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!

Psychological Science Seeking Preregistered Replications

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

keys-2114366_640_opt

Making a statement in the ongoing “replication” or “reproducibility crisis,” the journal Psychological Science will now accept a special class of research–based papers that report on attempts to re-create experiments that had influential findings and that were first published in Psychological Science.
This new category of “preregistered direct replications,” or PDRs, aims “to create conditions that experts agree test the same hypotheses in essentially the same way as the original study,” explained D. Stephen Lindsay, a cognitive psychologist at the University of Victoria and editor of Psychological Science.

That psychology in particular is in need of a replication tonic has been widely accepted. “To me,” Jim Grange, a senior lecturer in psychology at Keele University, wrote last year, “it is clear that there is a reproducibility crisis in psychological science, and across all sciences. Murmurings of low reproducibility began in 2011 – the ‘year of horrors’ for psychology – with a high profile fraud case. But since then, The Open Science Collaboration has published the findings of a large-scale effort to closely replicate 100 studies in psychology. Only 36 percent of them could be replicated.”

Under the PDR description, the ‘direct’ part of the replication rubric refers to sticking to the original methodology as closely as possible. “It is impossible to conduct a study twice in exactly the same way,” Lindsay said in a letter announcing the PDRs, “and doing so would not always be desirable (e.g., often it would be better to test a larger number of subjects than in the original study; if the original study included some problematic items or unclear instructions, it is probably best to correct those shortcomings; if the original and replication studies were conducted in different cultural contexts then it may be appropriate to change surface-level aspects of the procedure).”

It is expected, Lindsay said, that the author of the target piece will be invited to provide a review of the replication, along with at least two independent experts. And in keeping with the ‘preregistered’ aspect of the PDR, researchers are asked to submit proposals for review before data collection begins. “A virtue of pre-data-collection submissions is that decisions about scientific merit are independent of how the results come out,” he said. “Another advantage is that reviewers and the editor have an opportunity to improve a study before it is conducted. We may therefore at some point in the future require that PDRs be submitted as proposals prior to data collection.  But for now we will also consider PDRs that have already been conducted if they were preregistered.” And in keeping with an earlier announcement also focused on transparency, Lindsay said would-be authors are asked to provide the data they use in their published analysis to reviewers.

Lindsay made clear that while the replication needed to leverage an article that originally appeared in Psychological Science, merely having appeared there was not sufficient for a PDR. “The primary criterion is general theoretical significance,” he emphasized.

Still, he said, the journal – which takes its lumps from some observers like Andrew Gelman – has a responsibility to not turn its back on what it’s published. “One of the motivations for adding PDRs is the belief that a journal is responsible for the works it publishes (as per Sanjay Srivastava’s ‘Pottery Barn rule’ blog post). That said,” he continued, “our goal is not to publish ‘gotchas!’ Rather, inviting PDRs is one of many steps taken to increase the extent to which this journal contributes to efforts to make psychology a more cumulative science.”

Regardless with whether a replication confirms or question the original findings, the outcomes from the PDRs will be “valuable and informative.” He cited a 2009 column by then Association for Psychological Science President Walter Mischel which noted “replications sometimes yield more nuanced results that spark new hypotheses and contribute to the elaboration of psychological theories.”

The PDRs will launch with a replication of a 2008 an fMRI study Psychological Science published in 2008, said journal editor Steve Lindsay. That original study, conducted by William A. Cunningham, Jay J. Van Bavel and Ingrid R. Johnsen, detailed evidence that processing goals can modulate activity in the amygdala, a part of the brain that influences memory, emotions and decision-making. The new article explains how the University of Denver’s Kateri McRae and the University of California, Los Angeles’ Daniel Lumian conducted a high-powered replication of that experiment — in consultation with Cunningham and Van Bavel – and in the process replicated the original’s central finding.

“This article,” said Lindsay, “is a fine model of a preregistered direct replication,” in part because of its greater statistical power and multiple converging analyses compared to the original.

Lindsay said PDRs are not the same as the registered replication reports that have appeared in the sister journal, Perspectives on Psychological Science, and which along with other multi-lab empirical papers will appear in the new journal, Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science.

