About Cynthia Nalevanko, Editor, SAGE Publishing

Founded in 1965, SAGE is the world’s leading independent academic and professional publisher. Known for our commitment to quality and innovation, SAGE has helped inform and educate a global community of scholars, practitioners, researchers, and students across a broad range of subject areas. With over 1500 employees globally from principal offices in Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC, and Melburne, our publishing program includes more than 1000 journals and over 900 books, reference works and databases a year in business, humanities, social sciences, science, technology and medicine. Believing passionately that engaged scholarship lies at the heart of any healthy society and that education is intrinsically valuable, SAGE aims to be the world’s leading independent academic and professional publisher. This means playing a creative role in society by disseminating teaching and research on a global scale, the cornerstones of which are good, long-term relationships, a focus on our markets, and an ability to combine quality and innovation. Leading authors, editors and societies should feel that SAGE is their natural home: we believe in meeting the range of their needs, and in publishing the best of their work. We are a growing company, and our financial success comes from thinking creatively about our markets and actively responding to the needs of our customers.

Call for Proposals! Small Group Research: 2018 Review Issue

SGR_call2018.jpg

Small Group Research is currently accepting proposals regarding the 2018 Review Issue. Please view the full details about the submission process here, or by clicking on the image above.

Manuscripts are due:  May 30, 2017

Submissions should be made to SGR’s Manuscript Central website: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sgr, where authors will be required to set up an account.

Small Group Research (SGR), peer-reviewed and published bi-monthly, is an international and interdisciplinary journal presenting research, theoretical advancements, and empirically supported applications with respect to all types of small groups. SGR, a leader in the field, addresses and connects three vital areas of study: the psychology of small groups, communication within small groups,and organizational behavior of small groups. This journal is a member of the Committee on Pubication Ethics (COPE).

Don’t forget to sign up for email notifications about the latest research through the journal homepage.

Introducing the New Incoming Editor for the Journal of Service Research

We are excited to announce the new incoming editor for the Journal of Service Research, Dr. Michael Brady. Dr. Brady graciously provided some information regarding his education, career, and experience in the management field:

Mike_BradyDr. Michael (“Mike”) Brady is the Carl DeSantis Professor and chair, Department of Marketing, at Florida State University. Mike’s primary research interest lies at the intersection of customers and employees in frontline service transactions.  He has published articles in many top scholarly journals, including Journal of Service Research, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, and many other outlets.  His research articles have been cited over 15,000 times to date, his 2000 article in the Journal of Retailing is one of the most downloaded articles of all time in Science Direct, and his 2001 article in the Journal of Marketing was ranked the fifth most influential article for future research in services marketing.

Mike’s work has also been covered in the popular press, such as MSNBC, U.S. News, the Chicago Tribune, and Tampa Bay Times.  He has won numerous awards, including the Christopher Lovelock Career Contributions to the Service Discipline Award, the SERVSIG best article award, the Academy of Marketing Science and University outstanding teacher awards, the inaugural College of Business Distinguished Teacher award,  the University graduate studentJSR_16.2_72ppiRGB_powerpoint.jpg mentoring award, and the William R. Jones award for mentoring minority doctoral students.  Mike is a past president of the American Marketing Association’s Academic Council and an Associate Editor for the Journal of Service Research and Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.  He is currently co-editing a special issue of Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science and he just finished co-editing a special issue of Journal of Service Research.

Mike currently lives with his wife of twenty
years and two children in Florida. Before earning his PhD, Mike played baseball at Florida State and was then drafted by the Los Angeles Dodgers, playing professionally for four years. Baseball runs in the Brady family, as Mike’s father also played professionally for the Detroit Tigers before assuming the university provost and president roles at Jacksonville University. Mike’s academic year consists of teaching large online sections of principles of marketing and will take on the role of Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Service Research later this year.

Please be sure to sign up for email alerts through the homepage so you never miss the latest research from the Journal of Service Research.

