference within a same job type, such as journalists, who can communicate important
news and have feedback from beneficiaries, and can also be transmitting trivial
information to small audiences and receiving no feedback.

Job impact can be defined as the degree to which a job provides opportunities
for employees to affect the lives of beneficiaries (Grant, 2007). Jobs can impact
different dimensions of beneficiaries well-being: hedonic well-being related to health
and safety of other (nurse, police officer), eudaimonic well-being promoting the
development of others (coach, teacher) and material well-being (accountants,
attorneys).

There are four key dimensions regarding potential impact on beneficiaries:
magnitude (e.g. surgeons have enduring impacts since they save lives, not the same
happens with cashiers), scope (e.g. automobile designers affect a lot more people than
speech therapists), frequency (e.g. chefs preparing meals that impact people many times
per day, in front of research chemists) and focus of impact (e.g. lifeguards protecting
swimmers from drowning in front of gasoline station attendants preventing harms of
lower magnitude; special teachers promoting gains of high magnitude, in front of
comedians).

9

The figure 1 explains how work contexts motivate employees to care about
making a positive difference in other peoples lives.

Figure 1. The Job Impact Framework. Source: Grant (2007). Relational job design and
the motivation to make a prosocial difference, Academy of Management Review, page
396.

In relation to contact with beneficiaries, it can be defined as the degree to
which a job is relationally structured to provide opportunities for employees to interact
and communicate with the people affected by their work (Grant, 2007). This contact
can range from everyday contact to occasional calls or emails. It is necessary to
highlight here that employees can be carrying out impactful tasks, but this does not
mean that they are having a personal or emotional connection with beneficiaries, or vice
versa. Employees look for meaningful tasks but also meaningful relationships (Kahn,

10

1990).

Grant (2007) suggests five dimensions of contact with beneficiaries: frequency
of contact (e.g. taxi drivers in front of commercial pilots), duration (e.g. hairstylists
have longer contact with beneficiaries than flight attendants), physical proximity (e.g.
clinical psychologists as opposed to manufacturing employees), depth (social workers
against telephone operators) and breadth of contact (an orchestra musician has contact
with the conductor, audience members and the fellow musicians, while a clerical worker
has a narrow contact with beneficiaries). The greater this dimensions are, the more
meaningful is regarded work by employees.

It would also be important to analyze how the relational job design has an
impact on motivation. For that purpose, it is necessary to refer to perceived impact and
its relation with contact with beneficiaries. Perceived impact is the degree to which
employees know that their actions have an effect on others. It is a way of experiencing
ones job as affecting welfare of other individuals, which establishes a connection
employee-beneficiary (Grant, 2007). The greater whichever of the previously mentioned
magnitudes of job impact are, the higher is the perceived impact or objective
opportunity to significantly affect others (e.g. ambulance drivers can save victims life,
while cashiers dont have a strong perceived impact). Usually, the jobs preventing harm
are more meaningful for employees than the jobs focusing on promotion of gains.
Regarding the relation with beneficiaries, it can be argued that it is crucial for
employees to receive feedback on whether they are having an impact or not on
beneficiaries welfare (e.g. production times isolated from costumers lose awareness of
customers expectations). Besides, the greater the frequency, duration, physical

11

proximity, depth, and breadth of contact with beneficiaries provided by the job, the
stronger the employees perception of impact (Grant, 2007).

Another important aspect for employees to make a prosocial difference is their
affective commitment to beneficiaries, which refers to emotional concern for and
dedication to the people and groups of people impacted by ones work (Grant, 2007).
As an example, domestic violence counselors care about their clients, and tend to
develop affective commitment to the whole group. This concept is strongly related to
the already analyzed perceived impact, since the personal contact and closeness to
beneficiaries is likely to enable employees to really care about beneficiaries and identify
themselves with them. Therefore, it can be said that the previously mentioned
dimensions of personal contacts and perceived impacted are very related to the affective
commitment the higher these dimensions, the greater the commitment to beneficiaries.

As far as employees reactions to relational job design are concerned, it can be
suggested that they are likely to be influenced by social information, which shapes the
ways in which the employees evaluate the beliefs, emotions, behaviors, group
memberships, and intrinsic worth of beneficiaries (Grant, 2007). Beneficiaries are
regarded as important and valuable individuals according to organizational and
occupational ideologies (e.g. Wal-Marts ideology of customers having the right to buy
quality products at good prices). This is the case when beneficiaries are kind, amiable
and easy to help in their interactions with employees. These ideologies can, however,
devaluate beneficiaries, when they are regarded by employees as difficult to help, rude
or disrespectful. Consequently, it can be concluded that interactions with beneficiaries
can provide whether positive or negative social information about them.

