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.

How People Think About Prices

shopping-1724299_1280 (1)[We’re pleased to welcome authors Lane T. Wakefield of Mercer University and Kirk L. Wakefield of Baylor University. They recently published an article in the Journal of Service Research entitled “An Examination of Construal Effects on Price Perceptions in the Advance Selling of Experience Services,” which is currently free to read for a limited time. Below, they reflect on the inspiration for conducting this research:]

02JSR13_Covers.inddWhat motivated you to pursue this research?

As a huge sports fan and one that enjoys concerts and vacations as much as the next person, I find this research interesting as it suggests how people think about ticket prices.

In what ways is your research innovative, and how do you think it will impact the field?
This research can impact the field by offering practitioners guidance in identifying who, when and where buyers of experiences are likely to be more or less price sensitive and perceive more or less value. This information helps managers to deliver the right offers or, at least, frame their current offerings more effectively.

Were there any surprising findings?

Our most surprising finding was that buyers tend to think about what other buyers are doing in the market. We found that the majority (65%) of buyers consider what others may perceive as a good price. When it comes to fun experiences, buyers assume that others see those experiences as having high value even if they do not share that feeling personally. Sellers may do well to frame their offerings in terms of how typical fans may see them rather than asking the buyer for their own thoughts. Price perceptions are affected by who you bring to mind (self vs others).

What did not make it into your published manuscript that you would like to share with us?

We identified a segment of consumers who are more price sensitive when they perceive high value. Typically, this relationship is seen as the opposite. That is, those who perceive high value may be less price sensitive (i.e. can you really put a price tag on the Cowboys vs Redskins on Thanksgiving?). However, we believe that there are some who enjoy attending games, concerts and the like so much that they become price sensitive in order to be able to afford to have more experiences within their limited budgets. Hopefully you’ll see more about this research soon!

Stay up-to-date with the latest research from the Journal of Service Research and sign up for email alerts today through the homepage!

Price tag photo attributed to gdakaska. (CC)

Evaluating Social Marketing Campaigns

[We’re pleased to welcome author Diogo Veríssimo of Johns Hopkins University. He recently published an article in Social Marketing Quarterly entitled “Does It Work for Biodiversity? Experiences and Challenges in the Evaluation of Social Marketing Campaigns,” which is currently free to read for a limited time. Below, Dr. Veríssimo provides insight on impact evaluation and behaviour change:]

SMQ_20_2_C1 & C5.indd

Measuring change is hard. But it is also critical to programs hoping to influence human behaviour towards more positive societal outcomes. In a newly published paper, Does It Work for Biodiversity? Experiences and Challenges in the Evaluation of Social Marketing Campaigns, we tackle the challenge of evaluating social marketing campaigns targeting fishing communities in the Philippines with the goal of driving the adoption of more sustainable fishing practices at the community level.

Research on impact evaluation is vital to improve implementation, particularly in high uncertainty high complexity environment such as those in which social marketing operates. By measuring our impact we can first ensure we do no harm and then learn what works, to improve with each iteration. This is even more pressing in the environmental context, as we have lagged far behind sectors such as public health or international development in impact evaluation. Therefore, our goal with this paper was to showcase how we can raise the bar on the evaluation of behaviour change efforts, in this case social marketing, in a particularly changing subject, that of fisheries management in the tropics.

Our work focused on the evaluation of three social marketing campaigns in the Philippines, using a quasi-experiments design of match campaign and control sites. We measured both social indicators through surveys and biological indicators using underwater ecological surveys. We found limited evidence of behaviour change amongst fisherman and no evidence of change in fish biomass as a result of the campaigns. Yet, we also discussed the fact that this last result is fully expected, given how long fisheries take to recover, a timeline often measured in decades, not years. This has implications not only for the way that we plan and implement social marketing campaigns but also for donors who should be aware that expecting biological change in the often short project cycles may just be unrealistic.

Moreover, our research hopes to highlight the difficulties of carrying out competent impact evaluations in a context where both social and biological indicators need to be measured and where both terrestrial and in-water data is needed. This has obvious implications in terms of cost, not only in terms of money, time and staff but also in terms of required technical expertise. Project budgets need to reflect this reality if we are to be truly evidence-based and take responsibility for the interventions we implement. After all it is not about success and failure, it should most of all be about learning.

Role of Referrers in Hiring

[We’re pleased to welcome authors Jenna R. Pieper of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Charlie O. Trevor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Ingo Weller of LMU Munich, and Dennis Duchon of University of Nebraska-Lincoln . They recently published an article in the Journal of Management entitled “Referral Hire Presence Implications for Referrer Turnover and Job Performance,” which is currently free to read for a limited time. Below, Dr. Pieper discusses the events and circumstance that inspired this research:]

JOM_42_5_Covers.indd

This paper was motivated by a general curiosity about the critical role of referrers in referral hiring in organizational settings, and originated in a section of my doctoral dissertation. Referral hiring, or the practice of using recommendations of a current employee (referrer) to identify and hire a new employee (referral hire), often accounts for 30% to 50% of an organization’s filling of its job openings. To date, the attention of research and practice has focused primarily on the referral hires and their outcomes, leaving a glaring gap in our understanding of how referrers are impacted by the hiring of a friend or acquaintance. We were therefore interested in gaining insight into how the presence of a referral hire influences referrer performance and voluntary turnover.

Our findings, which are arguably the first to specifically examine how referral hiring impacts referrers, show that referrers are indeed impacted by the presence of their referral hire through a socially enriched workplace. In our study, employees with a referral hire present were 27% less likely to leave than employees without a referral hire present, and their performance improved by 5.1% when a referral hire was present. However, we found that job similarity (indicating heightened workplace exposure) between referrers and their referral hires, when compared to job dissimilarity, was associated with lower referrer job performance. Thus, it seems the costs, such as socialization and informal training, for referrers in similar jobs to their referral hires may offset the performance gains gleamed from the referral hire presence. Most important to our work is that we provide the only empirical evidence to date that referring enhances the social enrichment construct at the heart of referral hire discourse.

I think that future research on this topic should continue to consider the critical role of the referrer in referral hiring. My main advice for scholars would be to consider the interface between the various stakeholders in referral hiring, different referring pathways, the intricacies in how referring hiring unfolds over time, and the contingencies that affect its outcomes. A lot of fascinating contributions can still be made regarding referral hiring.

Finally, our work is important to practitioners. It demonstrates that the presence aspect is crucial. When coupled with the well-established benefits for the referral hire, referral hiring appears to be a value proposition for the firm because performance and retention gains emerge for both referrers and referral hires. Thus, our work would encourage continued practice of referral hiring. Practitioners can also take from our study that it is important to be aware of and work to prevent potential downsides associated with referral hiring.

Stay up-to-date with the latest research from the Journal of Management and sign up for email alerts today through the homepage!

 

 

A Reflection by David Jiang on “More Than Meets the Eye”

[We’re pleased to welcome authors David S. Jiang of Georgia Southern University, Franz W. Kellermans of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Timothy P. Munyon of the  University of Tennessee, and M. Lane Morris of the University of Tennessee. They recently published an article in the Family Business Review entitled “More Than Meets the Eye: A Review and Future Directions for the Social Psychology of Socioemotional Wealth,” which is currently free to read for a limited time. Below, Dr. Jiang reflects on the inspiration for conducting this research:]

fbra_30_2.coverThis research is based on the first author’s dissertation, which is a winner of the Family Firm Institute’s 2017 Best Dissertation Award. The article reviews 421 papers published across 25 journals during the past decade to propose new directions for the social psychology of socioemotional wealth (SEW), which is a popular concept and theoretical perspective in the family business literature that deals with the nonpecuniary benefits that family members derive from control over their family firm.

What motivated you to pursue this research?
SEW research has helped significantly advance the family business literature since Luis Gomez-Mejia and colleagues first introduced SEW in 2007. However, although SEW research has already done a lot for the literature, we also believe that it can do so much more. Motivated by these beliefs, we originally spent 2 years (2014-2015) in the review process at the Academy of Management Review (AMR) trying to outline the emotional aspects of SEW, only to have our work rejected in the last round on a split editorial team decision. After this rejection, we realized that what we really needed to do was review the SEW literature in ways that would first establish a foundation to understand the many psychological phenomena that fit within SEW research. This is why we are thrilled to have our work on this subject published in Family Business Review (FBR) – a high-quality outlet that can help further the psychological understanding of various SEW phenomena and outcomes.

What has been the most challenging aspect of conducting your research?
We think that the most challenging aspects probably came from the review process. We were trying to say something that was connected to but very different from what existing SEW research has already said and/or done. Naturally, it’s often difficult to seamlessly communicate novel ideas in ways that reviewers will immediately understand with a first draft. Recognizing this, after we received feedback from the first round of FBR reviews, we realized that we had to extensively change our analytical strategy and approach in order to be as comprehensive as possible. This way, we could address the reviewers’ many concerns while still maintaining our core message and contributions. Although our original submission to FBR reviewed 41 SEW articles, as can be seen in the published article, our final sample included 421 articles. Altogether, it was extremely challenging to increase the review’s scope by more than ten-fold in a 3-month revision window! Needless to say, the first author spent a lot of late nights culling through the expansive SEW literature to create an action plan that utilized the authorship team’s collective strengths and expertise.