How Do Individuals Judge Organizational Legitimacy?

[We’re pleased to welcome author Melanie Eichhorn of the ESCP Europe Business School. Eichhorn recently published an article in Business and Society entitled “How Do Individuals Judge Organizational Legitimacy? Effects of Attributed Motives and Credibility on Organizational Legitimacy,” which is currently free to read for a limited time. Below, Eichhorn reflects on the inspiration for conducting this research:

 

BAS_v50_72ppiRGB_powerpointWhat motivated you to pursue this research?

Almost all of the leading scholars in the field of organizational legitimacy perpetually emphasize the need for empirical studies that investigate how individuals judge whether or not organizations are legitimate, i.e. whether they are perceived to comply with social norms and values. The current lack of such studies creates an unpleasant situation. Our knowledge about what goes on in our minds when judging the legitimacy of corporate behavior basically rests on theoretical models. To close this gap there is hardly a way around insights from social psychology research. Social psychological reasoning does not only allow comprehending cognitive processes of individuals but also demonstrates how individuals influence institutions.

At the end of the day it was the match between the given research gap and our interest in psychological research that motivated us to work on this project.

In what ways is your research innovative, and how do you think it will impact the field?

The belief-attitude approach applied in our study explains that collective and individual judgments are not necessarily congruent and that two individual beliefs—attributed motives and the perceived credibility of the organization—lead to a change in individuals’ legitimacy judgment.

Being cautiously optimistic we hope that our study will be only one out of many future studies that experimentally investigate individual legitimacy judgements in organizational research. Experimental vignette studies are a promising data collection technique because they combine the advantages of a laboratory experiment—high internal validity—with those of a field experiment—high external validity. Currently such studies are quite rare in business and society research. Hence, our study hopefully promotes the use of experiments in studies dealing with such issues. Thereby, legitimacy is only one out of many fascinating objects of research.

What is the most important/ influential piece of scholarship you’ve read in the last year?

We would like to seize this opportunity and highlight a recently published article by Finch et al. (2015). For our research area we regard this study as important. It deals with individual legitimacy judgements in regard to the oil sands industry in Canada. Even so the study was overlooked by recent reviews—we deem it the most promising approach to further explore how people judge organizational legitimacy.

The key element of their study is the definition of legitimacy as an attitude. This allows for applying an abundance of scholarly work from decades of social psychology research to the investigation of individual legitimacy judgments. These various existing insights on attitude formation and attitude change as well as those on belief building and belief adjustment provide several fruitful avenues for future research.

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

New Articles from California Management Review

 

CMRmasthead.jpg

Newly published research from California Management Review is now online! We invite you to view all of the Online First articles for CMR by clicking here, that hosts articles covering a variety of topics such as corporate misconduct, competitive strategy, and  benefits of minority stake strategies.

One article in particular, “Strategizing with Biases: Making Better Decisions Using the Mindspace Approach,” co-authored by Chengwei Liu, Ivo Vlaev, Christina Fang,
Jerker Denrell, and Nick Chater focuses on Mindspace when it is applied to strategic decision making. The complete abstract for the article is below:

This article introduces strategists to the Mindspace framework and explores its applications in strategic contexts. This framework consists of nine effective behavioral interventions that are grounded in public policy applications, and it focuses on how changing the context can be more effective than attempts to de-bias decision makers. Behavioral changes are likely when we follow rather than fight human nature. Better decisions can be achieved by engineering choice contexts to “engage a bias” to overcome a more damaging bias. This article illustrates how to engineer strategic contexts through two case studies and outlines directions and challenges when applying Mindspace to strategic decisions.

Visit the journal homepage and sign up for email alerts so you never miss the latest articles!

 

 

Strategies for coping with rejection in work-related circumstances

23391316560_d5a8565059_z.jpgCareer-related rejection is inevitable, since everyone faces this reality at some point in in his or her life. Your idea for approaching project management could be rejected, you could be passed up on a desired promotion, or you could simply not be offered that dream job you’ve wanted since high school.

In a recent paper published in the Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, author Nancy Day of the University of Missouri illustrates how rejection affects faculty members and how it affect their publication performance. This rejection also proves to affect their interpersonal relationships, and Day aims to analyze the negative strains more in-depth. The paper, co-authored by Tracy Porter of Cleveland State University, is entitled “Lacerations of the Soul: Rejection-Sensitive Business School Faculty and Perceived Publication Performance,” is currently free to read for a limited time. Below, Day describes her motivation to pursue this research:

I initially had the idea for this research from an essay I published in the Academy of Management Learning and Education journal. A couple of its reviewers mentioned that there was no research showing that academic researchers are negatively affected by rejection sensitivity, and their comments intrigued me. So I decided I would conduct the first research attempting to answer the question.

My hope in writing the essay and in this study is to stimulate university research administrators and to “normalize” rejections and consider its effects on faculty affect and performance. In my experience, it’s the “elephant in the room” that everyone wrestles with but few talk about.

Sign up for email alerts through the homepage so you never miss the latest research from JLOS!

Rejection word block attributed to Topher McCulloch (CC).

Do Groups Make Better Decisions than Individuals?

Group projects are everywhere–whether you’re at school, at work, or even in your household. It’s customary to listen to each member of the group, and what he/she has to say about a strategy for approaching the project, or ways to improve the process in the future. Often,MTR_72ppiRGB_powerpoint.jpg the ideas are compounded and morphed into a strategy that the group can agree on, but does that mean someone would choose not to offer an idea if it’s a different perspective than the “norm”?

A recent study in Management Teaching Review focuses on group decision making and how groups are more likely to accept a decision as “the best” when group members conform to social norms. Authors C. Melissa Fender and Lisa T. Stickney present the data for us in their article, “When Two Heads Aren’t Better Than One: Conformity in a Group Activity.” The article is currently free to read for a limited time; click here to view the full text.
The abstract for the article is below:

Group and team class decision-making activities often focus on demonstrating that “two heads are better than one.” Typically, students solve a problem or complete an assessment individually, then in a group. Generally, the group does better and that is what the students learn. However, if that is all such an activity conveys, then a significant teachable moment has been missed. It is often the case that a group member has one or more correct answers that the group did not use, or perhaps even outscores the group. The simple activity described here provides an opportunity to discuss a number of reasons that can cause such conformity to happen, integrating several areas of human psychology and behavior, and then segue into techniques to prevent it.

Click here to sign up for email alerts so you never miss the latest research from Management Teaching Review.

Time for Some Course Corrections in Organizations

Blake Ashforth

 

[We’re pleased to welcome Blake Ashforth of Arizona State University, Tempe. Blake recently published an article entitled “Exploring Identity and Identification in Organizations: Time for Some Course Corrections,” published in Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. From Blake:]

  • What inspired you to be interested in this topic?

When individuals identify with their occupations and organizations, good things generally happen. They tend to perform more effectively, make decisions with the organization’s best interests in mind, and are better organizational citizens. However, after hundreds of studies on identity and identification in the workplace, I think it’s time for some course corrections. Specifically, I argue that we’ve drifted away from the core aspect of identification – that is, the definition of oneself in terms of a target – treating identification as just another attitudinal variable; that the most important target of identification is not the organization per se, but the occupation, relationships, and groups or teams; that there is an important dark side to identification; and that we need to consider perspectives of identity beyond social identity theory/self-categorization theory.

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

Identity and identification have been vital concepts in organizational studies for decades. My hope is that these “course corrections” will help keep these concepts as vital and generative in the future as they have been in the past.

 


An excerpt from the article:

JLO

Identity and identification remain very popular constructs for organizational scholars, regularly generating a bounty of provocative research. To help maintain the generativity of these root constructs, I suggest four “course corrections” for our explorations, namely, focusing more on (1) the core aspect of identification, that is, the definition of self in terms of a target; (2) other targets of identification aside from the organization; (3) the dark side of identification; and (4) perspectives of identity beyond social identity theory/self-categorization theory.

You can read the article “Exploring Identity and Identification in Organizations: Time for Some Course Corrections” from the Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies free for the next two weeks by clicking here.

Want to stay up to date with all of the latest research from the Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesClick here to sign up for e-alerts! You can also check out the latest podcasts from the Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies by clicking here!