Call for Papers! Compensation and Benefits Review

Compensation and Benefits Review is currently accepting manuscripts, and you can upload your manuscript through the portal below:

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cbr  

CBR_42_1_72ppiRGB_powerpoint.jpg

Compensation & Benefits Review is the premiere journal for compensation and benefits strategy and management. Written by compensation and benefits professionals at top companies and leading academic experts, CBR articles provide detailed analyses and comprehensive information on all aspects of compensation and benefits design and implementation. CBR provides practitioners and university faculty and students with a complete source for compensation and benefits solutions that produce real business results and advancement in the field.

Sign up for email notifications announcing the latest research through the CBR homepage.

Income Inequality and Subjective Well-Being: Assessing the Relationship

[We’re pleased to welcome author Ivana Katic of the Yale School of Management.  Katic recently published an article in Business & Society entitled, “Income Inequality and Subjective Well-Being: Toward an Understanding of the Relationship and Its Mechanisms,” co-authored by Paul Ingram of Columbia Business School. Below, Katic details the inspiration for the study:]

What inspired you to be interested in this topic? Inequality has always been a major topic in sociology. In the academic community and beyond, this interest in inequality simply exploded in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008, as well as the Occupy protests around the world. Despite the amount of attention that income inequality has been receiving in empirical studies across psychology, sociology, economics as well as political science, my co-author Paul Ingram and I noticed that the literature was still quite mixed in regards to the effects of income inequality. In fact, extant studies had found positive, negative and neutral effects of income inequality on the subjective wellbeing and happiness levels of individuals. This lack of a consensus, we thought, was quite interesting, especially in contrast to the commonly held belief that inequality has exclusively negative consequences for individuals, as well as communities—ranging from lowered trust and health and increased crime levels to, ultimately, lower overall wellbeing. We decided that the time was ripe to pursue a comprehensive study that would allow us to better understand how income inequality affects subjective wellbeing (SWB). Such a study would also allow us to better understand the channels through which income inequality may affect SWB. We set out to answer these important, and particularly timely questions, by constructing a rich cross-country dataset including 65 countries from 1995 to 201B&S_72ppiRGB_powerpoint.jpg1.

Were there findings that were surprising to you?Given the common notion that income inequality is always detrimental to human flourishing, we were initially surprised to see that income inequality had a strong and very robust effect on SWB in our analysis. On the other hand, this was not the first time a study had found a positive effect—so there was clearly precedent for our finding in previous literature on the topic. However, to be quite certain, we threw everything we could at our results in a variety of robustness tests (including different operationalizations of our key independent variable and our dependent variable, as well as a series of different estimation techniques). Our results never budged.

How might one use the study’s main finding of a positive main effect of income inequality on SWB to create policy? While our main effect suggests that decreasing income inequality may not increase SWB, we caution against using our study as justification for lowering taxes and increasing inequality. First, our results do not necessarily indicate that income inequality is never a negative for a variety of other life outcomes. Second, we cannot rule out that income inequality may increase beyond the range studied in our paper, and we similarly cannot guarantee that it would not have negative effects beyond that range. Third, in a separate working paper, we find that any changes in the level of income inequality are uniquely damaging to SWB, suggesting that fluctuating levels of inequality may be particularly psychologically taxing for individuals to adjust to.

However, our study has another way forward for policy. A particularly important aspect of our study is that it sheds light on the mechanisms of income inequality’s relationship with SWB. Specifically, we found that income inequality has more positive effects on individuals who are relatively better off, those that perceive the income generation process to be fair, and surprisingly, those that do not perceive a lot of social mobility in their society. It is with these mechanisms in mind that we suggest constructing policies that focus on increasing perceptions of fairness and reducing social comparisons to the superrich.

In terms of future research, we hope that our study paves the way for other work that might further unravel the complexity of income inequality’s effects. In particular, future scholars should continue to investigate how income inequality may impact individuals differently depending on who they are, and where they live. Finally, the role of organizations in affecting levels of income inequality (and consequently, SWB) is also a very promising area of study. Given the complexity of this social phenomenon, as well as its highly significant implications for policy, future work on all of these topics is direly needed.

Sign up to receive notifications about the latest published research from Business & Society.

Introducing the Editor-Elect for Family Business Review

We are excited to announce the new incoming editor for Family Business Review, Dr. Tyge Payne. Dr. Payne graciously provided some information regarding his education, career, and experience in the management field:

Dr. Payne is the Georgie G. Snyder Professor of Strategic Management and a Jerry S. Rawls Professor at Texas Tech University (TTU). He returned to TTU in 2006 after four years as an Assistant Professor at the University of Texas at Arlington. He holds a PhD in Strategic Management and an MBA, both from Texas Tech University. He also has a BS in PharmaPayne_RCOB_1.jpgcy from Southwestern Oklahoma State University and has been a registered pharmacist since 1994. Dr. Payne’s research interests include configurations, family business, organizational ethics, multi-level methods, social capital, and venture capitalism. He has authored or co-authored over 60 peer-reviewed publications, which appear in such outlets as Business Ethics Quarterly, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (ETP), Family Business Review (FBR), Group & Organization Management, Health Care Management Review, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Management (JoM), Journal of Management Studies (JMS), Organizational Research Methods, Organization Science, and Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal (SEJ), among others.

Dr. Payne is currently an Associate Editor (AE) for FBR and was recently selected to take over FBR as Editor-in-Chief beginning on January 1, 2018.  This appointment follows extensive editing experience including serving four years as AE at FBR and as a Special Issue Editor on various topics, including 1) Social Capital and Entrepreneurship (2013) in ETP, 2) Process and Variance Methods in Family Business Research (2017) for FBR, 3) Reviews on Family Business (2018) for FBR, and 4) Market Entry: The Who, Where, What, How and When (2018) for the JMS.

Family Business Review  provides a scholarly forum to publish conceptual, theoretical and empirical research aimed to advance the understanding of family enterprise around the world. FBR publishes insightful articles that address issues at the interface of family and business systems. It is not tied to any particular discipline, methods, or topFBR_72ppiRGB_powerpoint.jpgics.

Published since 1988, Family Business Review is an SSCI listed refereed journal devoted exclusively to exploration of the dynamics of family enterprise. Its interdisciplinary forum captures the insights of professions from diverse fields such as accounting, behavioral sciences, entrepreneurship, finance, management, family business and family wealth consulting, law and public policy.

 

Don’t miss the latest research from FBR, and sign up for email alerts through the homepage here

How Do New Theorizing and Shifts in Learning Emerge?

[We’re pleased to welcome authors Birgit Helene Jevnaker and Atle A. Raa of the Norwegian Business School, Oslo. They recently published an article in Management Learning entitled, “Circles of intellectual discovery in Cambridge and management learning: A discourse analysis of Joan Robinson’s The Economics of Imperfect Competition,”  Below, Jevnaker and Raa describe the inspiration for the study and key findings:]

We share an interest in how ideas in management learning can originate from early thinkers aJevnaker_teaser.jpgnd books.  For instance, we are interested in how classic economic thinking has influenced management learning and practice. In our article, we elaborate and discuss how Joan Robinson – in interaction with a circle of other Cambridge economists – developed a new theory of the firm in imperfect competition. In her opinion, imperfect competition was the normal market situation. It could be a limited number of firms that represented the total supply of a consumer product like carbonated soft drinks.

Joan Violet Robinson was a member of an informal group of a younger generation of economists in Cambridge, UK. Through her first book, The Economics of Imperfect Competition, she actually became an innovator of new ideas and comlqncepts. In this book, published in the wake of the Great Depression in the early 1930s, she explains new principles of how markets operate in different ways depending on the nature of the competition. By recognizing that some enterprises can affect prices and competition, this opened up for later, new thinking of how firms act and learn differently.