12

It can be further argued that social information moderates the effect of affective
commitment to beneficiaries, mentioned earlier in this section of the paper. When the
employees are exposed to positive social information of the beneficiaries, they are more
committed to help beneficiaries, since this information triggers employees prosocial
identities and become connected to the welfare of others. On the other hand, when
employees receive negative social information from beneficiaries, they seek emotional
distance from them (Grant, 2007).

Getting back to the motivation to make a prosocial difference, it is found that the
previously discussed elements are closely related to prosocial motivation. Perceived
impact is likely to increase prosocial motivation, because employees feel capable of
making a prosocial difference on other peoples lives. But there is another dimension
which enhances prosocial motivation even with a higher degree of probability: affective
commitment. Affective commitment to beneficiaries will raise the likelihood for
employees to be motivated in a prosocial manner, since employees personally caring
about beneficiaries are emotionally attached to them and they will therefore be
motivated spend more energy to improve their well-being (Grant, 2007).

Until now, the most important implications of prosocial motivation have been
analyzed. However, it is worth also referring to the consequences that this type of
motivation can have. First, behavioural consequences can be mentioned. Making a
prosocial difference requires more effort, persistence and helping behavior voluntary
work, spend more time and energy. In second place, identity consequences: the
previously mentioned behavioural consequences can affect employees identities, being

13

these ones the competence, self-determination and social value of employees all of
which can be related to impact. When employees display high levels of effort,
persistence, and helping behavior in the interest of making a prosocial difference, they
are likely to construct identities as competent, self-determined, socially valued
individuals (Grant, 2007).

2.3 Prosocial motivation at work

In the organizational behavior context, it makes a lot of sense to explain the way
prosocial motivation works within a company, while the employees are performing their
job. In Grant (2008a), several facts on behavioral consequences of prosocial motivation
at work are analyzed, and a lot of questions are left open so as them to be solved by
future research. In this section of the paper, several facts and implications will be
explained so as to further the understanding on how prosocial motivation at work can
change and how these changes can be sustained in the long term.

According to Grant and Berg (2011), employees are more likely to experience
prosocial motivation when organizations maintain collectivistic rather than
individualistic norms and rewards. If collective goals are established, there is a higher
probability that employees are willing to contribute to common goals and also feel
concerned about other peoples welfare whether co-workers or customers.

In shaping prosocial motivation, transformational leadership can also play an
important role, given that they are able to link employees work to organizational goals

14

and values, which can lead employees to prioritize the interests of the organization
over and above their own self-interests (Bass, 1999). This can be achieved, thanks to
the fact that transformational leaders are regarded as role models and prove support to
their employees. Nevertheless, the effects of transformational leadership may vary as a
function of the type of charismatic relationship that employees have with their leaders
(Grant and Berg, 2011).

Another important fact, already mentioned in the previous section, would be the
individual differences among employees. There are two different classifications of
individuals according to Grant and Berg (2011). The first one refers to the level of
familiar or universalism values: the individuals with stronger familiar values will be
sensitive to contact and relationships with beneficiaries, whereas the concern on the
ones with high universal values will not depend that much on contact but will be rather
broad and more sustainable. The second distinction mentions agreeable individuals
whose prosocial motivation will be more focused toward individuals- and conscientious
employees who will direct their prosocial motivation to being responsible and
complying with rules; less personal.

2.4 Intrinsic and prosocial motivation

Authors usually have trouble on differentiating between intrinsic and prosocial
motivation. The article of Grant (2008a) provides a deep insight on the matter defining
both concepts in-depth and referring to different dimensions that affect them and can
serve as a basis to achieve a clear distinction. According to Grant (2008a), intrinsic

15

motivation is driven by pleasure, interest and enjoyment, whereas prosocial motivation
is driven by meaning and purpose, with the aim of helping others. There are three
dimensions on which this difference is based: self-regulation (autonomous vs.
introjected/identified), goal directedness (process vs. outcome), and temporal focus
(present vs. future).

Individuals who are intrinsically motivated are naturally drawn to do their job,
they are autonomous, process-based and focused in the present, since their only aim is
pure enjoyment; however, prosocially motivated people are more based on conscious
self-regulation and self-control, they are outcome based they want to achieve a goal,
which is other people welfare- and are evidently focused in the future. For instance, the
case of a university professor presenting a lecture to students. When intrinsically
motivated, the teachers effort is based on enjoyment of the task of lecturing, which
provides joy and pleasure in the process of performing. When prosocially motivated, the
teachers effort is based on a desire to educate students, which provides meaning and
fulfillment in the outcome of student learning (Grant, 2008a).

