Author Archive

The June Issue of Administrative Science Quarterly is Now Online!

May 22, 2015

The June issue of Administrative Science Quarterly is now available and can be read online for free for the next 30 days. This issue offers a range of engaging articles on organizational studies as well as insightful book reviews.

Administrative Science Quarterly Editor-in-Chief Gerald F. Davis opens the issue with his editorial essay entitled “What Is Organizational Research For?” You can read the abstract below:

Organizational research is guided by standards of what journals will publish ASQ_v60n2_Jun2014_cover.inddand what gets rewarded in scholarly careers. This system can promote novelty rather than truth and impact rather than coherence. The advent of big data, combined with our current system of scholarly career incentives, is likely to yield a high volume of novel papers with sophisticated econometrics and no obvious prospect of cumulative knowledge development. Moreover, changes in the world of organizations are not being met with changes in how and for whom organizational research is done. It is time for a dialogue on who and what organizational research is for and how that should shape our practice.

You can access the Table of Contents for this issue of Administrative Science Quarterly by clicking here. You can keep up-to-date on all the latest news and research from Administrative Science Quarterly by clicking here to sign up for e-alerts!

Exploring the Politics of Labeling Through Wikileaks and The News of the World

May 20, 2015

business-man-1063650-m[We’re pleased to welcome Danielle Logue of the University of Technology Sydney. Dr. Logue recently collaborated with Stewart R. Clegg, also of the University of Technology Sydney, on their article “Wikileaks and The News of the World: The Political Circuitry of Labeling” from Journal of Management Inquiry.]

After my PhD, a colleague from Oxford went on to become a lawyer for Julian Assange. One day she posted a comment that said ““Defending an ‘enemy of state’…How a publishing organization, revealing human rights abuse, can be in same legal classification as Al Qaeda and the Taliban is just beyond me.” At the time I was starting on a new project that considered labels and categories, finding much organizational literature on labeling and categorizing focused within a market setting and the implications for firm valuations and evaluations. Yet, here was a case where the labeling of an organization was having profound impacts on people’s lives, none more than the founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange. I spoke with my co-author, Professor Stewart Clegg, and after some research we found that organizational and management studies was one of the few disciplines that had not analyzed Wikileaks. In addition to its labeling, it’s a contentious organizational form (virtual, fluid, imprinted by its hacker founding) – we found this surprising and disappointing, yet it also afforded us an opportunity to investigate.

JMI_72ppiRGB_powerpointSerendipitously, we were writing this paper around the time of The News of the World scandal, which we observed in contrast to the media coverage that Wikileaks was receiving. We noted this in one version of the paper, and under the suggestion of our managing editor, we expanded the case comparison. An interesting conjuncture was created: on the one hand, Wikileaks exposes what it labels as the covert and hence illegitimate actions of government; in response, government labels such exposure as itself illegitimate; it is reported and commented on as such in media that are subsequently exposed as having been themselves involved in very similar practices of unauthorized access. This reinforced our political conception of labeling, and how Clegg’s classic “circuits of power” could be a useful analytical tool. Coupled with a return to Becker’s (1963) work on labeling and deviance, we argue how the politics of labeling reveal, reinforce and/or undermine existing power structures. Stampinky’s (2013) work on ‘how experts invented terrorism’ showed us a parallel case in the politicization, morality and rationality in the creation and use of the label “terrorist”, by various actors striving to claim credibility and establish positions of expertise (Stampinksy, 2013).

Theoretically, we feel this paper makes a modest contribution to refocusing labeling, category and classification work in organizational studies on how they are connected to and are used to build, reinforce, and reflect broader systems of value, meaning and power (Douglas, 1986). Further work is needed into the changing conditions of institutional work in the media associated with changes in the institutional logics of news dissemination and, more importantly, the security of those involved in increasing transparency in a context where powerful interests would prefer less.

NB: We thank managing editor, Professor Saku Mantere for maintaining the rage with us throughout this production process.