We were surprised by two things:

  • First, she became a transformer of earlier ideas of perfect competition into ideas of imperfect competition. It is remarkable that a young woman economist, without any formal position in the academy of Cambridge, could quickly synthetize new thinking of how markets are different.
  • Secondly, we noted that a younger generation of academics engaged collectively in critical and alternative theorizing. Robinson and her friend, the economist Richard F. Kahn, as well as other companions met regularly and discussed the strengths and weaknesses of each other’s arguments. We call this “epistemic interaction”. By this we understand mutual or reciprocal actions or influence in developing the grounds of knowledge and understanding among agents. In Greek, knowing and its possibility of understanding is episteme.

Through our discourse analysis of Robinson’s 1933-book and its emergence, we seek to explain our story beyond the perspective of a great economist finding new ideas by herself. Her book uncovers several important contributors; Robinson herself anchors her book in both established and new theorizing of firms and markets.

Joan Robinson points to the common existence of a limited number of firms with monopoly power over their offerings. Inspired by the 1930s reality as well as earlier writings, she offers new concepts, for example for exchange situations with only one buyer (monopsony). This is a situation where exploitation of labour can emerge, she points out. Robinson no doubt had a certain pedagogical style. She made many of the complicated economic ideas easier to understand by examples and metaphoric language. She claimed that the tool-users had been given “stones for bread” from the toolmakers (the economic thinkers). Still, she stressed that economics is one of the social sciences that study how society works.

From the circle of young economists’ debating in the 1930s, it is worth noting that firms and managers can be commonly acting within dissimilar or “imperfect” market conditions rather than principally “perfect” ones where firms are facing similar price mechanisms, often discussed in past economic literature. This critique and shift in understanding eventually opened up for management studies recognizing also fundamental differences in managerial knowledge, learning and strategizing. We think that more research on how earlier economic thinking has influenced management practice is a fruitful approach to the study of how management learning have developed through most of the 20th century up to our days. It is of general interest how new academic ideas come about.

Be the first to know about newly published articles and sign up for email alerts through the journal homepage here

Aesthetic Rationality in Organizations

[We’re pleased to welcome author David Wasieleski of Duquesne University, USA. Wasieleski recently published an article in The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science entitled, “Aesthetic Rationality in Organizations: Toward Developing a Sensitivity for Sustainability,” co-authored by Paul Shrivastava, Gunter Schumacher, and Marco Tasic. From Wasieleski:]

As a rationale for what inspired us to get interested in this topic was the realization that the environmental crisis is in part caused by the emotional disconnection between humanJABS_72ppiRGB_powerpoint.jpgs and nature. Art is a vehicle for emotional connection.  And, using art based values and methods we can emotionally reconnect people and organizations with nature.

Art influences the sustainability of companies through architecture, aesthetics of work-spaces, design of products and services, design of work and organizational systems, graphic art in advertising, and arts-based training methods. Self-expressiveness and authenticity that are hallmarks of art can also enhance organizational productivity and employee motivation. Sustainable organizations need arts to enhance employee creativity, innovation, attract creative workers, improve worker satisfaction, design eco-friendly and innovative products and services.   Arts also allows us to study those aspects of organizational sustainability which are a strength of aesthetics inquiry, such as sensory and emotional experiences often ignored in traditional management studies.
For more information, please see: ircase.org

The abstract for their article is below:

This article explains the coexistence and interaction of aesthetic experience and moral value systems of decision makers in organizations. For this purpose, we develop the concept of “aesthetic rationality,” which is described as a type of value-oriented rationality that serves to encourage sustainable behavior in organizations, and to complete the commonly held, “instrumentally rational” view of organizations. We show that organizations regularly exhibit not only an instrumental rationality but also an “aesthetic rationality,” which is manifested in their products and processes. We describe aesthetics, its underlying moral values, its evolutionary roots, and its links to virtue ethics as a basis for defining the concept of aesthetic rationality. We examine its links with human resources, organizational design, and other organizational elements. We examine these implications, identify how an aesthetic-driven ethic provides a potential for sustainable behavior in organizations, and suggest new directions for organizational research.

 

The full article is currently free to read for a limited time, by clicking here. Don’t forget to sign up for email alerts so you never miss the latest research.