How do you think your research will impact the field?
It is difficult to tell at first but we hope that our article will ultimately help build stronger family firm microfoundations. We think there are a lot of novel directions that SEW and broader family firm research could go from here and hope that other scholars will agree and join us in these pursuits!

 

Stay up-to-date with the latest research from the Family Business Review and sign up for email alerts today through the homepage!

The Impact of FSMA on Restaurants

restaurant-2623071_1920[We’re pleased to welcome author Mark Johnson of Michigan State University. He recently published an article in Cornell Hospitality Quarterly entitled “An End User Perspective: The Impact of FSMA on Restaurants,” which is currently free to read for a limited time. Below, Dr. Johnson talks about the background of this research:]

cqxb_58_2.cover

On January 4, 2011, President Obama signed into law the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA or P.L. 111-353). This act may be the most far-reaching food safety legislation since the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938 (FDCA). FSMA aims to ensure that the U.S. food supply is safe by shifting the focus of regulation from contamination response to prevention. This legislation imposes administrative costs on the food supply chain in the U.S. by requiring additional record keeping and safety procedures.

The law created record keeping requirements for firms. These requirements are often referred to as one-up-one-down. This nickname emphasizes the fact that the act requires grocers, wholesalers, and food processors to keep track of the immediate parties that they buy food and food products from as well as the parties that they sell food and food products too. This ensures that any contamination problems in the U.S. food supply chain can quickly and efficiently be traced to its source and aid in the rapid response to foodborne illness before it becomes widespread. The Congressional Budget office (August 12, 2010) estimated that FSMA would directly cost taxpayers $1.4 Billion through federal administrative costs. However, attempts to measure the costs imposed on businesses by the legislation were largely ignored until we reported, in a previous study, that expected costs to food processors, wholesalers and grocers was approximately 10% of equity value (Johnson and Lawson 2016). This represented a market value cost of $33 Billion. This previous result encouraged me to consider that others in the food supply chain, end users, such as consumers and restaurants may bear some of these supply chain costs.

The surprising evidence from my current article indicates that restaurants lost approximately 5% of firm value. In this case of restaurants this represents approximately 7.5 billion dollars of lost value. These equity costs represent expected future cash flow and risk effects for the firms studied. These costs, 1.4+33+7.5= $42B, should be weighed against the potential benefits to consumers that the act brings. These benefits may be directly measurable in a potential drop in food borne illness cases over the next 5-10 years as the act is fully implemented.

Previous article:
The Impact of the Food Safety and Modernization Act on Firm Value,” M. Johnson and T. Lawson, Agricultural Finance Review, 2016, 76(2): 233-245.
Current article:
An End User Perspective: The Impact of FSMA on Restaurants,” M. Johnson, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Forthcoming

Stay up-to-date with the latest research from Cornell Hospitality Quarterly and sign up for email alerts today through the homepage!

Kitchen photo attributed to StockSnap. (CC)

Case in Point: Interacting in the Bossless Workplace

[The following post is re-blogged from SAGE Connection. Click here to view the original article.]

Case in point imgSometimes it’s companies—not just their employees— that don’t want bosses. At W. L. Gore & Associates, a manufacturing company, no employee is hired as anyone else’s boss. Instead, employees support each other and work together in what can be called a “lattice” organizational structure; leaders are not assigned authority at Gore but are selected based on their merits and ability to earn followers.

Delving deeper into the company’s innovative structure, Terje Grønning wrote a case study about it for SAGE Business Cases, titled “Working Without a Boss: Lattice Organization With Direct Person-to-Person Communication at W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.” The case study examines how the lattice organizational structure compares to more established structures, the communication challenges it faces, and more. Curious about the topic, we interviewed Terje for our Case In Point Series. Read the full interview below.

Delving deeper into the company’s innovative structure, Terje Grønning wrote a case study about it for SAGE Business Cases, titled “Working Without a Boss: Lattice Organization With Direct Person-to-Person Communication at W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.” The case study examines how the lattice organizational structure compares to more established structures, the communication challenges it faces, and more. Curious about the topic, we interviewed Terje for our Case In Point Series. Read the full interview below.

1. Can you briefly explain what a lattice structure is and how it differs from more conventional organizational forms?

When classifying organizational forms, the hierarchical and matrix forms are perhaps the most well known and widely implemented, consciously or implicitly. The hierarchical form, is of course, something we all are familiar with either through study, work or experience, since it is the pyramid-like form with sections and departments each with their own managers and well-defined lines of authority. The matrix form is associated with, for example, project management and opens up for larger degrees of decentralization and flexibility. It is, however, an organizational form that still relies upon and functions with management layers and specified lines of authority.  The “lattice” organizational structure, on the other hand, is in theory designed in a way where all the participants are supposed to have equal status when it comes to authority. Indeed, there are temporary or more long term positions where some members are leaders, but the idea is to have closely knit networks within the organization where everybody relates to each other without anyone having more authority based on a particular position within the organizational structure.

