Astute radiology managers will further analyze and consider
the ramifications of a staff that is motivated almost
exclusively toward patient care and social good.
This study indicates that the survey population which was comprised of future radiology professionals may have a propensity
to be innately ethical in terms of their decisions and actions. Although comforting,
there is a downside to this characteristic
which radiology managers should astutely
address. These specific participants may
totally ignore the need for the radiology
department and the healthcare organization, as a whole, to be profitable. 6-8 Although
restrictions of this study indicate that the
results may not be generalized to other
groups of future radiology professionals
(due to the sample of convenience), astute
radiology managers will further analyze
and consider the ramifications of a staff
that is motivated almost exclusively toward
patient care and social good.
It may be difficult for individuals who
are heavily engrained in patient care aspects
to recognize that healthcare is like any other
business. Solid financial status also drives
quality patient care since issues like purchasing state of the art equipment and hiring talented radiology professionals requires
money. Patient care will ultimately decrease
without financial prosperity and individuals
holding the Socioeconomic CSR viewpoint
may need to have this explained to them in
great detail. They will need to be able to
look at the bigger picture in terms of organizational solidity and ongoing business
continuity. It is difficult to serve the community and to show compassion for the
greater good of society if the facility struggles financially. 2, 3
among the selected population; however,
the Ethical orientation had a higher representation than other CSR orientation categories. Tying the CSR orientation theory
to the CSR viewpoint theory indicates that
survey participants were more likely to fall
within the Socioeconomic viewpoint and
will potentially focus more on the good of
society as opposed to maximizing organizational profits. 2, 3, 8, 12
This information provides an avenue by
which radiology managers can cultivate a
more socially conscious and profitable
department. This knowledge provides a
starting point for an articulation of CSR
strengths and weakness within the radiology profession and how those strengths
and weaknesses impact the organization,
the employees, the patients, and the community. Understanding the potential innate
tendencies of future radiology professionals
may provide radiology managers with the
ability to more closely interrelate business
initiatives and organizational strategy with
high quality patient care.
1Abbott WF, Monsen RJ. On the measurement
of corporate social responsibility: Self-reported disclosures as a method of measuring corporate social involvement. Academy of
Management Journal. 1979; 22( 3):501.
2Collins SK. An exploration of corporate social
responsibility and Machiavellianism in future
healthcare professionals. Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illinois University Carbondale.
3Collins SK. Corporate social responsibility and
the future health care manager. Health Care
Manager. 2010; 29( 4): 1–7.
4Albinger HS, Freeman SJ. Corporate social performance and attractiveness as an employer
to different job seeking populations. Journal
of Business Ethics . 2000; 28( 3):243.
5Holme R, Watts P. Corporate social responsibility: Making good business sense. Geneva,
Switzerland: World Business Council for
Sustainable Development; 2000.
6Carroll AB. A three dimensional conceptual
model of corporate social performance.
Academy of Management Review. 1979; 4( 4):
7Ray RJ. Investigating relationships between corporate social responsibility orientation and
employer attractiveness. Akron, OH: University of Akron; 2006.
8Robbins S, Coulter M. Management (5th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1996.
9Stump S. Attracting social investors, appeasing
shareholders. Investor Relations Business.
1999; 4( 1): 8.
10Freeman RE. Strategic management: A stake-holder approach. Boston: Pitman; 1984.
11Luce RA, Barber AE, Hillman AJ. Good deeds
and misdeeds: A mediated model of the
effect of corporate social performance on
organizational attractiveness. Business &
Society. 2001; 40( 4):397.
12Carroll AB. The pyramid of corporate social
responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders.
Business Horizons. 1991; 34( 4): 39–48.
13Aupperle KE. An empirical inquiry into the
social responsibilities as defined by corporations: An examination of various models and
relationships. Athens, GA: University of
14Millstein IM, Katsh SM. The limits of corporate
power. New York: MacMillian; 1981.
15Morrison EE. Ethics in health administration:
A practical approach for decision makers.
Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett; 2006.
16Rangel E. Clinical ethics and the dynamics of
group decision-making: Applying the psychological data to decisions made by ethics
committees. HEC Forum. 2009; 21( 2):207.
17Davis K. Understanding the social responsibility puzzle. Business Horizons. 1967; 10( 4): 45.
Sandra K. Collins, MBA, Ph D is an associate professor
in the health care management program at Southern
Illinois University Carbondale. She has over 17 years
experience in the management of healthcare
facilities, has authored numerous articles on human
resource related topics specific to the healthcare field,
and presented multiple times at national and
international conferences. Dr. Collins can be reached
This research study sought to determine
the CSR orientations and the CSR viewpoints of future radiology professionals.
The results of the research indicate that
CSR orientations are well represented
Kevin S. Collins, RT(R), CMD, MSEd, ABD is an associate
professor in the radiologic sciences program at
Southern Illinois University Carbondale. He is a
registered radiation therapist and dosimetrist and
has authored numerous articles on management
related issues. He frequently conducts presentations
at state, national, and international conferences. Mr.
Collins can be reached at email@example.com.