Newly published research from California Management Review is now online! We invite you to view all of the Online First articles for CMR by clicking here, that hosts articles covering a variety of topics such as corporate misconduct, competitive strategy, and benefits of minority stake strategies.
One article in particular, “Strategizing with Biases: Making Better Decisions Using the Mindspace Approach,” co-authored by Chengwei Liu, Ivo Vlaev, Christina Fang,
Jerker Denrell, and Nick Chater focuses on Mindspace when it is applied to strategic decision making. The complete abstract for the article is below:
This article introduces strategists to the Mindspace framework and explores its applications in strategic contexts. This framework consists of nine effective behavioral interventions that are grounded in public policy applications, and it focuses on how changing the context can be more effective than attempts to de-bias decision makers. Behavioral changes are likely when we follow rather than fight human nature. Better decisions can be achieved by engineering choice contexts to “engage a bias” to overcome a more damaging bias. This article illustrates how to engineer strategic contexts through two case studies and outlines directions and challenges when applying Mindspace to strategic decisions.
Visit the journal homepage and sign up for email alerts so you never miss the latest articles!
Researcher S. Bhattacharya conducted a survey of 10,000 job seekers and found that 42% left their jobs due to dissatisfaction with managers (Bhattacharya 2008). Does this sound like a reason why you left a job you’ve held in the past?
Companies everywhere want to retain the most efficient performers, so what can “bad” managers do to motivate and inspire the current employees to stay? Authors Christopher S. Reina, Kristie M. Rogers, Suzanne J. Peterson, Kris Byron, and Peter W. Hom analyze both positive and negative tactics that managers practice in their recently published article, “Quitting the Boss? The Role of Manager Influence Tactics and Employee Emotional Engagement in Voluntary Turnover.” This article can be found in the Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, and is currently free to read for a limited time.
Please find the abstract below:
Employees commonly cite their managers’ behavior as the primary reason for quitting their jobs. We sought to extend turnover research by investigating whether two commonly used influence tactics by managers affect their employees’ voluntary turnover and whether employees’ emotional engagement and job satisfaction mediate this relationship. We tested our hypotheses using survey data collected at two time points from a sample of financial services directors and objective lagged turnover data. Using multilevel path modeling, we found that managers’ use of pressure and inspirational appeals had opposite effects on employee voluntary turnover and that employees’ emotional engagement was a significant and unique mediating mechanism even when job satisfaction, the traditional attitudinal predictor of turnover, was also included in the path model. Our findings contribute to turnover research by demonstrating a relationship between specific managerial behaviors and employee turnover and shed light on a key mediating mechanism that explains these effects.
Sign up for email alerts through the journal homepage so you’re up-to-date with the latest articles!
Game tiles picture attributed to airpix (CC).
Bhattacharya S. (2008, March). Why people quit. Business Today. Retrieved from http://www.businesstoday.in/magazine/trends/why-people-quit/story/1542.html Google Scholar
Career-related rejection is inevitable, since everyone faces this reality at some point in in his or her life. Your idea for approaching project management could be rejected, you could be passed up on a desired promotion, or you could simply not be offered that dream job you’ve wanted since high school.
In a recent paper published in the Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, author Nancy Day of the University of Missouri illustrates how rejection affects faculty members and how it affect their publication performance. This rejection also proves to affect their interpersonal relationships, and Day aims to analyze the negative strains more in-depth. The paper, co-authored by Tracy Porter of Cleveland State University, is entitled “Lacerations of the Soul: Rejection-Sensitive Business School Faculty and Perceived Publication Performance,” is currently free to read for a limited time. Below, Day describes her motivation to pursue this research:
I initially had the idea for this research from an essay I published in the Academy of Management Learning and Education journal. A couple of its reviewers mentioned that there was no research showing that academic researchers are negatively affected by rejection sensitivity, and their comments intrigued me. So I decided I would conduct the first research attempting to answer the question.
My hope in writing the essay and in this study is to stimulate university research administrators and to “normalize” rejections and consider its effects on faculty affect and performance. In my experience, it’s the “elephant in the room” that everyone wrestles with but few talk about.
Sign up for email alerts through the homepage so you never miss the latest research from JLOS!
Rejection word block attributed to Topher McCulloch (CC).
Get the latest insight on what editors are looking for in your submitted manuscript! SAGE Publishing is proud to feature the latest editorial from Family Business Review, entitled, “The Mind-Set of Editors and Reviewers.” This editorial is co-authored by James J. Chrisman, Pramodita Sharma and Jess Chua, and is currently free to read for a limited time.