Becker, H. (1963) Outsiders. New York: Free Press.

Clegg, S. R. (1989) Frameworks of Power. London: Sage.

Douglas, M. (1986). How institutions think. USA: Syracuse University Press.

Stampnitzky, L. (2013). Disciplining Terror: How Experts Invented “Terrorism”. UK: Cambridge University Press.

You can read “Wikileaks and The News of the World: The Political Circuitry of Labeling” from Journal of Management Inquiry for free through the end of June by clicking here. Want to know about all the latest research like this? Click here to sign up for e-alerts from Journal of Management Inquiry.

cZfLy6ezDanielle M. Logue is senior lecturer in strategy, innovation, and organization at UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney. She obtained her PhD in management from Saïd Business School, University of Oxford, UK.

indexStewart R. Clegg is professor at the University of Technology, Sydney; director of the Centre for Management and Organization Studies Research; and a visiting professor at EM-Lyon and Nova School of Business and Economics, Lisboa.

Read the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science’s Special Issue on Illuminating the Scholarship of Coaching for Free!

May 15, 2015

JABS_72ppiRGB_powerpointIs goal attainment more likely when the coach or the client initiates goal and task statements? Can a coach’s transformational and transactional leadership behavior help explain the differences between dyadic and group coaching? What limitations to the ethical codes of conduct do executive coaches face? You can read about these topics and more in the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science‘s Special Issue entitled Illuminating the Scholarship of Coaching.

Guest editors Richard E. Boyatzis, Melvin L. Smith and Ellen B. Van Oosten collaborated on the introduction to the issue:

The intellectual integrity of coaching depends on research. However, the popularity of the practice of coaching began to dramatically increase at least 20 years before scholars designed studies to test its efficacy (Van Oosten, 2013). Coaching, like many other forms of helping, is most likely effective (i.e., producing sustained changes in a person’s behavior, attitudes, mental models, dreams of the future, etc.) less than 20% of the time when comparing the few performance statistics to other professions (Boyatzis, 2005; Spencer & Spencer, 1993). This would be consistent with research on impact from other helping professions. Therefore, there is a need for more research to help us determine, among other things, what coaching methods and processes work the best and for whom, which coaches are more effective and with whom, and when is the use of coaching likely to be most effective. To continue the dialogue and to increase the level of rigor of thought and evidence, we issued the call for abstracts and papers for a special issue of the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science.

We were delighted in the substantial response to our call for abstracts for this special issue on coaching. We received over 30 abstracts for empirical and conceptual papers from scholars representing a variety of countries spanning North America, Europe, and Asia. The number of deserving papers exceeded the space limits of the special issue, so some of them will appear in future issues of this journal. The collection of articles presented here cover a broad spectrum of topics on coaching and its effects in a variety of contexts.

You can read Illuminating the Scholarship of Coaching from the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science for free for the next 30 days! Click here to view the Table of Contents. Want to have all the latest research like this sent directly to your inbox? Click here to sign up for e-alerts from the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science!

Coaching Women Leaders

May 13, 2015

people-3-1030719-m[We’re pleased to welcome Deborah A. O’Neil of Bowling Green State University. Dr. O’Neil recently published an article in the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science with Margaret M. Hopkins of University of Toledo and Diana Bilimoria of Case Western Reserve University entitled “A Framework for Developing Women Leaders: Applications to Executive Coaching.”

  • What inspired you to be interested in this topic?

Mig (Margaret), Diana and I have conducted research on various aspects of working women for many years; specifically opportunities and challenges in women’s career and leadership development. Each of us has extensive experience coaching women across industries and management levels. We believe the leadership development stories we describe in the article to be evocative exemplars of the realities faced by many women leaders with whom we have worked. What we know through our coaching and our research, and what the literature on women’s career and leadership development supports, is that the combination of organizational environments and life/career choices are often quite challenging for women. We believe these issues must be raised in order to create equal opportunities for women to succeed at all levels.

