Ready, Set, Scholarship! How Athletes Weigh Their College Decisions

3013194880_4d3049b313_z.jpgIt’s no secret that high-performing high school athletes are offered college scholarships as a recruiting tactic, from sports varying from football, to swimming, to volleyball. With most every college student applying for and in need of financial aid, sometimes the scholarship stipend could secure a student’s acceptance, even if the school isn’t his or her top choice.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is now allocating even more financial aid to athletes since 2015, that covers more than just tuition, room, and board–it can now cover the cost of transportation and other university fees. A recent study in the Journal of Sports Economics  outlines these costs, and how athletes are positively swayed to accept the biggest scholarship offered. The article, “Full Cost-of-Attendance Scholarships and College Choice: Evidence From NCAA Football,” co-authored by John C. Bradbury and Joshua Pitts, is free to read for a limited time.

The abstract for their article is below:

In 2015, the National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I schools were permitted to cover the “full cost of attendance” as a part of athletic scholarships for the first time, which allowed schools to provide modest living stipends to its athletes. Differences in cost-of-attendance allotments across schools have the potential to affect the allocation of talent, with higher stipends attracting better student-athletes. Using recently published cost-of-attendance data, we estimate the impact of cost-of-attendance allowances on college football recruiting. Estimates reveal that cost-of-attendance scholarship allowances were positively associated with football recruiting quality immediately following their implementation, indicating that the modest differences in stipends swayed student-athletes’ college choice.

Sign up for email alerts through the JSE homepage

Football photo attributed to Jamie Williams (CC). 

Organization and Environment Seeks New Editor

study-4-993326-mOrganization & Environment invites applications for the position of Editor. The term of office is three years beginning January 1, 2017 with the March 2017 issue and ending December 31, 2019. The incoming editor will begin processing new manuscripts six months prior to the full transition date.

Published since 1987, Organization & Environment is an SSCI listed refereed journal recognized as a leading international journal unique in its emphasis on the connection between the management of organizations and the multiple dimensions of the general environment.

Desired qualifications for the Editor include:

  • A strong record of scholarly contributions, including contributions to sustainability research, reflected in publication in scholarly journals and presentations at professional conferences
  • oae coverEvidence of a strong network of scholars in other sub-disciplines of business
  • The ability to articulate and operationalize a vision for the journal that sustains and builds upon its visibility, legitimacy and scholarliness
  • The ability to inspire creativity and enthusiasm in an editorial team, editorial board and authors
  • Service on editorial review boards, preferably at the Associate Editor level and experience with editing Special Issues
  • Familiarity with and an understanding of Organization & Environment’s mission and audience
  • Superb organizational and project management skills, including the ability to meet deadlines and work as part of a team as a team leader
  • A level of computer literacy sufficient to manage a web-based manuscript submission and tracking system
  • Full professor rank at an accredited institution
  • Written evidence of institutional support and commitment from the applicant’s institution to support the applicant via release time and administrative support

Applications should include four items:

  1. A letter of application that addresses how the applicant meets each of the selection criteria
  2. A current curriculum vita
  3. A one-page vision statement for the journal
  4. A letter of institutional support from the applicant’s dean and/or provost reporting evidence of institutional support and commitment via release time and administrative support

Upon appointment, the editor will participate in a comprehensive virtual editorial orientation conducted by the publisher. A stipend is provided. Please note that it is the policy of the journal that the editor does not publish in Organization & Environment during his/her tenure.

The successful applicant will have an advanced degree in management/organizational studies and a working familiarity with sustainability research. Demonstrated experience with the editorial process (as editor, associate editor, or editorial board member) is preferred.

For more information please click here.

Want to know about all the latest news like this from Organization & Environment? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!

The American Economist is Now Accepting Submissions!

AEX_72ppiRGB_powerpointYou can now submit electronically to The American Economist through SAGE Track!

