Each week, Daniels is featuring a researcher who conducts meaningful research that impacts their field and the wider community. Learn more about their work in Q&As with Melissa Archpru Akaka, associate dean for faculty research. Email Melissa to nominate yourself or a colleague for a future Q&A.
Assistant Professor SungSoo Kim
Sung Soo Kim is an associate professor in the Department of Management, who has worked at Daniels since 2014. Previously, she worked as a consultant for a large tech company in South Korea before pursing her PhD. Her consulting experience sparked a curiosity for developing a deeper understanding of employee engagement and identity, especially as they relate to corporate purpose. She is currently studying why diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives don’t work in corporate settings and how to rebuild a more sustainable form of capitalism. In this faculty spotlight, Sung Soo shares her thoughts on the dark sides of corporate purpose and how she teaches businesses to impact the public good.
How did you start your research career and the type of research do you do?
The start of this journey is one project I worked on in the early 2000s with a giant tech company, headquartered in South Korea. Employee engagement was their major concern. They were wondering: What is the reason for low employee engagement, given that the company is high-paying and prestigious? We conducted the research project, but the outcome was not very satisfying to me personally, so I wanted to dig deeper by pursuing a doctoral degree. Eventually, I started studying things like leadership and employee identity in general: What are the challenges in leading the organization’s employees without a purpose beyond profit maximization? I usually focus on the “dark side”; if you have a corporate purpose, it’s assumed to inspire employees because it provides a sense of meaning and impact. But that’s not always the case. So I’ve studied: In what cases do corporate purposes not increase employee engagement?
The start of this journey is one project I worked on in the early 2000s with a giant tech company, headquartered in South Korea. Employee engagement was their major concern. They were wondering: What is the reason for low employee engagement, given that the company is high-paying and prestigious? We conducted the research project, but the outcome was not very satisfying to me personally, so I wanted to dig deeper by pursuing a doctoral degree. Eventually, I started studying things like leadership and employee identity in general: What are the challenges in leading the organization’s employees without a purpose beyond profit maximization? I usually focus on the “dark side”; if you have a corporate purpose, it’s assumed to inspire employees because it provides a sense of meaning and impact. But that’s not always the case. So I’ve studied: In what cases do corporate purposes not increase employee engagement?
How do you conduct these studies?
I look at in what conditions corporate purpose doesn’t work to inspire people or motivate people. Currently, I’m using the concept of ideological contracts, which refers to companies showing a credible commitment to their purpose and other transcendent values. If the employees see that the organization shows a credible commitment to the value and purpose, then employees are supposed to be motivated. I usually focus on how the relationship between purpose and employees sustains and fails.
I look at in what conditions corporate purpose doesn’t work to inspire people or motivate people. Currently, I’m using the concept of ideological contracts, which refers to companies showing a credible commitment to their purpose and other transcendent values. If the employees see that the organization shows a credible commitment to the value and purpose, then employees are supposed to be motivated. I usually focus on how the relationship between purpose and employees sustains and fails.
What is the difference in the outcomes of consulting and academic research?
I think that we, the academics, are producing more nuanced solutions. So, for example, the corporate purpose is usually effective in inspiring employees. But we are focusing more on the conditions. Why and when are they inspiring to employees? Your answers are much more detailed and nuanced as an academic compared to consulting, which usually focuses on the main effect (“If you implement these five tactics, then you will have an impact on all employee outcomes.”)
I think that we, the academics, are producing more nuanced solutions. So, for example, the corporate purpose is usually effective in inspiring employees. But we are focusing more on the conditions. Why and when are they inspiring to employees? Your answers are much more detailed and nuanced as an academic compared to consulting, which usually focuses on the main effect (“If you implement these five tactics, then you will have an impact on all employee outcomes.”)
How do you think your research might help managers in their day-to-day decisions?
A lot of leaders tend to focus too much on meaning and impact. “Since our company is great at contributing to the social well-being, then we will have power to improve and inspire employees.” That’s a very limited effect on the employee. In terms of the total employment relationship, you have to also think about the other two aspects of the employment relationship: the relational and the monetary. My findings are somewhat counterintuitive. The meaning and value of my work is much more important when I’m not satisfied with my money that I’m getting from the organization. If I perceive care from my organization, if they care about me as a person, then ideally I find the meaning and value of the my work based on the corporate purpose, the collective effort to contribute to society.
A lot of leaders tend to focus too much on meaning and impact. “Since our company is great at contributing to the social well-being, then we will have power to improve and inspire employees.” That’s a very limited effect on the employee. In terms of the total employment relationship, you have to also think about the other two aspects of the employment relationship: the relational and the monetary. My findings are somewhat counterintuitive. The meaning and value of my work is much more important when I’m not satisfied with my money that I’m getting from the organization. If I perceive care from my organization, if they care about me as a person, then ideally I find the meaning and value of the my work based on the corporate purpose, the collective effort to contribute to society.
Where do you see your research going from here?
Two of my immediate projects are looking at why DEI initiatives don’t work. What’s the reason of the employee resistance? And what can organizations do to engage those minority employees in the workplace?
Two of my immediate projects are looking at why DEI initiatives don’t work. What’s the reason of the employee resistance? And what can organizations do to engage those minority employees in the workplace?
How would you like to see your research impact broader communities and businesses?
I know that a lot of academics and practitioners together want to create a new kind of capitalism. They know that the current state of capitalism is not sustainable over time, so they want to reconceptualize the corporation. I’m looking at the limitation of focusing on the corporate purpose in doing so. Is it because employees think that the corporate purpose is too far away from their daily routines? Or it’s because they believe that these corporate purposes are propaganda activities of the company rather than their true intentions? Why are they not that effective in motivating employees?
I know that a lot of academics and practitioners together want to create a new kind of capitalism. They know that the current state of capitalism is not sustainable over time, so they want to reconceptualize the corporation. I’m looking at the limitation of focusing on the corporate purpose in doing so. Is it because employees think that the corporate purpose is too far away from their daily routines? Or it’s because they believe that these corporate purposes are propaganda activities of the company rather than their true intentions? Why are they not that effective in motivating employees?
How do you bring your research into the classroom?
One way is that I’ll bring a piece of the paper for the slides I’m using. I don’t present the whole academic paper to students, but if there’s a very interesting finding or graph, then I share those with the students. And then I talk about my own research.
One way is that I’ll bring a piece of the paper for the slides I’m using. I don’t present the whole academic paper to students, but if there’s a very interesting finding or graph, then I share those with the students. And then I talk about my own research.