  • Were there findings that were surprising to you?

JABS_72ppiRGB_powerpointOne thing that continues to surprise us is that although we know much from research about the challenges that women face in their organizational lives, progress in overcoming many of these challenges seems to be an uphill battle. This is one of the reasons we wrote this conceptual piece, proposing a framework for women’s leadership development that highlights the importance for women of developing their leadership presence, i.e., self-confidence, self-efficacy, influence, and authenticity. Women have to establish this presence in the midst of challenging organizational contexts while dealing with work-life integration and life/career stage concerns. We believe executive coaching is one effective way to assist women in developing the key characteristics of leadership presence in the midst of managing the key factors impacting their leadership development.

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

Our conceptual framework provides the opportunity for measuring and testing the variables and relationships we propose for women’s leadership development. We encourage future research to investigate combinations of the model’s elements in determining how women can develop their leadership capabilities and advance in their organizations. We hope that our framework will add to the body of knowledge on the strategic advancement of women. Equally important, we hope that our framework will provide executive coaches of women with practical strategies for effectively assisting women in navigating their complex professional and personal lives as they seek to advance into senior leadership roles in their organizations.

You can read “A Framework for Developing Women Leaders: Applications to Executive Coaching” from the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science for free for the next two weeks by clicking here. Want to know about all the latest research like this? Click here to sign up for e-alerts from the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science!

1389388437500Deb O’Neil is an Associate Professor and Director, Master of Organization Development Program at the College of Business Administration at Bowling Green State University. Her research is focused on the processes by which individuals and organizations develop. Her fundamental questions of interest are those related to growth and progress. Within this broader area of research, she also investigates gender dynamics in organizations and the facilitators of and barriers to women’s career and leadership development. Currently Dr. O’Neil is working on a number of research studies examining leadership and career development. Dr. O’Neil has also been an executive coach and organizational consultant for 15 years.

miggy-hopkinsMargaret M. Hopkins is an Associate Professor of Management at College of Business and Innovation, University of Toledo. Her research interests and publications are in the areas of leadership, women in leadership, leadership development, executive coaching, and emotional intelligence. She is accredited in the Emotional Competence Inventory.Prior to joining the UT faculty, she worked in management positions in the public and private sectors.She also served as Chair and Vice Chair of the Board of Education for the Cleveland Municipal School District.

dxb12Diana Bilimoria is KeyBank Professor and Chair of the Department of Organizational Behavior at the Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University. She was the 2011-12 Division Chair of the Gender and Diversity in Organizations Division of the Academy of Management. She has served as the editor of the Journal of Management Education. She has been internationally recognized for her leadership, research and service. Dr. Bilimoria’s research focuses on gender diversity in governance and leadership, and organizational transformation.

Unlimited Free Access to Unscripted Voices of 21st Century Workers “On the Front Line”

May 11, 2015

gears-94220_640[We’re pleased to welcome Paul Brook, one of the editors of Work, employment, society. All 10 articles in the On the Front Line (OTFL) collection are being made permanently free as part of Work, employment and society’s wider commitment to public sociology.]

These powerful testimonies of employees’ accounts of their working lives form a series of vivid, ‘behind the scenes’, portraits of the contemporary world of work. Each story is told frankly and all brim with a rich mixture of hope, despair, enjoyment and anger, revealing the hidden, often harsh, realities of work in the 21st century.

These popular and compelling stories are being increasingly used for university teaching but can now be taken-up by schools, colleges and others keen to get ‘under the skin’ of today’s world of work and employment. In doing so, we hope to introduce individuals and groups outside of the academy, especially young people, to the richness of what C. Wright Mills called the “sociological imagination”.

F1.mediumThe OTFL collection includes accounts of the indignities of working as a cleaner in a luxury hotel; an activist’s story during a protracted factory strike; the dangerous health consequences for a slimming club consultant striving to ‘look the part’; the unremitting time demands on a supermarket manager; the endemic abuse and violence suffered by a trainee haute cuisine chef in Michelin starred kitchens; and the personal struggles of a pioneer woman priest.