As an official publication of Omicron Delta Epsilon, The International Honor Society in Economics, The American Economist strives to contribute to the ongoing dialog and academic debates within the economics discipline by publishing original research and review articles from all fields and schools of economic thought. Published twice a year in the Spring and the Fall, the journal has honored academic achievement in economics for more than fifty years.

The American Economist specifically encourages submissions from young scholars and those who are teaching the next generation of economists, and will continue to publish papers from experienced and prominent economists whose influence has shaped the discipline.

Manuscript Guidelines

The paper should include five keywords and an abstract of about 100 words, which will be used on the web to describe the article. Articles that have already been published elsewhere cannot be considered. All submissions are single-blind reviewed. Articles regarding all areas of economics and its related fields are appropriate for submission. Submitted articles should not exceed twenty-five pages in length.

  1. A title page should include article’s title and the author’s name and affiliation. Address details should be brief, including telephone number and e-mail.
  2. The text of the article should include section headings (designated by Roman numerals—I, II, III. . .), and subsection headings (Arabic numbers—1,2,3. . .). References to sources should be in the following form: (Jones 2003, 12–16).
  3. Please do not use any footnotes, rather put all notes immediately following your article. Numbering should be done using the standard Arabic number system (1,2,3, etc.).
  4. Please do not use any handwritten or typed figures and equations. All equations should be computer generated, and alike in proportion. The authors are responsible for providing copies of their charts, graphs, and tables and have them numbered consecutively in the text in Arabic numerals and also provided on separate sheets.
  5. References should follow the Notes section at the end of the article.
  6. Bibliographic citations should follow ASA style guidelines.
  7. The American Economist holds the copyright to all its published articles.

You can submit now by clicking here!

Make sure to watch for more from The American Economist in 2016!

Compensation and Benefits Review is Now on SAGE Track!

CBR_42_1_72ppiRGB_powerpointYou can now submit to Compensation & Benefits Review electronically through SAGE Track!

Compensation & Benefits Review publishes scholarly empirical, theoretical and review articles focusing on rewards programs: compensation, benefits and related topics. Manuscripts suitable for publication in Compensation & Benefits Review include those that focus on rewards strategies; the impact of specific (or bundles of) rewards programs on employee, organizational and societal outcomes; environmental determinants of and pressures on rewards programs; and the alignment of rewards programs with other HRM programs. Manuscripts focusing on specific organizational populations (e.g., executives, sales personnel, professional employees, expatriates, unionized employees) are welcome. Rewards research can be based on multiple perspectives; manuscripts may be based on economic, psychological, sociological, finance and accounting, marketing, human resource management, legal, or other disciplinary perspectives.

Manuscript Guidelines

  • Manuscripts should not be under review at any other journal, nor should the author(s) submit the manuscript to any other journal while it is under review at Compensation & Benefits Review.
  • There is no specific manuscript page number limit. Acceptance decisions will be based on quality, not length.
  • If a manuscript is a follow-on study to a previously published article that should be noted at the time of submission. The author(s) should note (in a letter to the editor) how the current manuscript differs from the previously-published article.
  • Since Compensation & Benefits Review follows a double-blind review process author(s) must be careful to avoid revealing their identities in the manuscript in any way. This includes citation(s) of the author(s) previous work(s), where such citation(s) reveal the identity of the author of the submitted manuscript.
  • Manuscript submission guidelines may be found on the SAGE site.
  • CBR follows APA style; materials on APA style may be found at http://www.apastyle.org/.
  • Files should be submitted in Microsoft Word format. Manuscripts should be double-spaced with footnotes, references, tables and charts on separate pages. The abstract should be no more than 150 words. Three to five keywords should be provided. A short biographical paragraph including the author(s) current affiliation(s) and research interests is required.
  • Lead author(s) should include email, mailing address and telephone number in their cover letter.

Click here to submit your manuscript to Compensation & Benefits Review!

Want to know about all the latest research and news from Compensation & Benefits Review? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!

Read Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies November Issue!

