Book Review: Unequal Time: Gender, Class, and Family in Employment Schedules

July 3, 2015 by

41m6FqkS71L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_Unequal Time: Gender, Class, and Family in Employment Schedules. By Dan Clawson Naomi Gerstel . New York: The Russell Sage Foundation, 2014. 324 pp. ISBN 978-0-87154-014-0, $35 (Paperback).

Matthew M. Piszczek of University of Wisconsin Oshkosh recently reviewed the book by Dan Clawson and Naomi Gerstel in ILR Review.

From the review:

Work schedules are a critical factor in the management of time, but schedules vary significantly from one person to the next. Most commonly, schedules are ILR_72ppiRGB_powerpointstudied through the variables of employee schedule control and typical hours worked. In Unequal Time, Clawson and Gerstel go far beyond this treatment and expand the domain of work schedule research into the “web of time.” The web of time is an interesting and much-needed expansion on the conceptualization of work schedules that aptly recognizes the limitations of more typical perspectives. The web of time approach allows the authors to look more deeply into how schedules are created and negotiated, not only between employees and organizations but also between employees and their coworkers and spouses. Similarly, the authors explain the effect of employee schedules and schedule unpredictability on others in the broader web of time. By focusing on themes of unpredictability, the authors identify several critical factors that employees and organizations consider in the creation and maintenance of work schedules that are often overlooked in organizational research and that push the domain of schedule research a big theoretical step forward.

You can read the review from ILR Review for free for the next two weeks by clicking here. Like what you read? Click here to sign up for e-alerts and get all the latest research and reviews sent directly to your inbox!

How Do Attitudes Towards CSR Influence Job Choices Across Cultures?

July 1, 2015 by

BAS_v50_72ppiRGB_powerpoint[We’re pleased to welcome Cedric E. Dawkins of Dalhousie University. Dr. Dawkins recently collaborated with Dima Jamali, Charlotte Karam, Lianlian Lin, and Jixin Zhao on their article “Corporate Social Responsibility and Job Choice Intentions: A Cross-Cultural Analysis” from Business & Society.]

  • What inspired you to be interested in this topic?

The paper was inspired by the travel of the authors and observing the concerns and challenging around CSR and how they varied, but maintained similar presence, in different countries.

  • Were there findings that were surprising to you?

The results of the study, that the preference to work for firms respondents viewed as socially responsible were relatively consistent but the reasons for the preferences differed, did not surprise us in that culture impacts so much of our decision making. It is noteworthy from a decision making/motivation perspective, that the respondents in different countries arrive at the same place by assigning different weights to the same variables.

  • How do you see this study influencing future research and/or practice?

We believe that a clear implication of our paper for recruiters and HR officers is that when seeking international workers the ŒCSR message may be better received if it is tailored to the specific cultural context. This insight is nothing special, but illustrates the need to extend cross-cultural sensitivity to perception of CSR as well.

You can read “Corporate Social Responsibility and Job Choice Intentions: A Cross-Cultural Analysis” from Business & Society free for the next two weeks by clicking here. Want to know about all the latest research like this from Business & Society? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!


dawkinsCedric E. Dawkins (PhD, Ohio State University) is an associate professor of management at the Rowe School of Business at Dalhousie University. His research interests focus on connections between labor rights and corporate social responsibility (CSR), labor union revitalization, and the impact of disclosure on corporate behavior. His work has appeared in journals such as Business & Society, Business Ethics Quarterly, Employee Relations, Journal of Business Communication, and Journal of Business Ethics.

jamaliDima Jamali is a professor of management in the Olayan School of Business at American University of Beirut and currently holds the Kamal Shair Endowed chair in responsible leadership. With a PhD in social policy and administration from the University of Kent at Canterbury, her research revolves primarily around CSR a nd social entrepreneurship (SE). She is the editor of three books (CSR in the Middle East, Social Entrepreneurship in the Middle East, and CSR in Developing Countries), and more than 50 international research publications, focusing on different aspects of CSR and SE in developing countries in general and in the Middle East in particular. Her research record has won her a number of scientific awards and honors, including the Abdul Hameed Shoman Award for Best Young Arab Researcher for 2011.

KaramCharlotte Karam (PhD, University of Windsor) is an assistant professor of organizational behavior in the Olayan School of Business at American University of Beirut. Her research broadly examines responsible engagement at the intersection among gender, corporate responsibility, and employee extra role behavior at work within developing and emerging economies. Most of her research is examined within a multilevel contextual framework, which considers factors relating to societal culture, socioeconomic development, and political stability. Her work has been published in the Asia-Pacific Journal of Management, Business Ethics Quarterly, Career Development International, among other journals. In 2012, she was awarded the university-wide teaching excellence award for her classes in business ethics, leadership development, and organizational behavior.

LinLianlian Lin (PhD, University of Texas at Austin; LLM, University of Pennsylvania Law School) is a professor of management at California State Polytechnic University Pomona. Her research interests focus on cross-cultural issues, multinational management, and law. Her articles have appeared in journals such as Yale Journal of International Law, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law, and Journal of Asian American Studies.

Jixin Zhao (DBA, China Agricultural University) is a professor of management and director of MBA Education Center at North China University of Technology. His research interests focus on human resource management and industrial economics. His articles have appeared in journals such as Productivity Studies and Economic Issues. He has published books such as Humanistic Management and Managers Roles and Skills Upgrading.

Introducing the New Editor of Compensation & Benefits Review!

June 29, 2015 by

cbrSAGE is delighted to announce the appointment of Charles H. Fay to the Editorship of Compensation & Benefits Review effective July 1, 2015. Dr. Fay is Professor of Human Resources and Director of the Undergraduate HRM Program in the School of Management and Labor Relations at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey and conducts research focusing on the areas of rewards systems, performance management and HRIS. He is currently serves as an Associate Editor of the Human Resource Management Journal and a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of International Human Resource Information Management.

Compensation & Benefits Review, published bi-monthly, is the leading journal for senior executives and professionals who design, implement, evaluate and communicate compensation and benefits policies and programs. The journal supports human resources and compensation and benefits specialists and academic experts with up-to-date analyses and information on salary and wage trends, labor markets, pay plans, incentive compensation, legal compliance, retirement programs, and health care benefits.

CBR_42_1_72ppiRGB_powerpointWith the change in editorship comes a change in the focus of Compensation & Benefits Review. A new section of scholarly peer-reviewed articles will appear. A new editorial board of rewards scholars is being assembled, with representation of the major disciplines doing research in compensation and benefits, including human resource management, economics, psychology, law, sociology, strategic management, accounting, and marketing. Compensation & Benefits Review seeks submission of scholarly manuscripts dealing with all aspects of compensation and benefits. Empirical, review, and theory article submissions are welcomed. Scholarly articles on related topics will be considered providing critical independent or dependent variables include compensation and/or benefits (e.g., the impact of performance management criteria on employee incentive satisfaction).

The professional articles that have been the hallmark of Compensation & Benefits Review will continue to be published and the current Advisory Board will continue to function.

For further information about manuscript submission contact Dr. Fay via email: cfay@smlr.rutgers.edu.

To sign up to receive all the latest news and announcements from Compensation & Benefits Review directly in your inbox, click here!

Gerstner, König, Enders, and Hambrick (2013). CEO Narcissism, Audience Engagement, and Organizational Adoption of Technological Discontinuities

June 26, 2015 by

[We’re pleased to welcome Johnathan Cromwell and Michael Lee, both of Harvard Business School. Jonathan and Michael recently had the opportunity to interview the authors of “CEO Narcissism, Audience Engagement, and Organizational Adoption of Technological Discontinuities” from Administrative Science Quarterly.]

Republished with permission. The original post was published on the ASQ Blog.

Authors:
Wolf-Christian Gerstner – University of Erlangen-Nuremberg
Andreas König – University of Passau
Albrecht Enders – IMD International
Donald C. Hambrick – The Pennsylvania State University

Interviewers:
Johnathan Cromwell – Harvard Business School
Michael Lee – Harvard Business School

Question 1. One of the aspects about this paper that we found so fascinating was that it integrated two sets of literatures in a way ASQ_v60n2_Jun2014_cover.inddthat hadn’t been done before. We can imagine that while this leads to highly novel and interesting research, it can also add additional challenges during the review process. Were there any specific challenges that you had to overcome during the review process in communicating your research to these different audiences?