OTFL also offers first-hand accounts of major political-industrial events, such as working inside HBOS bank during the 2008 financial crisis; a pit supervisor’s experience of Britain’s miners’ strike of 1984-85; organising inside the factory occupation movement as part of the Argentinian anti-IMF uprising of 2001-02; and the disturbing account of work under hazardous conditions in a Scottish plastics factory shortly before a devastating explosion that killed nine workers in 2004.

Unlike standard research articles, OTFL contributions are co-authored by the worker and an academic/s. Each one is preceded by a brief scene-setting commentary written by the academic. If you would like to write an OTFL article, the Work, employment and society website has guidance. You can also contact us to discuss your ideas further.

Making OTFL free access is part of Work, employment and society’s wider commitment to public sociology. We want to encourage more scholars to work with workers and employees, especially the less powerful, to help give voice to their hidden experiences and unheard views. We also want to make our small contribution to ensuring that workers’ experiences, views and ideas will not be consigned to the “enormous condescension of posterity”, as E.P. Thompson famously claimed was the fate of earlier generations of workers.

Do You Have Research on Social Collaboration and Communication?

May 8, 2015

palm-v2-275518-mInternational Journal of Business Communication invites scholars to submit manuscripts for a special issue on Social Collaboration and Communication. The special issue is being edited by Peter Cardon at the Center of Management Communication in the Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California

With increasing adoption of enterprise social networking platforms and other social collaboration tools, many new forms and approaches to communication are occurring within companies and between businesses. This special issue will publish articles about these new forms of internal and business-to-business (B2B) communication.

BPCQ/IJBC3.inddPossible topics for the special issue include but are not limited to the following:

  • Leadership communication strategies via social and virtual tools
  • Crowdsourcing and other forms of collaborative decision-making within organizations
  • Reputation management on enterprise social networking platforms
  • Privacy attitudes and expectations on enterprise social networking platforms
  • Rhetorical patterns associated with social tools such as blogs, wikis, and forums

A variety of theoretical frameworks and research methodologies are welcome. Fifteen hundred word abstracts that include research questions, methods, data, and conclusions should be emailed to no later than June 1, 2015. For more information, click here.

Want to know about all the latest news and research from International Journal of Business Communication? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!

Do Marine Animals Make Effective Mascots?

May 6, 2015

whale-1406956-mIf you grew up in the United States, there’s a good chance that you were educated about preventing forest fires by Smokey the Bear. Smokey the Bear first debuted in 1944, following on the heels of Disney’s “Bambi” which had been successful in garnering attention for the dangers of wildfires. Over the years, Smokey’s story developed more and more with the scout hat-wearing bear appearing in radio programs, books, comics and on TV. According to the Ad Council, Smokey’s Forest Fire Prevention campaign has helped reduce the number of acres lost annually from 22 million to 8.4 million. But how much of Smokey’s success was due to the fact that he was a cute, cuddly mascot? Could a marine animal accomplish just as much for ocean conservation as Smokey did for forest fire prevention? Daniel Hayden and Benjamin Dills explore this topic in their article “Smokey the Bear Should Come to the Beach: Using Mascot to Promote Marine Conservation” from Social Marketing Quarterly.

The abstract:

home_coverThere is an open question among conservation practitioners regarding whether using flagship specifies to market marine conservation is less effective than using terrestrial species in the terrestrial context. A flagship species is a species selected to act as an ambassador, icon, or symbol for a defined habitat, issue, campaign, or environmental cause. A mascot species has many of the same attributes as a flagship species, but is selected for its communications value instead of its ecological value. Our research indicates that mascot species can be as effective a marketing tool for marine conservation as they have been for terrestrial conservation. Based on our study, there is no evidence that the use of marine mascot species or that confront threats based on fishing and harvesting of aquatic resources perform any differently from other social marketing campaigns that address terrestrial issues.

You can read “Smokey the Bear Should Come to the Beach: Using Mascot to Promote Marine Conservation” from Social Marketing Quarterly for free for the next week by clicking here. Want to get all the latest research like this from Social Marketing Quarterly sent directly to your inbox? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!

Behind the Scenes with ASQ Managing Editor Linda Johanson

May 4, 2015

[We’re pleased to welcome Cassandra Aceves of the University of Michigan Ross School of Business and Linda Johanson, Managing Editor of Administrative Science Quarterly. Cassandra recently sat down with Linda to discuss the peer review process and what it’s like to serve in the role of Managing Editor for Administrative Science Quarterly.]

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

ASQ_v60n1_Mar2015_cover.inddQuestion 1. Many of our readers are beginning Ph.D. students who have yet to submit a paper or participate in the review process. Could you provide a brief introduction to the publication process and your role at ASQ?

I’m usually the first one to see a submitted manuscript. I manage the ASQ editorial and administrative office at the Johnson School at Cornell, which is the owner of the journal. I oversee the budget and finances, contracts, the submission and review system, and copy editing and issue production. For the past year, Joan Friedman, our new Associate Managing Editor, has been working with me on these and other tasks.

When ScholarOne notifies me of a new submission, I open the file, read the author’s cover letter and suggested reviewer and handling editor fields. Then I open the pdf file and read the abstract and first few pages to see if the paper’s appropriate for review and who might best handle it. Paging through the pdf file, I check for anonymity and make sure everything is legible. I assign a handing editor, based on the editor’s expertise, schedule, and current workload. We try to provide authors with the most helpful feedback we can leading to a publishable paper. If I can send the paper to the author’s preferred handling editor, I will. But sometimes the author doesn’t know that a different editor knows the methods or literature better—or is doing heavy teaching or traveling or has the flu.

It helps us all if the cover letter lists the people who’ve already given the authors comments or were on their dissertation committee, especially if any of them are likely to be asked to review for ASQ. Most of them won’t review a paper if they know the author, so it slows down the process if we ask them. It’s a good idea, too, to use the cover letter to explain any “non-preferred reviewers” listed on the submission: Are they people who really do hate the authors’ work or do they know the authors’ work and have already provided useful feedback? “Non-preferred” is an ambiguous term, so it’s good to be clear.

An informative abstract also helps me assign the right editor. Sometimes I have to read through half or even most of the manuscript before I figure out what it’s about and who could handle it. Authors can use published abstracts as guides to how to summarize a paper for readers so they want to read it. A useful abstract includes the theory, context, method, and main findings—but especially the context. A reader shouldn’t have to read 20 pages before learning that the study was conducted in an Indian call center, a Chinese factory, or a Brazilian company. The context can be a real asset—and could determine who should handle or review the paper.

The handling editor who gets the paper either assigns and invites reviewers or writes a “decline to review” letter saying why the paper won’t be going out for formal review. About a third of our submissions are “declines to review,” sometimes because they’re based on literature from another field and aren’t connected to or aimed at contributing to the organization studies literature or speaking to that audience. Sometimes it’s because they’re written for practitioners or policy makers rather than organization theorists. Authors whose papers are sent out for review have made it in the door and will get back a decision letter and set of reviews that should be helpful in continuing to develop the work, either for ASQ for for submission to another journal.

Question 2. In this article you present 8 tips to increase the likelihood that an article will be published: 1) clarify the research question and intended contributions early on in the paper, 2) guide the readers’ understanding of relevant literature, 3) understand readers’ perspectives and anticipate their questions, 4) be aware of and explain how terms and figures are used, 5) obtain collegial feedback on a paper before submitting, 6) carefully proofread the article, 7) use editors’ and reviewers’ feedback to understand how readers make sense of the paper, and 8) space out submissions of papers from the same project to incorporate sensemaking feedback. It has been seven years since you penned these tips. Do you have any additional tips to add?