JLOS_72ppiRGB_powerpointThe November 2015 issue of Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies is now available to read for free for the next 30 days! In addition to regular issue articles, this edition includes a section with Midwest Academy of Management Special Issue Articles. Articles include interviews with Fred Luthans and Andrew H. Van de Ven as well as papers by Charles C. Snow, Mark J. Martinko, and recent SAGE book author Terri A. Scandura.

The lead article entitled “Alpha and Omega: When Bullies Run in Packs” was authored by Patricia A. Meglich of University of Nebraska at Omaha and Andra Gumbus of Sacred Heart University. You can read the abstract here:

While workplace bullying often involves multiple perpetrators, limited research has investigated this important aspect of the phenomenon. In the present study, we explored the perceived severity and comparison of actual behaviors experienced when different perpetrators attack the target. Survey results showed that bullying by one’s supervisor is perceived to be more severe than bullying by a group of coworkers and that coworkers are more likely to bully when the supervisor bullies. When working as a group, bullies focus their attack on the target’s personal life rather than on his or her work life. Implications for research and practice are provided.

Click here to access the Table of Contents of the November Issue of Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. Want to know about all the latest from Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!

Transformative Service Research: A Multidisciplinary Perspective on Service and Well-being

Republished with permission. The original post was published on the Center for Services Leadership blog.

***

Interview with Laurel Anderson and Amy Ostrom, Editors of the Special Issue of Journal of Service Research, Transformative Service Research: A Multidisciplinary Perspective on Service and Well-being

02JSR13_Covers.inddIn August of this year Journal Service Research published a highly anticipated special issue on Transformative Service Research, a Multidisciplinary Perspective on Service and Well-being. The entire issue will be available free of charge till November 2015 and can be downloaded from the journal’s website. We’re very excited to feature the special issue in this podcast and on our blog, where we’ll be sharing posts by the authors of the three finalists for Best Paper Award.

Darima Fotheringham: Today I’m talking to the guest co-editors of the special issue, Professors Laurie Anderson and Amy Ostrom from Arizona State University. Professor Anderson, Professor Ostrom, thank you for talking to us today.

Laurel Anderson, Amy Ostrom: Thank you, it’s good to be here.

Darima Fotheringham: As you mentioned in the editorial, Transformative Service Research is a fairly new research area that’s been gaining momentum. For those who are not familiar with the term, can you start by defining Transformative Service Research, or TSR, and explain why it is receiving so much attention and interest in the research community today?

Laurel Anderson: We define TSR, Transformative Service Research, as focusing on services and well-being, and in particular, as research that has to do with creating uplifting changes. And one of the key things about the definition is that we look not at just individuals but also at collectives like family or communities, ecosystems, society. These aspects are some of the things we found in the papers that came in that were different from a lot of the research in service.

Darima Fotheringham: And going back to the second part of the question, why do you think there is so much interest from the research community in this particular topic?

Amy Ostrom: There’s always been some interest in studying well-being issues in general, but I think we’ve seen an increase interest in the last five or six years. Some of it, likely due to discussions about what should research priorities be in the service field. And as part of some research priority setting efforts, this idea of studying service and well-being really came to the forefront. We’ve seen really a community of service researchers form, who really want to better understand this connection between service and well-being. And as that community has grown, we’ve seen more and more special sessions at conferences, research projects at a significant nature getting started, and it’s really been very exciting to see.

Darima Fotheringham: The TSR special issue includes ten very diverse articles. They’re from around the world and cover different industries, discuss different cultures. In the editorial you identified three big themes. Can you talk a bit about those themes and share a couple of examples that would illustrate some of the new interesting concepts that the readers can take away?

Laurel Anderson: We were just really excited to see the diversity of the papers that came in. That’s part of what we wanted to accomplish also, to indicate how broad this field is both in method, and cultures, and content, and theories conceptually. So the three themes that we found arising from the data were ones that we thought were innovative, and provocative, and had a lot of heft to them. For example one is the de-struction of value. We always talk about the co-creation of it, creation of value, but haven’t really given time to look as much at some of the destruction of value. That is a really interesting topic. And as the papers in this area point out, sometimes it is unintentional, sometimes it’s unknowingly destructive, and sometimes it’s intended.