Below, please find an excerpt from the editorial, shedding light on the necessary steps an author must face when preparing a manuscript that stands out:
The formula for getting a manuscript published seems deceptively simple, with an emphasis on deceptively. For family business research, the four-step process starts with authors coming up with interesting research questions, that when addressed, will change scholarly understanding of the motivation, behavior, or performance of family firms. As elaborated in the editorial by Salvato and Aldrich (2012), while there are many sources of inspiration for generating interesting research questions, in professional fields like family business studies, researchers with closer linkages to practice and/or prior literature are better positioned to identify questions that lead to usable knowledge that is not only published but also well-read and cited (cf. Lindblom & Cohen, 1979). Objectives such as simply “getting published” may be more dominant in earlier career stages. Over time, however, most scholars hope to make a difference in the mind-sets of other researchers and ultimately practitioners (Vermeulen, 2007; Zahra & Sharma, 2004). But, this does not always happen.
Click here to read the full article. Don’t forget to sign up to receive email alerts so you never miss the latest research from Family Business Review!
California Management Review has served as a bridge of communication between academia and management practice for sixty years. The newest issue of CMR is now online to view, and features articles covering various topics such as managing technology through outsourcing, managing customer relations, and analyzing sustainability in big corporations.
One article in particular, “Decentralization and Localization of Production: The Organizational and Economic Consequences of Additive Manufacturing (3D Printing),” co-authored by Avner Ben-Ner and Enno Siemsen, provides a glimpse into the research behind 3D printing, and how the phenomenon will likely become a local practice faster than you think. The article is currently free to read for a limited time. Please find the abstract for the article below:
The future organizational landscape may change drastically by mid-century as a result of widespread implementation of 3D printing. This article argues that global will turn local; mega (factories, ships, malls) will become mini; long supply chains will shrink; many jobs will be broadened to combine design, consulting, sales, and production roles; and large organizations will make room for smaller ones. “A once-shuttered warehouse is now a state-of-the art lab where new workers are mastering the 3D printing that has the potential to revolutionize the way we make almost everything.” [President Obama, State of the Union Address, 2013].
Are you enjoying content from California Management Review? Don’t forget to sign up for email alerts through the homepage so you never miss the latest articles or issues.
Want to submit to CMR? Visit https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/uc-cmr to begin your submission!
Group projects are everywhere–whether you’re at school, at work, or even in your household. It’s customary to listen to each member of the group, and what he/she has to say about a strategy for approaching the project, or ways to improve the process in the future. Often, the ideas are compounded and morphed into a strategy that the group can agree on, but does that mean someone would choose not to offer an idea if it’s a different perspective than the “norm”?
A recent study in Management Teaching Review focuses on group decision making and how groups are more likely to accept a decision as “the best” when group members conform to social norms. Authors C. Melissa Fender and Lisa T. Stickney present the data for us in their article, “When Two Heads Aren’t Better Than One: Conformity in a Group Activity.” The article is currently free to read for a limited time; click here to view the full text.
The abstract for the article is below:
Group and team class decision-making activities often focus on demonstrating that “two heads are better than one.” Typically, students solve a problem or complete an assessment individually, then in a group. Generally, the group does better and that is what the students learn. However, if that is all such an activity conveys, then a significant teachable moment has been missed. It is often the case that a group member has one or more correct answers that the group did not use, or perhaps even outscores the group. The simple activity described here provides an opportunity to discuss a number of reasons that can cause such conformity to happen, integrating several areas of human psychology and behavior, and then segue into techniques to prevent it.
Click here to sign up for email alerts so you never miss the latest research from Management Teaching Review.
According to a recent study published in the Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, the typical employee spends an average of 6 hours per week in scheduled meetings (Rogelberg et al., 2006), allowing a considerable amount of time to assess the leadership and presenting skills of the supervisor.
Authors Isabelle Odermatt, Cornelius König, Martin Kleinmann, Romana Nussbaumer, Amanda Rosenbaum, Jessie Olien, and Steven Rogelberg analyze the leadership styles of supervisors and how their employees perceive them in their paper, “On Leading Meetings: Linking Meeting Outcomes to Leadership Styles.”
The article is currently free to read for a limited time, so click here to find out how leadership behavior helps to strengthen motivation in employees to follow through with action items! The abstract for the article is below:
Leading meetings represent a typically and frequently performed leadership task. This study investigated the relationship between the leadership style of supervisors and employees’ perception of meeting outcomes. Results showed that participants reported greater meeting satisfaction when their meeting leader was assessed as a considerate supervisor, with the relationship between considerate leadership style and meeting satisfaction being mediated by both relational- and task-oriented meeting procedures. The results, however, provide no support for initiating structure being associated with meeting effectiveness measures. More generally, the findings imply that leadership behavior is a crucial factor in explaining important meeting outcomes.
Sign up for email alerts through the journal homepage so you stay up-to-date with the latest research.
Meeting photo attributed to the Government of Alberta (CC).
Rogelberg S. G., Leach D. J., Warr P. B., Burnfield J. L. (2006). “Not another meeting!” Are meeting time demands related to employee well-being? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 83-96. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.83 Google Scholar CrossRef, Medline