I’ve always thought that Ph.D. students have a real advantage in that they’re immersed in foundational and current literature and know what’s already been done, what’s hot and what’s not, and have a pretty good mental map of the field. If they’re paying attention to the writing as they read, they can also find templates in published literature for how to structure different kinds of papers, establish a contribution, write up a method section or lay out a data table.

At the same time, I know how hard it is to divide and conquer a topic in the literature review for a paper and not just list everything written on a topic. One strategy is to use a smaller core set of very relevant studies and in reporting findings from those, take a piece of evidence from each one to use in building the argument for the important gap in the literature that really needs to be filled. As one of our editors used to say, “What’s the burning question to which this paper is an answer?” Each relevant piece of literature can become a building block for constructing the motivation and the theory underlying the study. Seeing how others did this in published work can be very helpful. This is where the hints in my 2007 article about sensemaking can be helpful.

Question 3. You note that the target journal determines the conversation that an author will enter and that this could be highly consequential for the success of an article in the review process. Do you have any insights into how students can best identify, follow, and signal that they are a part of that conversation?

Linda M. Johanson

Linda M. Johanson

Authors can identify their potential receptive journal audience by looking at their own reference list. Which articles have you used to ground the arguments? Which journals do you cite most often? Those probably represent the best audiences. Authors who follow and read a journal regularly are more likely to know what constitutes a contribution and to get a paper published there. Prospective authors are joining the conversation of authors who published on their topic. One way to signal that they should be part of that conversation is to make it clear that they know what that conversation is about and have something worthwhile to contribute. It’s a bit like joining an ongoing conversation at a party. To join in, you have to understand what people are talking about.

Question 4. You often host workshops for graduate students who are at the beginning stages of the research process. Do you have any tips for students who are submitting to a journal or going through the review process for the first time?

First, write sincerely. Communicate your ideas to your readers as clearly as you can, rather than impressing them with how many articles you’ve read—especially early in the paper. It’s frustrating to run into dense clumps of 6 to 10 references when we’re trying to figure out what a paper is about. Some authors have told me that they keep a copy of my 2007 article and read it again before they start writing.

You don’t need to write a long cover letter, especially if it repeats the abstract. Do let us know if you have related studies from the same data set published or under review elsewhere that aren’t cited in the paper. If you have a preference for a handling editor, tell us, but don’t insist that your suggestion be honored. We know the editors and their current situations better than most of the authors do. And we’re in the journal business, so we’re all doing everything we can to find and develop the best articles.

And once you’ve submitted, please be patient. Manuscript Central gives you information on what’s happening to your manuscript, but it doesn’t give all the information. For instance, you may see that your manuscript is waiting for reviewers to be assigned. Pretty alarming, right? But in truth that message comes up if even one reviewer is missing—which can happen when a reviewer agreed to review the paper but then had a family emergency. Sometimes we already have other completed reviews, so the problem isn’t as bad as it seems. It’s probably better not to check on your manuscript too obsessively. If it is taking a long time and you get worried about it, though, it’s OK to email me or Joan. We’re happy to check on it and move it along if we can.

When you get the reviews and a decision on the paper—whatever it is—take a deep breath. Then read through it, keeping in mind that the editor and reviewers gave you the best feedback they could with the hope that it will help you move this work forward. Honest and helpful feedback from those who know your topic is a true gift, even if it’s sometimes hard to accept. Use it to improve your scholarship and your writing. If you get an opportunity to revise and resubmit, that’s fabulous. Do your best to take care of the issues and any misunderstandings that came up in the review process and get some colleagues you trust to look at the revision before you send it back. Ask them to tell you if you did what was asked. If your paper was rejected and you need to rewrite it to submit to another journal, be sure to use the feedback you got from the first review process. Your reputation will take a hit if one of the same reviewers gets the paper at a different journal and sees that you didn’t pay attention to his or her review.

Question 5. You have been with ASQ for over 30 years. What is your favorite aspect of working at Administrative Science Quarterly?

That’s a hard question. It’s been such a rich experience. I guess what I’ve enjoyed most is being part of the vibrant ASQ intellectual community. I couldn’t have imagined when I started that I’d have a chance to edit papers on Niagara Falls hotels competing to control tourists’ view of the falls, scandals in Parliament, narcissistic CEOs, wildland firefighters, emotional intelligence, group diversity and performance, contract workers, scads of papers on social networks—an area that was just beginning to attract scholars then—and now sustainability and emerging markets. But it’s also the people in this community that I’ve had a chance to work with and get to know who have so enriched my life. Authors, editors, board members, reviewers, graduate students, faculty members across the globe. And finally, I’ve witnessed enormous growth in the field of organizational behavior and theory as well as dramatic changes in journal publishing and the number and kind of outlets for scholarly work. One of these changes is the growth of the ASQ student blog, and I’m so honored to be asked to contribute. Thank you.

For more about the peer review process from Linda Johanson, click here to read her article “Sitting in Your Reader’s Chair: Attending to Your Academic Sensemakers” from Journal of Management Inquiry.

Corporate Social Performance

April 29, 2015

BAS_v50_72ppiRGB_powerpointJeremy C. Short, Aaron F. McKenny, David J. Ketchen, Charles C. Snow, and G. Tomas M. Hult recently collaborated on their article “An Empirical Examination of Firm, Industry, and Temporal Effects on Corporate Social Performance.” The article was recently published in the OnlineFirst section of Business and Society.

The abstract:

Research examining firm and industry effects on performance has primarily focused on the financial aspects of firm performance. Corporate social performance (CSP) is a major aspect of firm performance that has been under-examined empirically in the literature to date. Adding to the fundamental debate regarding firm versus industry effects on performance, this study uses data drawn from the Kinder, Lydenberg and Domini Co. (KLD) database to examine the degree to which CSP is related to firm, industry, and temporal factors. The results of these analyses suggest that CSP tends to change in a linear manner over time; however, the slope of this line varies across firms and industries. These findings are supported by several robustness checks accounting for autocorrelation, alternative measures of industry, different samples commonly used when using KLD data to measure CSP, and alternative measures of CSP when using the KLD database. The authors also directly compare firm, industry, and temporal effects between CSP and financial performance.

You can read “An Empirical Examination of Firm, Industry, and Temporal Effects on Corporate Social Performance” from Business and Society for free for the next week by clicking here. You can also listen to an interview with Chuck Snow for free by clicking here. Want to know about all the latest research like this from Business and Society? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!

Announcing the Winners of the 2014 Best Paper Award from Family Business Review!

April 27, 2015

trophy-189659-mWe’re pleased to congratulate Nava Michael-Tsabari, Rania Labaki, and Ramona Kay Zachary, winners of 2014 Best Paper Award from Family Business Review! Their award-winning article entitled “Toward the Cluster Model: The Family Firm’s Entrepreneurial Behavior Over Generations” appeared in the June 2014 issue of Family Business Review.

The abstract:

Building on a longitudinal case study, this article describes the entrepreneurial behavior of a FBR_C1_revised authors color.inddmultinational family firm over generations. The study inductively raises the theoretic level to fill gaps in the literature about the family role in entrepreneurial behavior and addresses the singular count of the two- and three-circle models. The data analysis shows that entrepreneurial behavior emerges not only in response to business challenges but also and predominantly to family challenges. The cluster model is suggested as a necessary extension of the circle models, positing the family as the relevant level of analysis when considering entrepreneurial behavior and introducing the distinction between organic and portfolio, core and peripheral firms.

You can read this article for free for the next 30 days by clicking here. You can also listen to an interview with Nava Michael-Tsabari and Karen Vinton, Assistant Editor of Family Business Review, about the study by clicking here. Want to know about all the latest research and announcements from Family Business Review? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 753 other followers

%d bloggers like this: