American Slaughterhouses: The Meatpacking and Methamphetamine Relationship

[We’re pleased to welcome author Josh A. Hendrix  of RTI International, Research Triangle Park. Hendrix recently published an article in the Organization & Environment entitled “American Slaughterhouses and the Need for Speed: An Examination of the Meatpacking-Methamphetamine Hypothesis,” co-authored by Cindy Brooks Dollar of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. From Hendrix:]

What inspired you to be interested in this topic? A few years ago, I was teaching an undergraduate Sociology of Social Deviance course.  In class one day, we were reflecting on an article we had just read and were bringing up examples of how deviant behavior can be influenced by structural or cultural factors that go beyond individual psychopathology.  I brought up an example I had recently come across in Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation; specifically, the notion that methamphetamine use can be a re122874634_b6873ca52d_z.jpgaction to social pressures for productivity within competitive Western societies.  Although the idea is provocative and made for a good example, I realized that there was no empirical research that could show whether there is in fact a relationship between animal slaughter and methamphetamine use in the United States.  I recruited one of my colleagues who I knew had the right skill set for this type of project:  an open, critical, and creative mind, and strong analytical skills, and the project really developed from there.

Were there findings that were surprising to you? We were surprised to find any support for Schlosser’s hypothesis that there is a connection between the meatpacking industry and methamphetamine use, simply because the idea is so radical and far out there.  At the same time, it was surprising that the relationship did not hold when breaking down our analysis by different types of meat.  This suggested to us that the relationship is more complex than we had first imagined but also made us realize that more research on this topic using different types of methods was necessary.

How do you see this study influencing future research and/or practice? We would love to see additional work on this topic, and especially a project that uses qualitative methods to elaborate on why methamphetamine may be used by slaughterhouse workers.  Alternatively, a study that examines methamphetamine usage prior to, and following the construction or relocation of slaughterhouses would be interesting and informative.

Stay up-to-date with the latest research from Organization & Environment–sign up for email alerts through the homepage.

Slaughterhouse photo attributed to benketaro (CC).

Family Firms and the Impact of Incentive Compensation

[We’re pleased to welcome authors James Chrisman of Mississippi State University, Srikant Devaraj of Ball State University, and Pankaj Patel of Villanova University. They recently published an article in Family Business Review entitled “The Impact of Incentive Compensation on Labor Productivity in Family and Nonfamily Firms.” From Chrisman, Devaraj, and Patel:]

 Family firms are thought to face a managerial capacity constraint owing to the preference of hFBR_72ppiRGB_powerpoint.jpgigh-ability job candidates from outside the family to seek employment with non-family firms, which usually offer higher compensation and more lucrative career opportunities. In our paper, we theorize that incentive compensation can ease this constraint by signaling the attractiveness of working in family firms, thereby increasing the average ability of a family firm’s workforce. We therefore hypothesize that incentive compensation will reduce the productivity gap between family firms and non-family firms.

We are interested in this topic because much of the focus in the literature on non-family employees in family firms deals with issues associated with alignment of interests after workers have been hired. Few studies deal with the pre-employment problem of adverse selection, which is primarily (but not entirely) an issue of worker ability rather than worker effort. We also wanted to emphasize that if job candidates seek employment with firms that are compatible with their self-interest, adverse selection can exist even in the absence of an opportunistic pursuit of self-interest (or in the presence of stewardship motives).

Bounded rationality and information asymmetry make judging the ability of potential employees difficult for the owner-managers of both family firms and non-family firms (and even for the potential employees themselves). However, when the labor pool available to family firms becomes attenuated because high-ability workers self-sort according to a preference to work in non-family firms, the adverse selection problem facing family owner-managers becomes even greater.

Incentive compensation will be more valuable for high-ability job candidates than it will for low-ability job candidates because the former are most likely to benefit from it. Thus, incentive compensation signals performance will be rewarded, which may help alleviate the adverse selection problem facing family firms. Our empirical analysis of a matched sample of over 200,000 small and medium-sized firms obtained from a U.S. Census survey supports our contentions. Findings indicate that the productivity of family firms that provide incentive compensation increases at a greater rate than the productivity of non-family firms that provide incentive compensation (compared, respectively, with family and non-family firms that do not offer incentive compensation).

We hope that our paper will inspire further work on the adverse selection problem facing family firms. We also hope that our paper will lead researchers to focus more on how bounded rationality and information asymmetry, rather than simply opportunism or the lack thereof, influences the behavior and performance of non-family employees in family versus non-family firms.  In this respect, we suggest that the presence of bounded rationality and information asymmetry make incentive compensation and monitoring valuable tools in family firms regardless of the composition or proclivities to behave opportunistically of the workforce.

Sign up for email alerts so you never miss the latest research. 

Enhancing Student Learning Through Scaffolded Client Projects

[We’re pleased to welcome author Elizabeth Tomlinson of West Virginia University. Tomlinnson recently published an article in Business and Professional Communication Quarterly entitled “Enhancing Student Learning Through Scaffolded Client Projects.” Below, Tomlinson outlines the inspiration for this study:]

As a Teaching Assistant Professor, much of my research tends to focus on advancing the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (STL). I want to ensure that the pedagogical practices I’m using are meeting my students’ needs, as well as advancing pedagogy within the disciplinBPCQ_v77n1_72ppiRGB_powerpoint.jpge. Simultaneously, I want to ensure that the clients who graciously allow my students to work with them have a great experience and receive worthwhile materials that they can actually use. I am not an instructor who is comfortable with the status quo— as a business school professor, I’m continually looking for ways to enhance student readiness for the workforce while improving students’ experiences in my courses. This impetus led to my systematic investigation into what ways client projects (CP) are currently being used across the business communication course, as well as the best practices in place to teach those types of projects. The survey data from other instructors pointed to a need for a model for teaching CP, which the article demonstrates.

I was first introduced to the CP concept in conversations with Gerry Winter, one of my mentors at Kent State. She explained how she had used the projects in the past, and also provided some advice on how to fit these types of projects within the framework of technical and business communication courses.

Regarding the findings for this project, one of the surprises to me was the differences between the actual problems instructors using CP face and the problems instructors not currently using CP fear. I hope that the article speaks to both of these audiences. In the future, we should continue to critically examine our pedagogical practices—it’s important to bring our knowledge of good research practices into the classroom to examine how we plan and deliver our courses, while continually assessing how to teach more effectively.

Stay up-to-date with the latest research and sign up for email alerts today!

 

Case In Point: A For-Profit Model for Social Entrepreneurship

Is it possible for social entrepreneurs to improve the lives of others and make a profit? For Sanergy, a startup dedicated to making hygienic sanitation accessible, affordable, and prosperous for those in developing countries, the answer seems to be yes.

The story of this startup— now an entrepreneurship venture seeded by grants from the likes of USAID, MIT, and Berkeley, to name a few—is covered in Sanergy: Using Social Entrepreneurship to Solve Emerging Market Problems, a case study from SAGE Business Cases. Using Sanergy as an example, case author Carole Carlson discusses the fundamentals of social entrepreneurship and how early stage entrepreneur ventures can evaluate expansion and new market opportunities.

connection.jpg

Delving further into these topics, we interviewed Professor Carlson for our inaugural post in the new Case In Point series. Drawn from our business case collection and containing insights from thought leaders in business and management, posts from this series will be published monthly. Read on to see Professor Carlson’s interview and check back next month for a new installment.

Carole Carlson is the MBA Program Director and a Senior Lecturer at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University.

  1. The case you wrote outlines an early stage, for-profit venture that addresses a real social need in a developing country. In your opinion, what are the top three takeaways for other budding entrepreneurs with a social mindset?

I think that the major takeaway is that it is possible for an entrepreneurial team to use out-of-the-box thinking to innovate and develop new ideas.

A second takeaway is that not all social problems need to be addressed by non-profit organizations.

Finally, at Sanergy, as in so many other places, entrepreneurial startups can be really challenging, and sustained focus and a committed high quality team are essential to success.

 

  1. How does the application of social entrepreneurship in the for-profit world differ from applications in the non-profit world? Have you seen a growth in for-profit social entrepreneurial ventures?

There are a number of differences, but perhaps the most important one is that for-profits and nonprofits usually access very different funding.  In short, they play in different capital markets.  And the best organizational approach typically depends on the organization’s business model and scaling ambitions.

  1. How does social impact measurement factor into social entrepreneurship?

In my view, measurement is essential.  Social entrepreneurs, whether working with for-profit or nonprofit organizations, are accountable to their stakeholders – and this requires transparent measurement of their results.  That said, fast-moving entrepreneurs also need to be pragmatic.  It would not make sense for a social venture, for example, to spend half of its resources measuring results.  The entrepreneurs need to focus on the most important indicators.

  1. How pervasive is the teaching of social entrepreneurship across your campus? What level of interest do you see from students?

We see a real groundswell of interest.  For example, this past semester we hosted the Heller Startup Challenge, which focused exclusively on mission-driven startups, and a regional competition for the Hult Prize.  Both graduate and undergraduate students are drawn to concepts where they can grow as entrepreneurs while making a difference in society.  The Heller MBA at Brandeis focuses squarely on students that want to explore their interest in social justice while receiving a rigorous business education.

Learn more by reading the full case study, Sanergy: Using Social Entrepreneurship to Solve Emerging Market Problems, 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.

 Follow SAGE Connection here on WordPress!

Small Family Firms: How Knowledge is Shared

One could imagine that every small family firm has their particular habits when knowledge sharing, especially when the success (or failure) of the business relies on effective communication.

A recent study published in Family Business Review analyzes the different leadership approaches to knowledge sharing, and we are pleased to welcome one of the authors, James Cunningham, who reflects on the foundation and findings of the research. The paper, entitled “Perceptions of Knowledge Sharing Amongst Small Family Firm Leaders–A Structural Equation Model,” is co-authored by Claire Seaman and David McGuire. From Cunningham:]

Family firms are known for the unique ways in which they view and run their business. This has led many to believe that firms with a family influence behave differeFBR_72ppiRGB_powerpoint.jpgntly to their non-family counterparts. While a lot of research focuses on the many implications of this difference for the economic impact family firms, in terms of strategi
c direction, longevity, etc., we were more curious to know how the influence of family impacts what it is like inside the firm.

In this respect, knowledge is increasingly becoming the most important internal resource for a competitive organisation in the contemporary business environment. Integrating and exploiting the knowledge of people in the business has become one of the key activities of the modern business leader. The impact of leadership on how the firm manages knowledge is long established in the broader management literature, but our instincts would tell us that family firms will have their own way of approaching and managing knowledge. In this article, we uncover the different leadership behaviours played out in small family firms and how these behaviours are related to the leader’s perception of knowledge sharing in the firm. Essentially, we ask the question, does family influence help or hinder the development of a knowledge resource?

Unsurprisingly, we found a variety of leadership behaviours employed by family firm leaders. We present a choice in how the family firm views its knowledge resource. We suggest that a greater level of family influence implies more guidance-based leadership when it comes to knowledge. Knowledge here is considered a quality the family leaders have, which must be ‘distilled’ to other organisational members. While, the alternative is a participative approach to knowledge in the firm, one more accepting of input from others, but with the potential to reduce family control.

This choice of leadership approach is important for family business leaders to consider, as there are important implications for the development of their knowledge resource. We see these findings as part of a research direction which moves away from viewing family firms as a homogenous group, subject to the overbearing influence of family. Instead, we present the behaviours inside these organisation as choices, and these choices at the most basic level represent the business intentions of family firm leaders.

Never miss new research published from FBR; sign up for email alerts through the journal homepage. 

CEO Characteristics That Influence A Firm’s Investing Strategy

[We’re pleased to welcome author Bruce C. Rudy of The University of Texas at San Antonio. He recently published an article in Business & Society entitled “The Chief Political Officer: CEO Characteristics and Firm Investment in Corporate Political Activity,” co-authored by Andrew F. Johnson. From Rudy:]

In setting outB&S_72ppiRGB_powerpoint.jpg to study what drives organizations to engage in corporate political activity (CPA), my coauthor (Andrew F. Johnson, Ph.D.) and I were struck by how little was known about the role that the firm’s leader played in this regard.  This was especially surprising considering that we have a well-researched theory on the influence of the firm’s leader on its strategic choices (i.e., Upper Echelons Theory).  When we combined the concepts underpinning CPA and Upper Echelons Theories, a number of novel ideas emerged and we knew we had the opportunity to make important contributions to both theories.  The data we collected supported many of these ideas.  We are thrilled that Business & Society has provided us the opportunity to share our research with you.

The full abstract to their article is below:

Research on corporate political activity has considered a number of antecedents to a firm’s engagement in politics. The majority of this research has focused on either industry or firm-level motivations that lead to corporate political activity, leaving the role of the firm’s leader noticeably absent in such scholarship. This article combines ideas from Upper Echelons Theory with research in corporate political activity to bridge this important gap. More specifically, this research utilizes CEO demographic characteristics to determine (a) whether a firm will invest in political activity and (b) how these characteristics influence the particular approach to political activity the firm undertakes. Considering 27 years of data from large U.S. firms, we find that a CEO’s age, tenure, functional, and educational backgrounds influence whether and how the firm invests in political activity.

Don’t miss new research–sign up for email alerts through the journal’s homepage.

A Space for Place in Business Communication Research

As technology allows more employees to have a “mobile” workplace, what happens to effective business communication overall? Should more businesses adopt an open-concept floor-plan to foster better collaboration?

Author Deborah Andrews of the University of Delaware addresses the emerging millennial habits of group collaboration and workplace design in her recently published article in the International Journal of Business Communication entitled “A Space for Place in Business Communication Research.” From Andrews:

I’m inspired a lot by things, by objects and spaces and what they can make happen. For ye2392869301_65bb870ab9_m.jpgars, too, I have focused my research and teaching on business communication. So when my university started talking about the new “integrated science and engineering” laboratory it was building to fosterinnovation and creativity through collaboration, I wondered: can a building do this? Curious, I looked at some other campuses and, sure enough, many such buildings were being constructed and promoted with similar rhetoric. Because it’s essentially a matter of communication, I was particularly interested in the many occurrences of collaboration in these statements about how the building would deliver on its promise. I saw that term invoked as well in real estate columns, the marketing reports of design consultancies, and popular business articles about new offices being created, for example, by Google, Facebook, and Amazon. I knew then that I had an enticing research project: matching the rhetoric of these new laboratories and offices to results on the ground.

It’s becoming a commonplace of material culture studies that objects create subjects, the things we live with make us the people we are, maybe even more than the other way around. But I’ve been surprised about the extent to which academic administrators, corporate CEOs, and entrepreneurs believe that the right arrangement of plan and furnishings in an office can foster the achievement of organizational goals.

Examining that fit between the rhetoric of the office or lab as a transformative space and results on the ground is an inviting area for communications research. As one anthropologist notes, we often overlook the things in our environment because they are “blindingly obvious.” We take them for granted. My International Journal of Business Communication article aims to encourage researchers to take another look at the physical environment of a 21st Century workplace as it relates to the communication needed to get work done there. We know that the environment shapes us. But can it shape us in desired ways? And how can we tell?

 

Don’t miss the latest research and sign up for email alerts today!
Office image attributed to Jesus Corrius (CC).