So for example, the article, the lead paper, which was the award winning article by Per Skålén, Kotaiba Abdul Aal, and Bo Edvardsson, looks at what they call strategic action fields. It looks at the incumbents in that field and it looks at challengers in this service area. This is amazing data because it looks at Syria and how the regime, as incumbents, took away services to many of the population. Then how that population reacted and created new services under the constraints that they had. So the destruction was an important part. That one is a very vivid, kind of unusual example. But sometimes it is also more everyday kinds of things, like chronic illness, where people really don’t want to be in a service. They’d rather not be participating in the service. There are a lot of negative aspects to the chronic part. We want to make sure that we’re looking at some of the negative aspects of services so that we can deal with those, which I think is really important.

Amy Ostrom:  One of the other themes that we highlighted involved co-production or co-creation, which are really looking at the roles and activities that consumers play as part of service. And while questions around co-production and co-creation have been the focus of a lot of research, not much of that work has really looked at well-being. We definitely had some articles where that was the focus, trying to understand how the activities and roles that consumers took as part of the service, how that ultimately impacted their well-being.

So for example, one of the papers authored by Jillian C. Sweeney, Tracey S. Danaher, and Janet R. McColl-Kennedy looked at what they call ‘effort in value co-creation activities.’ So really looking at how much effort consumers, in this case patients who are dealing with chronic illness, what kind of activities are they taking on? The whole idea behind their work was this notion that some of these activities or the roles are actually more effortful than others, and that patients or these individuals dealing with chronic illness will take on the easy activities first and then progress to the more effortful activities. So they were able to really look at the nature of these activities, things that they’re doing for themselves, things that they’re doing related to other people. What’s really fascinating is that they were able to look at the effort that these individuals were expending in terms of these various activities and relate that to things like quality of life. It really highlights, spotlights, how consumers and roles they’re taking on, the activities they are engaging in part of a service, really can impact their well-being.

Laurel Anderson:  We’ve looked at providers before to some extent, and the production, the co-creation, but not emphasized consumers and their well-being as much.

Amy Ostrom: It’s kind of exciting that we’re actually starting to see some research where we’re looking at more innovative measures. Oftentimes some of the research involves more perceptual measures. We are seeing that researchers are starting to use actual behavior measures or maybe more objective measures to really understand the nature of well-being, changes that are happening. So for example Martin Mende and Jenny van Doorn look at co-production in the context of consumers participating in debt management programs, and they look at, over time, the impact of consumers who are in those programs—their co-production and its impact on an objective measure, a change in credit scores, as well as things like increased stress perceptions. So we’re really seeing some interesting relationships between, again, how people are co-producing or their role within the organization and their level of well-being.

Darima Fotheringham: In your editorial you also identified specific areas within TSR that required further research. Can you talk about these areas and share examples of research questions that you personally find especially important or intriguing?

Amy Ostrom: One of the areas that we continue to talk about, and I know that others are really devoted to studying it as well, is what’s called Base of the Pyramid, or studying individuals, really billions of people in the world who are living under a few dollars a day. And a lot of the research that’s done in service work and just academic work in general in any area doesn’t tend to pay attention to individuals living in those particular types of circumstances. So there’s much to learn about consumers living in those situations, and a lot to learn from them, and the creativity that’s demonstrated in individuals that are living in what we refer to as the Base of the Pyramid.

Laurel Anderson: Another area, that we believe is very important, has to do with stress, being really cognizant of stress and the impact of stress on consumers. One of the other methods or approaches that we also feel is very important is an interdisciplinary approach where we’re bringing in knowledge from maybe the biological sciences, neurology, some of the other fields like nursing, or medicine, or law. One of the areas where there’s just fascinating research on stress has to do with the impact of stress on the body of a person. We’ve known for quite a while that stress impacts the well-being of a person, but there’s some very interesting research now that looks at the impact of stress on the body and then on how it’s passed on to the next generation—I think it just emphasizes the importance of well-being for the consumers that are participating in services and incorporating some of the interdisciplinary research that’s out there on the impacts of stress. So it’s a very fruitful and important area to pursue.

Amy Ostrom: The other area that we talk quite a bit about that’s not too surprising is the impact that technology is having in services that are based on technology and the relationship with well-being. And in this day where so much of our behavior can be tracked and monitored, issues around what that means for privacy and service settings and potential harm that can come from that. The fact that service providers now can know information about us and be continually tracking our behavior, the potential that raises for all sorts of potentially harmful well-being aspects, but at the same time a lot of benefits, when you think about monitoring and health related aspects, that can be really empowering for consumers to be able to live their lives knowing that the service provider, a doctor, is able to know at any time if there are any issue. But it does change the nature of the dynamic.

Laurel Anderson: It does, and it raises something we found throughout, which is trade-offs. There are trade-offs in some benefits to well-being and the negative aspects of, for example, technology and monitoring. Those are really important aspects to talk about and to research too. In addition, as far as trade-offs are concerned, sometimes there are trade-offs between the well-being of one group and the well-being of another group. And who decides then which is going to be prioritized in their well-being? So there are some really complex questions around well-being and trade-offs that we saw coming out of some of the research.

Amy Ostrom: I think it highlights the need to look broader than just the dyad, the trade-offs at community levels and service system levels. It is the key to why we have to look at the broader picture than often times we tend to do. It’s hard research to do, and very difficult, but very important given the nature of these kinds of interaction trade-offs that are effecting so many of us on a daily level.

Darima Fotheringham: You conclude the editorial by recommending specific actions that can help TSR make a real impact on society. The call to action is mostly directed to the research community, but as you mentioned we can all benefit from data in the field. Is there anything as consumers, as customers, or as individuals can do to support this research?

Laurel Anderson: I think that one of the areas that is challenging with regards to consumers themselves and well-being is a trend that we’re seeing that’s called responsibilization. What that means is that services, and governments, and policy are putting more responsibility for wellbeing onto the consumers. And it demands a high level of literacy on the part of the consumer, and so for example health—consumers have to know so much more now about the health, and their bodies, and the medical field because the responsibility is being put more on them than in the past. So as far as consumers are concerned that’s one of the issues as far as trade-offs. Yes, more of the choices on the consumers parts, but also more of the responsibility and decision making, maybe without some of the expertise to be able to do that. So things like literacy, having the time to do that, the resources and capacity I think are real challenges for consumers to manage. And if you have to do that in all the different areas of service, from health to legal to financial, it’s a lot to expect of consumers.

Darima Fotheringham: It’s very taxing.

Laurel Anderson: Right.

Amy Ostrom: When I think about what consumers can do, from the research perspective, what I hope is that the consumer would be willing to participate in some of the research that we and academic research, really globally, are interested in doing. The type of work that we do and the questions that we’re trying to answer really require partnerships with consumers to understand how the services they’re using day and day out are in fact impacting their well-being. Whether it’s healthcare, financial services, it requires that kind of participation. So I hope going forward that people will be willing to participate in research and share their thoughts, as I hope that organizations, individuals who work with consumers in different service settings are willing to collaborate with researchers. A lot of the research questions really require partnering with organizations, and one of the real goals of Transformative Service Research is to have impact—to actually improve the lives of consumers, and the only way that happens is really through organizations, companies who are basically effecting consumers day and day out—Learning what can positively impact well-being and doing more of those things, and learning what reduces well-being and stopping doing those things. And it’s those kind of partnerships that are actually going to lead to the impact that we’d want to see in the community and individuals.

Laurel Anderson: And I think it’s so important to listen to the customers in whatever service they’re in—the voice of the consumer. And it’s interesting because when we don’t, now consumers are creating their own research. There are communities of consumers that are doing research on topics that they think are important and that aren’t being followed up on by researchers. For example, a site called Patients Like Me where they’re monitoring themselves, and doing research, and finding significant results because the questions weren’t being addressed. So I think it’s really important to not just look at things from our research point of view, but to be listening to the consumer and to be incorporating those aspects that are frontline to them into our research too.

Darima Fotheringham: Great, thank you so much. We were talking to the editors of a JSR special issue on Transformative Service Research, a Multidisciplinary Perspective on Service and Well-being. You can find the entire issue, including the editorial we talked about on the website. Professor Anderson, Professor Ostrom, thank you for talking to me today.

Laurel Anderson, Amy Ostrom: Thank you, Darima


????????????????????????????????????

Laurel Anderson is Associate Professor of Marketing at Arizona State University. She has degrees in both marketing and community health. She is deeply involved with development of Transformative Service Research (TSR).  In particular, she focuses on creativity and innovation, going between cultural worlds, health well-being, challenges and strengths related to poverty, culture and immigration and services as social structures. Previously, she was Director of the Institute for International Management at Arizona State University. Prior to academics, she developed community health programs focused on children and families, including a crisis intervention center for children.

Ostrom-Amy (Small) 2015

Amy L. Ostrom is the PetSmart Chair in Service Leadership Professor in Services Leadership, Chair and Professor of Marketing at the W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University. She received her Ph.D. from Northwestern University. Her research focuses on issues related to services marketing including customers’ evaluation and adoption of services, customers’ roles in creating service outcomes, and transformative service. Ostrom, who was selected as the 2004 Arizona Professor of the Year and the 2007 ASU Parents Association Professor of the Year, has supervised numerous undergraduate Honors theses. She has shared the service blueprinting technique with small start-ups to Fortune 500 companies to help improve their service processes and develop new service offerings.

Congratulations to Group and Organization Management’s Outstanding Reviewers!

GOM 39(6)_Covers.inddWe’re pleased to congratulate Andrew D. Brown, Devaki Rau, Chris Robert and Li-Yun Sun, winners of Group and Organization Managements Outstanding Reviewer Award for 2015! The winners kindly provided us with some information on their backgrounds:

Andrew Brown Photo 2012Andrew D. Brown is Professor of Organization Studies at the University of Bath. He has previously held faculty positions at the universities of Manchester, Nottingham, Cambridge and Warwick. His primary research interests centre on issues of identity, sensemaking, narrative, and power, and his work has been published in journals including Academy of Management Review, Organization Studies, Journal of Management Studies, and Human Relations. He currently serves on the editorial boards of Group and Organization Management, Human Relations, Journal of Management Studies, and Organization, and is a Senior Editor of Organization Studies.

WIN_20131024_215951 (2)Devaki Rau is an Associate Professor in the Department of Management at Northern Illinois University. Her research interests include strategic decision making, top management teams, and organizational learning. Her research has been published in journals such as the Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Management, Journal of Applied Psychology, Small Group Research, and Group and Organizational Management. She earned her Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota.

Robert ChrisChris Robert received his PhD in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and is currently an Associate Professor of Management in the Trulaske College of Business at the University of Missouri-Columbia. His research has involved cross-cultural management issues, groups and teams, and conflict and negotiation, though his most recent research has examined the role of humor in the workplace. His research has appeared in journals such as Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Journal of Management, Human Relations, Group and Organization Management, Journal of Business and Psychology, and Personnel Psychology.

SunLi-Yun Sun is a professor of Management at school of Business, Macau University of Science and Technology. He received his Ph.D. in management from Hong Kong Baptist University. His research work appears in such journals as Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Leadership Quarterly, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Asia Pacific Journal of Management and others. He was one of winners of Outstanding Reviewer Award of Academy of Management meeting (2015, OB section). In recent years he reviewed for multiple journals including Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Human Relations, Human Resource Management, and Academy of Management Journal (special issue). He also reviews for annual Academy of Management meeting and bi-annual meeting of International Association for Chinese Management Research.

In honor of this award, you can read the October issue of Group and Organization Management free for the entire month of October! Click here to view the Table of Contents. Want to know about all the latest news and research from Group and Organization Management? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!