This is, in fact, a very good question, and something that one should always be aware of when integrating two streams of research. In a way, doing so is in and of itself a discontinuous change because it means applying a new theoretical lens to an already studied phenomenon, with potentially challenging epistemological and theoretical contradictions. However, in our case, we were lucky because, although the upper echelons literature and the literature on discontinuous change have not yet been integrated to a great extent by previous studies, the theoretical assumptions underlying these two fields and the foci of their analyses are highly compatible and complementary. In particular, the discontinuous change literature has always had a top executive view on strategic decision making, which stems from the fact that decisions in turbulent times are typically top management decisions. As such, it was somewhat intuitive to envision that CEO narcissism has a stake in decisions about technology adoption in large companies.

Question 2. We were struck by the amount of work that was put into constructing the main independent variable on CEO narcissism. If students were interested in testing a different cognitive attribute or personality characteristic to explain organizational decisions, how would you recommend trying to measure them? What might be a common mistake that we should try to avoid?

Of course, gathering the data on CEO narcissism involved a lot of meticulous work, in particular because we had to collect data from years back, even before 1980. To get access to these sources, which can’t just be downloaded from an online database, we ended up having to visit places like the Chicago Public Library and order microfiche copies. However, we benefited greatly from the fact that the measure itself had already been developed by Chatterjee and Hambrick (2007).

As for measuring other CEO attributes, we see numerous new opportunities for further research. In particular, new ways of using language, voice, and body language are emerging, which might just allow us to gauge numerous facets of personality, both stable traits and more transient states. For instance, at the Academy of Management last year in Philadelphia, we organized a symposium on the use of content analysis to further advance this area of upper echelons research. The diverse approaches presented there included aspects such as perceptions of time and cognitive structures as reflected in conceptual metaphors. Moving forward, we believe it is pivotal to focus on aspects of executive personality that are influential, but whose influence, at the same time, is not unilateral but rather dependent on context. This is surely one of the features that make narcissism so interesting to study (apart from the fact that almost everyone who has worked in an organization has experienced working with a narcissist, with all its upsides and downsides).

Question 3. We usually think of the discussion section as a place to interpret results, discuss strengths and weaknesses of analysis, or discuss broader implications of the research. We found the discussion section in this paper to be interesting, because it also introduced new quantitative analyses to help support the main findings of the paper. Why were these included in the discussion instead of as a robustness check in the results section?

That is an interesting question, particularly because there seem to be different perspectives on such post-hoc analyses. Some colleagues do not think they should be part of a paper; conversely, others, including ourselves, believe that these elaborations illuminate interesting aspects and add to the liveliness and granularity of the research presented. Note also that, in our case, the post-hoc discussion is not a robustness check but rather an exploration of the reasons why we did not find significant results for our last hypothesis.

Question 4. Given your interesting findings, what do you feel are the most important implications for managerial practice from this work?

It’s indeed interesting to see how executives respond when we present our findings and related findings made by colleagues. What resonates most profoundly with decision makers is the idea that narcissistic leaders have both a dark side and a bright side, and that the bright side might in fact be most salient in times of radical change when tough decisions need to be made. Another aspect they can relate to is our recommendation to be more aware of how external stimuli, including from the media, affect how decision makers and their organizations act. These insights are also – and perhaps most importantly – crucial for board members of companies that “missed the boat” on disruptive innovations (that the board believes will pan out) and need to catch up. In this case, a narcissistic CEO might, ceteris paribus, be an advantage as she or he will drive change on a larger scale than less a narcissistic CEO.

Question 5. Is there anything about this paper that you think is particularly interesting that we didn’t ask about? Please tell us about it.

Thank you for asking! One thing that we think is particularly important is the role of audience engagement in spurring company behavior, especially responses to innovation. While there is increasing debate about how companies’ communication and actions shape the responses of stakeholders such as analysts and journalists, we still know too little about how pressures from these stakeholders affect company behavior. This is especially the case in the context of innovation, which happens in a social environment that surrounds companies and their executives and might influence technological trajectories more than we have previously thought.

Business and Society Editors on the Intersection of Business and Society

June 24, 2015 by

BAS_v50_72ppiRGB_powerpointFounded in 1960, Business & Society was the first journal exclusively dedicated to publishing research in the field of business and society. In their editorial from the upcoming July issue of Business & Society, editors Andrew Crane, Irene Henriques, Bryan Husted, and Dirk Matten discuss the scope of the business and society field relevant to the journal.

From the editorial:

Our vision for Business & Society is for the journal to become the leading, peer-reviewed outlet for scholarly work dealing specifically with the intersection of business and society. So what counts as the intersection of business and society? As a journal, we have to determine the boundaries of the field that we are covering. Certainly, we have found that when making decisions on whether manuscripts should go out for review, we must first decide whether the manuscript fits the journal. This is not an exact science—it is always a judgment call—but as editors, we feel it is necessary to provide prospective authors some guidance on what, in our opinion, fits and does not fit. As such the purpose of this Editors’ Insight is to clarify some of our thinking on this issue.

You can read the rest of the editorial from Business & Society free for the next two weeks by clicking here. Want to know about all the latest research from Business & Society? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!

Enhancing Student PsyCap in an Online Learning Environment

June 22, 2015 by

computer-room-314632-m[We’re pleased to welcome Joshua J. Daspit of Mississippi State University. Dr. Daspit recently published an article in Journal of Management Education with T. C. Mims of Texas Woman’s University and Staci M. Zavattaro of Mississippi State University entitled “The Role of Positive Psychological States in Online Learning: Integrating Psychological Capital Into the Community of Inquiry Framework.”]

The abstract:

  • What inspired you to be interested in this topic?

My colleagues and I found this topic interesting because in addition to conducting research, a large portion of our jobs is dedicated to working with students. Each of us uses online components within our classes or teaches courses that are fully online – as many instructors do today – and the idea started from a simple desire to understand how we can enhance student learning within an online environment.

  • Were there findings that were surprising to you?

To understand how learning occurs within the context of an online environment, we used the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework to conceptualize how learning occurs. The CoI suggests three presences exist within an online learning environment. First, there is a teaching presence that consists of course development and facilitation by the instructor. Second, a social presence exists when individuals interact with peers within the online context. Last, the CoI suggests that the other two factors influence an individual-level cognitive presence. In other words, the teaching and social presences influence student learning.

In this study, we extend the CoI framework to account for an additional presence. Specifically, we suggest that an additional, individual-level factor drives the student’s learning, and that factor is the individual student’s psychological capital (or PsyCap). PsyCap cJME_72ppiRGB_powerpointonsists of the student’s self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience. Without these, we suggest, the student is likely to have difficulty learning.

After testing the relationships among PsyCap and the components of the CoI framework, we find that instructors are able to positively influence the student’s PsyCap via the teaching presence. Additionally, the student’s PsyCap has a positive influence on the social presence within the online environment, and most notably, PsyCap positively influences the student’s learning (i.e., cognitive presence).

  • How do you see this study influencing future research and/or practice?

In the article, we offer suggestions for specific ways that instructors of online courses can enhance the student’s PsyCap and thereby enhance the student’s learning. For example, instructors may utilize an online PsyCap training session early in the semester as such trainings are shown to positively enhance the PsyCap of individuals.

We look forward to suggestions from other instructors who have found innovative ways to enhance student PsyCap and learning in online courses.

You can read “The Role of Positive Psychological States in Online Learning: Integrating Psychological Capital Into the Community of Inquiry Framework” from Journal of Management Education by clicking here. Want to know about all the latest research from Journal of Management Education? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!


Josh DaspitJoshua J. Daspit, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Management at Mississippi State University. His research interests include examining firm capabilities and innovation with a primary focus on absorptive capacity and family business. His work has appeared in Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Journal of Managerial Issues, and other outlets. Prior to joining academia, he worked as a senior consultant for an international consulting firm and served as Director of Community Affairs for a member of Congress. (Follow him on Twitter: @JoshDaspit.)