2. How can implementing a lattice structure benefit communication and innovation within an organization?

One conceivable and important potential benefit is that ideas for new products, services or processes can be generated from a wider base; in theory, from anybody within the organization.

3. What are some of the biggest challenges with direct person-to-person communication, especially in a large company like Gore?

One challenge is to practically arrange for the possibility of face-to-face interaction on a frequent basis. When there are several hundreds or thousands of employees, it goes without saying that everyone cannot know everyone else, and Gore appears to have continuously tried to solve that problem by constructing new additions to their activities as smaller units located closely to pre-existing units. There is a challenge of avoiding the emergence of a “department” feeling within the units.  In addition, according to the lattice organization principles, there should be egalitarian practices while allowing for temporary rotation-based leadership or other specialized appointments. However, one can imagine that there can be a risk of some persons dominating behind the scenes, although the principles seem to be outwardly followed. Still another challenge can be to have adequate procedures for coordination and decision-making.

4. With more companies integrating more sophisticated communication and collaboration tools (such as Slack), do you think lattice structures are something we’ll see more of in new or growing businesses?

Yes, I think such tools can facilitate lattices or lattice-like structures both in cases where collaborating people are geographically located apart from each other or when they are co-located but are either too busy or too many to be able to interact on a day-to-day and face-to-face basis. But there is always a risk of being overwhelmed by the technological possibilities and forgetting the core ideas, much like what happened in the case with some other programs for knowledge management and team building, etc. I agree with Raanan Lipshitz, Victor Friedman and Micha Popper when they in their studies of organizational learning processes stress the importance of differentiating between the overall mechanisms for organizational learning and the more delimited organizational learning technologies, which are just but one element of such mechanisms.

5. Why is it important for students to read cases that analyze communication styles and strategies in business settings?

Personally, I find it essential to supplement the purely theoretical and conceptual perspectives that tend to dominate course reading lists with examples based on information collected within companies. The theoretical perspectives are, of course, indispensable both within study programs as well as in companies; but the theoretical models, typologies and analytical dimensions about communication styles, strategies and other crucial issues within companies should be discussed in conjunction with such examples from the real world in order to see the utility of the theoretical perspectives.

6. In your opinion, how does teaching with case studies, which exposes students to a wide range of organizational forms, benefit their business educations and careers?

Within business education and similar teaching programs, I think the topic of organizational structure and change is something which is perhaps especially fitting for exercises of a case study type. This is because case studies illuminate the dilemmas which may appear in connection with both consciously choosing as well as trying to adapt to inevitably oncoming changes. In a particular case it might appear to be appealing to discuss the feasibility of, for example, a matrix or lattice organization, but why is it that the case organization nevertheless appears to be upholding a hierarchical form? In this way, the realities and various facets of organizations may come to life in a much better way than what would be the case with only conventional classroom teaching.

Also, for some topics within this field, when students work in groups, the actual exercise can function as a case in itself since this very process can be the basis for discussion as well. For example, students may aspire to organize their project according to lattice or matrix principles of organization, but when discussing the project afterwards, we can sometimes see that there was in reality a “strong leader” influencing large parts of the process.  Such an experience can be valuable also for later careers within working life.

Learn more by reading the full case study, Working Without a Boss: Lattice Organization With Direct Person-to-Person Communication at W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. from SAGE Business Cases, open to the public for a limited time. To learn more about SAGE Business Cases and to find out how to submit a case to the collection, please contact Rachel Taliaferro, Associate Editor: rachel.taliaferro@sagepub.com. Read the last Case In Point post, titled Developing a Unique Healthcare Model.

Psychological Capital for Leader Development

[We’re pleased to welcome authors Thiraput Pitichat of Claremont Graduate University. Pitichat recently published an article in Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies entitled “Psychological Capital for Leader Development,” which is currently free to read for a limited time. Below, Pitichat speaks on the objectives of this research:]

JLOS_72ppiRGB_powerpointWhat are the mechanisms behind effective leader development processes? Why do some individuals have a tendency to develop as leaders more than the others? This research suggests that organizations should focus on promoting leaders’ valuable resources or capital – Leader development psychological capital (LD PsyCap), which consists of leader development hope, optimism, resilience, and self-efficacy. Two main objectives of this research are:

1.) to validate LD PsyCap construct; 2.) to test our hypotheses on individual and organizational level factors that predict LD PsyCap as well as leader development behaviors as an outcome of LD PsyCap.

Stay up-to-date with the latest research from Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies and sign up for email alerts today through the homepage!