In his article, Grant (2008a) proved the hypothesis that intrinsic motivation
moderates the relationship between prosocial motivation and persistence, performance,
and productivity, the dimensions explained in the previous section of the paper. He was
able to demonstrate, by a study on which he observed firefighters and fundraising
callers while working, that the higher the intrinsic motivation, the stronger the positive
association between prosocial motivation and persistence, performance, and
productivity. In both contexts, prosocial motivation was a psychologically meaningful
variable.

16

3. CONCLUSIONS

Prosocial motivation appears as a crucial element to improve employees work
performance and productivity. It goes without saying that the analysis of the different
implications and consequences of prosocial motivation is useful for managers in order
to better design jobs, to re-define the business with a more ethical and environmentally
sustainable view, to improve the relationships within the company and from the
company to the outside world, to know the best way to create a collective identity
towards a common organizational goal, and it is also a good indicator to know whether
to select and train certain individuals instead of others.

As a conclusion for the section of relational architecture of jobs, it can be said
that jobs have important relational architectures that can motivate employees to care
about improving the welfare of other people. This article thus enriches our
understanding of how making a difference makes a difference for employees and their
organizations (Grant, 2007).

When employees have opportunities to affect beneficiaries, they are aware of
their impact on beneficiaries, they are affectively attached to them, and, consequently,
they are more likely to develop a prosocial motivation. Then it can be concluded that
relationships are shaped by the motivation to make a prosocial difference (Grant,
2007).


17

Regarding job impact, it can be said that impactful jobs provide meaningful
opportunities for impact on and relationships with beneficiaries, both affecting
beneficiaries lives and creating connections with these beneficiaries. The article of
Grant (2007) provides deeper insight on how this is made in comparison to previous
literature.

The previous literature also brought up the questions of whether employees
cared about other people and which kind of employees were the ones caring about
others. Grant (2007), however, proposed the question of when and under what
conditions employees cared about other individuals, concluding that well-designed jobs
were the key to trigger prosocial motivation, and considering altruistic-egoistic motives
as complementary to this triggering. It can be argued that the article furthers the
understanding of the way to achieve this type of motivation in organizations, making
employees to care about and cooperate with others.

It would be also worth adding that jobs with enriched relational job architectures
can usually satisfy both the employees needs of differentiation achieved through
competence and self-determination, making distinct contributions to other peoples
lives- and integration achieved through feeling valued and connected to the
beneficiaries of these contributions (Grant, 2007).

Regarding the future, researchers should be able to measure the relational
architecture of jobs. This would provide them with a deeper understanding of the varied
relational characteristics of jobs, and the mechanisms through which they affect the
actions, relationships, experiences and identities of employees (Grant, 2007). It would

18

be also useful to look for the sources of relational job design: not only managers goals
and organizational structures, but also the way employees play a role on shaping these
structures, and the way employees craft their jobs, enabling them to become aware of
their impact and redefine work including new activities so as to make a prosocial
difference on beneficiaries.

Adverse work conditions and individual differences that can hinder the
development of a prosocial motivation (Frey and Meier, 2003), and the effect that these
adverse conditions or differences can have on relational job design should be also an
issue of attention for future researchers. Answering the questions of why employees
decide to favour beneficiaries with similar backgrounds and experiences and however
they discriminate against dissimilar ones or how to moderate the effect of individual
differences on employees reactions to different types of beneficiaries would have an
enormous effect on understanding prosocial motivation.

It would also be worth widening the amount of existing literature about jobs with
enriched relational job architectures and their influence on satisfaction of employees
needs of differentiation and integration.

In relation to limitations of the article of Grant (2007) and the rest of the existing
literature about relational architecture of jobs, it can be suggested that little research has
been done on job design examining the relational structures of jobs, and therefore
several of the hypotheses presented in his article should be more extensively researched.
There is also a need for a deeper understanding of how work contexts cultivate the
motivation to make a prosocial difference, and articles that include jobs interpersonal

19

relationships in theories of motivation.

There are also limitations regarding job redesign, which can have weak effects
or negative consequences, because it enriches tasks rather than enriching relational
architecture of jobs. Relationships are more flexible and easy to intervene, which
reduces the time and effort that the managers need to increase employees contact with
beneficiaries (Grant, 2007).

In relation to motivation at work, it can be concluded that collectivistic goals and
aims, and individual differences have an important influence on prosocial motivation. It
can be added that, in spite of the not very significant amount of literature referred to the
topic, transformational leaders can also have an undeniable effect in the process of
triggering prosocial motivation.

As far as prosocial motivation at work is concerned, there are several questions
that are yet to be answered by future research. One of the most important and less
attention-grabbing aspects of prosocial motivation to researchers until the present time
are the drawbacks of prosocial motivation. Grant and Berg (2011) consider prosocial
motivation as a double-edged sword, since it can trigger not very ethical and even
harmful attitudes, such as managers exploiting prosocially motivated employees by
making them working overtime or underpaying them, employees being excessively
loyal to beneficiaries and therefore violating justice and ethics or breaking rules

Some other possible future lines of research on the topic within the context of

20

work could be the exploration of the development and impact of collective prosocial
motivation, proving if effects of prosocial motivation are greater or not among groups of
workers, or if the existence shared identities, goals, and missions enhance prosocial
motivation; the way organizations start, keep, and hinder prosocial motivation; and
prosocial motivation related to social entrepreneurship, CSR, and sustainability issues,
studying the role of prosocial motivation in solving problems of social and societal
importance, asking questions such as how does prosocial motivation influence
individual and organizational actions toward the environment? or if firms run by
prosocially motivated executives engage in more corporate social responsibility and
environmental activities (Grant and Berg, 2011).

In relation to intrinsic and prosocial motivation, it can be concluded that there is
a synergy between prosocial and intrinsic motivations, and this synergy is more likely to
enhance persistence, performance, and productivity, in comparison to each type of
motivation in a separate way. This fact will be of great usefulness for managers, who
could take into account this synergy in their selection and socialization practices, with
the objective of increasing effectiveness outcomes. Thanks to these results, managers
could also consider measuring the prosocial and intrinsic motivational orientations to
hire employees who display dispositional tendencies to experience high levels of both
motivations (Grant, 2008a).

Regarding future research about prosocial related to intrinsic motivation, it
would be useful to investigate which are the psychological mechanisms that mediate
between prosocial and intrinsic motivations and the implications of persistence,
performance, and productivity. Also conscientiousness, perceived job characteristics and

21

positive affect, so as to know which are the relative contributions of intrinsic and
prosocial to these effects. It would be also important to prove the hypothesis that
multiple motivations cannot coexist in the same period of time.

It can finally be said that more research should be done on prosocial motivation
at work, in spite of the article of Grant and Berg (2011), since it is rather a unique study
on this topic. The idea would be to learn more on both positive sides and drawbacks of
prosocial motivation at work, possible illusions of capabilities or achievements, and the
sustainability of the mentioned prosocial motivation in the long term. It would be also
helpful to gain more insight on intrinsic motivation and its relationship with prosocial
motivation, so as to perfectly define the differences between both of them and their
defining components and characteristics. The article of Grant (2008a) needs to be taken
as the first step towards more investigation on the understanding of the previously
mentioned topic.


22

4. REFERENCES

Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational
leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 932.

Chaplin, W. F., John, O. P., & Goldberg, L. R. (1988). Conceptions of states and traits:
Dimensional attributes with ideals as prototypes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 541-557.

Frey, B. S. & Meier, S. (2003). Pro-social behavior in a natural setting. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization, 54, 6588.

Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial
difference. Academy of Management Review, 32, 393-417.

Grant, A. M. (2008a). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational
synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 48-58.

Grant, A. M., & Berg, J. M. (2011). Prosocial motivation at work: When, why, and how
making a difference makes a difference. In K. Cameron and G. Spreitzer (Eds.), Oxford
handbook of positive organizational scholarship: 28-44. New York: Oxford University
Press.


23

Grant, A. M. (2012). Leading with meaning: Beneficiary contact, prosocial impact, and
the performance effects of transformational leadership. Forthcoming in the Academy of
Management Journal.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test
of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and
disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.

Moivas, A (1996). La conducta prosocial. Cuadernos de trabajo, 9, 125-142.
Universidad Complutense.

Tonin, M. & Vlassopoulos, M. (2010). Disentangling the sources of pro-socially
motivated effort: A field experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 94 (1112), 1086-
1092.

Seminar Paper (TUM) - Prosocial Motivation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seminar Paper (TUM) - Prosocial Motivation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technische Universitt Mnchen

TUM School of Management

You might also like