TC MimsTina C. Mims, Ph.D., is currently serving as a Visiting Lecturer at Texas Woman’s University. Dr. Mims is a recently vetted PhD in Marketing after practicing marketing as VP & Director roles at Fortune 1000 firms. She is passionate regarding the preparation of both graduate and undergraduate students to have a competency based learning experience transferable to their chosen careers.

Staci ZavattaroStaci M. Zavattaro, Ph.D., is an associate professor of public administration at the University of Central Florida. Her main research interests include place branding and marketing, as well as social media use within the public sector. Her books include Cities for Sale (SUNY Press), Place Branding Through Phases of the Image (Palgrave Macmillan), and Social Media in Government: Theory and Practice (CRC Press). She serves as managing editor of Administrative Theory & Praxis and belongs at the Public Administration Theory Network, the Public Management Research Association, and the American Society for Public Administration.

Book Review: Mihnea C. Moldoveanu and Joel A. C. Baum: Epinets: The Epistemic Structure and Dynamics of Social Networks

June 19, 2015 by

pid_16730Mihnea C. Moldoveanu, A. C. Joel Baum: Epinets: The Epistemic Structure and Dynamics of Social Networks. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books, 2014. 187 pp. $44.96, hardcover.

You can read the review by Matthew S. Bothner of European School of Management and Technology and Henning Piezunka of INSEAD, available now in the OnlineFirst section of Administrative Science Quarterly.

From the review:

Epinets is a demanding and brilliant book. It demands and deserves from its audience a very close read. Its theoretical logic builds “line upon line, precept upon precept,” ASQ_v60n2_Jun2014_cover.inddand so this is not a book to be blithely perused. It also demands much of itself. Moldoveanu and Baum not only engage in an act of intellectual brokerage between epistemic game theory (and related fields) and network analysis to introduce what they refer to as epinets (networks of agents’ beliefs); they also seek—staying with Burt’s (2005) theory—to “seed and catalyze closure” (p. 162) among diverse researchers committed to the epistemic turn in social science that they propose.

Scholars from several fields should find much value in their work. These include, first and foremost, network researchers looking for fresh ideas and new methods but also organization theorists more broadly defined, as well as game theorists, strategy researchers, sociologists of knowledge and of religion, and even students of military intelligence. One of the most interesting discussions we had about Epinets took place with a German intelligence expert whose attention was riveted by the book’s core claim: that what you think others think (and what you think they think you think) matters decisively for strategic behavior. Like a shrewd spy who inserts herself in the learning loop of her country’s enemies’ spies, Moldoveanu and Baum’s ideal social actor is an embedded (though not constrained) actor who has much “level 2” knowledge—she knows what others know—and “level 3” knowledge—she can accurately predict what others think she thinks.

You can read the rest of the review from Administrative Science Quarterly by clicking here. Want to know about all the latest research and reviews from Administrative Science Quarterly? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!

Call for Papers on Neuroscience in Organizational Research

June 17, 2015 by

brainy-people-1072657-mOrganizational Research Methods seeks submissions for a feature topic on Neuroscience in Organizational Research. This feature topic will be guest edited by Micah Murray and John Antonakis, both of Lausanne University.

From the call for papers:

In many areas of the social and behavioral sciences, neuroscience has emerged as one of the dominant conceptual and methodological frameworks for studying human behavior. Although it originally gained traction in the psychological sciences, the 07ORM13_Covers.inddneuroscience paradigm has since spread to other areas in the social sciences including economics, marketing, and finance. However, with a few notable exceptions, researchers in management and applied psychology have been slow to embrace neuroscientific models and methods (for a few illustrative exceptions see Bagozzi et al., 2013; Balthazard, Waldman, Thatcher, & Hannah, 2012). One explanation for this reticence, may be that researchers lack an appreciation for the diversity of neuroscience methods that are available and how these methods might be incorporated into their science.

The purpose of this feature topic is threefold. First, we intend to expose organizational scholars to the broad array of neuroscience methods and how these methods might be used to test substantive research questions (both basic and applied). Second, we intend to provide illustrative examples that empirically demonstrate the value-added nature of these methods. Finally, because no method or set of methods are without limitations, we intend to provide critical reviews of these methods so that their strengths and limitations may be better understood by organizational scholars.

Organizational Research Methods will be publishing a two-part Feature Topic devoted to Neuroscience in Organizational Research. The first part will consist of invited papers while the second part consists of a call for papers that will extend what is presented in Part I. Proposals of no more than 5 pages double-spaced should be emailed to both guest editors anytime prior to September 30, 2015. For more information, including topics which have been commissioned for Part 1 and contact information, click here.

Want to know about all the latest news and research from Organizational Research Methods? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!

Evolution of Organizations

June 15, 2015 by
Arbete_vid_banan

(Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons)

How did organizations become what they are today? Charles C. Snow of the Pennsylvania State University discusses the development of organizations throughout modern history in his scholarly essay entitled “Organizing in the Age of Competition, Cooperation, and Collaboration” from Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies.

The abstract:

JLOS_72ppiRGB_powerpointThe purpose of this article is to describe how organizations have evolved across three periods of modern economic history. These periods can be called the age of competition, age of cooperation, and age of collaboration. The major organizational forms that appeared in each of the three eras, including their capabilities and limitations, are discussed.

You can read “Organizing in the Age of Competition, Cooperation, and Collaboration” from Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies free for the next two weeks by clicking here. Want to know about all the latest research like this from Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!

Stories of Research to Reality: Deborah Rupp on Fairness in the Workplace

June 12, 2015 by

In early May SAGE gathered seven social scientists on Capitol Hill to tell stories, stories of their discipline’s impact on society and the economy, and stories of their own academic journey. The underlying goal of “Stories of Research to Reality: How the Social Sciences Change the World” was both to mark SAGE’s 50th birthday as an independent publisher and to demonstrate the value and impact of social science itself, increasingly under attack as either a waste or a luxury by some legislators.

Deborah Rupp (2)

The entire event, moderated by prominent blogger and George Washington University political scientist John Sides and held at the Hart Senate Office Building, was recorded; the seven individual videos are being published over the next seven weeks.  Each tale presents one facet of the real-world value of actual social and behavioral science research, with the implicit message that this is scholarship we should be encouraging.

The first speaker in this series is Deborah E. Rupp, a management professor at Purdue University and the William C. Byham Chair in Industrial/Organizational Psychology.

She conducts research on organizational justice, behavioral ethics, corporate social responsibility, and humanitarian work psychology; as well as issues surrounding behavioral assessment, technology, bias, and the law. Her research has been cited in U.S. Supreme Court proceedings, and she has worked with organizations around the world such as UNICEF, the Emirates Group, and the South Korean government. Rupp has published three books and more than 80 papers and chapters, and is the former editor-in-chief of Journal of Management, the top-ranked empirical journal in business, management, and applied psychology.

In her talk, Rupp describes  some of the specific areas she’s taken her discipline — industrial organization psychology, which is the scientific study of human behavior in the workplace – such as exploring aging in the workplace, recruiting and training returning veterans for civilian fields, and the psychological impact of being unemployed. She then zeroes in on her current research, studying unfairness (or the perception of unfairness) on the job.

Employees who believe their job is just are happier, healthier and more productive, while those who field aggrieved are sicker, less productive and prone to introduce unwanted behaviors from theft to litigiousness. “People,” she explains, “expect other people to treat each other fairly – just because.”

Upcoming speakers in this series include:

Bruce Bueno De Mesquita | Julius Silver Professor of Politics, New York University

Claire M. Renzetti | professor of sociology, University of Kentucky

John W. Creswell | professor of educational psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Michael Reisch | Daniel Thursz Distinguished Professor of Social Justice, University of Maryland

Jim Knight |research associate, University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning, and director of the Kansas Coaching Project

Kerric Harvey | associate professor of media and public affairs, and associate director of the Center for Innovative Media, George Washington University

***

Republished with permission. The original post was published on Social Science Space.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 775 other followers

%d bloggers like this: