Macro-Social Marketing and Gun Violence in America

gun-1218708_1920 (1)

Traditionally marketing has focused on how to change individual’s behavior in order to buy a product. What media strategies can increase sales, and how to associate values with products? With the advent of the social marketing fields, analysis focused on how conventional marketing tools could be used to change behavior to improve one’s well being and address social problems. While there is a wealth of literature that looks at how government agencies can utilize marketing tools to effect individuals engaged in certain behavior, there has been little research on how NGO’s utilize the same tools to alter behavior and invoke policy changes.

Researchers and Authors Aimee Dinnin Huff, Michelle Barnhart, Brandon McAlexander, and Jim McAlexander perform a pertinent expansion of this field by  looking at how American Gun Violence Prevention groups (GVPGS) act as macro-social marketers.

They recently published in article in the Journal of Macromarketing entitled, “Addressing the Wicked Problem of American Gun Violence: Consumer Interest Groups as Macro-social Marketers,” which is free to read for a limited time. The abstract for the article is below:

Building on work on social and macro-social marketing, we provide an empirical account of ways in which American gun violence prevention groups (GVPGs) act as macro-social marketers as they address the wicked problem of gun violence, which they define as deaths and injuries with firearms. We find that, as a collective, GVPGs attempt to change the culture related to guns by targeting up-, mid-, and downstream agents. We contribute to theory by (1) expanding the concept of macro- social marketing beyond government entities to include consumer interest groups and collectives; (2) introducing internal marketing as a macro-social marketing tool critical for macro-social marketers dependent largely on volunteers; (3) elucidating ways that macro-social marketers can accomplish upstream changes indirectly, by encouraging consumers and citizens to influence policy makers; and (4) revealing marketing tactics that can be leveraged across up-, mid-, downstream, and internal efforts.

JMMK_new C1 template.indd

For more updates check out the journal website and sign up for notifications!

The Evolution and Prospects of Service-Dominant Logic Research

[We’re pleased to welcome author Dr. Ralf Wilden of Newcastle Business School, University of Newcastle, Australia. Dr. Wilden recently published an article in the Journal of Service Research entitled “The Evolution and Prospects of Service-dominant Logic Research: An Investigation of Past, Present, and Future Research,” which is currently free to read for a limited time.” Below, Dr. Wilden reflects on the inspiration for conducting this research:]

02JSR13_Covers.inddService innovation is a driving force of economic growth in developed economies. Large corporations, such as BMW and IBM, increasingly define their business as service centric. For example, the BMW Group has moved away from defining their value proposition being focused on cars and motorcycles to positioning themselves as a mobility provider, thus moving away from a product-centered to service-centered narrative. The ‘servitization’ of traditional business models converges with a growing academic discourse around the emergence and evolution of the so-called ‘service-dominant logic’. Ongoing studies in this area explore the value of service in dynamic exchange systems and how managers are responding to or guided by ideas that 1) service forms the basis of all economic exchange, 2) value is always co-created between relevant actors, and 3) so-called operant resources are central to value co-creation.

In a recent study in the Journal of Service Research, an international team of researchers studied existing research to uncover core concepts and thematic shifts in the development of new knowledge in this field. More specifically, they studied how service-dominant logic advances the understanding of how value is created and service is innovated in dynamic service ecosystems. Based on a citation analyses and text mining of more than 300 key articles, the authors identify how service-dominant logic bridges traditional service research (e.g., regarding satisfaction, quality and customer experiences) with strategic and systems views. However, looking at the evolution of service-dominant logic research over time, it appears focus on strategic research has waned. Thus, the authors argue future studies should draw on several specific research areas to develop frameworks to aid managers in strategically thinking about service design and innovation.

The results from this study verify service-dominant logic is highly influential in areas such as customer engagement and value cocreation. An underlying shift towards social and systemic perspectives is also evident. However, many valuable insights emerging from the wealth of relevant studies have not yet impacted research regarding managerial decision-making and strategy development on a large scale. Furthermore, the authors identify the need to develop a stronger understanding of the way service-dominant logic can be used to inform how managerial actions and social and cultural practices influence and are influenced by a wider service ecosystem. For example, Ralf Wilden says “the way organizations engage in innovation-related activities has changed from a firm-centric model to a model that stresses the importance of knowledge in-flows and out-flows across organizational boundaries.” He adds, “despite the commonly accepted importance of services in value creation activities our knowledge about the role of open innovation in service ecosystems is limited.” The authors further stress that service thinking has benefited from interdisciplinary research in the past. Moving forward, combining service-dominant research with organizational strategy insights in the area of open innovation, dynamic capabilities and microfoundations, together with social, cultural and systems theories, can lead to developing new knowledge regarding service and drive continual improvement in service design and innovation.

Visit the journal homepage to sign up for email alerts!

Call for Papers: The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science


JABS.jpg

The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science is currently receiving manuscripts through this manuscript submission portal.

With diverse audiences in mind, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences publishes a variety of material designed to help individuals and organizations promote positive, successful change. The specific goals of the journal are to:

  • Present a range of conceptual frameworks that explain, predict, and illuminate the implications of action
  • Describe social inventions, intervention techniques, consultation activities, emergent innovations, and educational practices
  • Employ the full range of social science
  • Examine underlying values, assumptions, biases, and beliefs associated with various forms of change

Do you have a manuscript that best fits the aims & scope of JABS? Click here to view the full submission guidelines and submit your manuscript today!

Don’t forget to visit the journal homepage to sign up for email alerts so you are up-to-date with the latest published research.

 

Journal of Management Inquiry: Corruption Special Issue

JMI_72ppiRGB_powerpoint.jpgThe July 2017 Special Issue of the Journal of Management Inquiry is now online to view! This issue focuses on the phenomenon of corporate corruption, with specific topics such as counterproductive behavior, corporate culture and ethics, and media framing. Below is an excerpt from the special issue introduction entitled “Expanding Research on Corporate Corruption, Management, and Organizations,” from authors Stelios Zyglidopoulos, Paul Hirsch, Pablo Martin de Holan, and Nelson Phillips:

Corruption is a major problem in much of the world. It often prevents economic development, causes inefficiency and unfairness in the distribution of resources, can be the underlying factor behind corporate failures and industry crises, can erode the social fabric of societies, and can have other major negative impacts in the well-being of individuals and societies….But, before we proceed to discuss the topic of corruption research, we should address the issue of what corruption is and note its complexity. Transparency International (2017) defines corruption as “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.” Similarly, Ashforth, Gioia, Robinson, and Treviño (2008) define corruption as “the illicit use of one’s position of power for perceived personal or collective gain” (p. 671). We believe we should enrich and expand this definition by differentiating between first- and second-order corruption….In this special issue, our purpose is not only to renew and extend the research agenda around corporate corruption, so that we can contribute toward a more sophisticated and complex understanding, but also to facilitate communication between different researchers.

Visit the JMI homepage to sign up for email alerts today!

Call for Papers: Business & Society’s Special Issues

BAS_call

Business & Society is currently accepting manuscripts for two special issues.

Please click here for details on how to submit to “Modern slavery in business.”

Please click here for details on how to submit to “Corporations, capitalism and society.”

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

Leaders as Heroes: Can They Liberate Themselves?

[We’re pleased to welcome author Gerardo D. Abreu Pederzini of the University of  Bath, UK. Pederzini recently published an article in the Journal of Management Inquiry entitled “Leaders, Power and the Paradoxical Position: Fantasies for Leaders’ Liberation. Below, Pederzini reflects on the inspiration for conducting this research:]

3042794481_1300140a3c_z.jpgOur world of illusions, sooner or later crumbles in front us. The dreams and fantasies that move us are doomed to show their true colors at some point or another. And, within those fantasies, that of the paternalistic leader is perhaps the most powerful. Since the times of the Romance of Leadership, we have known that people love a good hero story. Yet, finding out that the paternal figure, whoever that might be for us, is not as almighty as we used to think, is one of those crucial points in life when we cross a threshold from which most of the times we cannot go back. However, there is sometimes no way to avoid this moment, as the fantasy of great leaders usually ends with their inevitable fall. When I first realized this, I realized as well that there was a missing element in the latter narrative. We calm our fears and sorrows forcing certain people -leaders- to pretend they control it all. But, how do leaders feel playing a role that is probably doomed to fail?

It is like this that Leaders, Power and the Paradoxical Position: Fantasies for Leaders’ Liberation emerged from my curiosity to answer a perennial question: how do normal limited human beings (i.e. leaders) cope with the challenge of having to pretend that, for some magical reason, they know better than any of us what they are doing? Fantasy is the answer that my paper in the Journal of Management Inquiry proposes for the aforementioned question. But, it is not fantasy as pure magic that is explored in this paper, but fantasy as a subtle socio-cognitive process to find ways to disguise magic in reality itself. In short, it is magical realism fantasizing that explains how a group of leaders that I studied, were able to escape that paradoxical position of having to pretend that they can do it all, when actually knowing they cannot. Like this, the paper contributes to one fundamental aim: to rethink leaders from those who have all power to those that are actually subjects of it.

Stay in-the-know with all the latest research, and sign up for email alerts today. 

Chalkboard photo attributed to thinkpublic (CC).

The elephant (and the donkey) in the boardroom

[The following post is re-blogged from the London School of Economics and Political Science Business Review. Click here to view the article from LSE. It is based on a paper recently published in Administrative Science Quarterly titled “The Elephant (or Donkey) in the BoardroomHow Board Political Ideology Affects CEO Pay.” From LSE:]

 

donkey-vs-elephant

Firms governed by politically conservative boards of directors pay their CEOs more money than do firms with more liberal-leaning (the ideological left in the US) boards. That’s the conclusion of our new study on the impact of political ideology in the boardroom. We also find an ideological disparity in the degree to which directors weigh recent firm performance when deciding upon CEO pay. Relative to their liberal counterparts, conservative-leaning boards tie CEO pay more closely to firm performance. They offer bigger financial rewards after periods of strong earnings or stock returns, and impose harsher penalties after periods of weak performance.

How much is a CEO worth to an organisation?

It’s a hotly debated question in American fiscal discourse, especially as the pay gap between chief executives and front-line workers grows ever vaster. Of course, this debate is largely academic for all but the few whose votes really matter: the corporate directors who set compensation packages for their firms’ senior leaders.

Boards have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that CEOs are paid the appropriate amount to serve the best interest of shareholders. But what’s “appropriate” is highly subjective, and might be directed by political beliefs. Given that pay is the most observable manifestation of directors’ biases about how much CEOs matter to the success of their organisations, we wondered whether corporate boards’ ideological leanings may affect decisions about CEO pay.

To find out, we tracked the pay and performance of more than 4,000 CEOs of S&P 1500 firms from 1998 to 2013. We also tallied donations by those firms’ corporate directors to political parties and candidates over the same period, establishing an ideology score for each board along the left-right political spectrum. To create an apples-to-apples comparison of CEO pay, we controlled for firm size, age, industry, sales growth and other factors in compensation decisions. This allowed us to isolate the relative effect of political ideology on CEO pay across a wide range of public companies.

After levelling the landscape, we found that conservative boards, on average, paid their CEOs four percent more money than liberal boards paid theirs. This translates to approximately $140,000 in additional compensation for the typical chief executive. This pay differential equals more than three times the median income in the United States.

When we factored recent firm performance into the equation, we found that good times brought an even bigger premium in compensation. After a period of strong earnings or increased market capitalisation, conservative boards paid their CEOs 18 per cent more than CEOs who report to liberal boards. The difference in CEO pay across liberal and conservative boards was much smaller, however, following poor performance. Our findings indicated that the poorest performing chief executives fared more or less the same in terms of their pay, regardless of whether their boards were conservative or liberal.

What’s going on here?

Our findings suggest that there may be differences in the way that liberals and conservatives view the impact of individual leaders. While it would be ideal to examine these differences by collecting primary data through surveys, we were unable to do that. Instead, we drew from prior psychological research that has shown that conservatives are more likely to make internal (as opposed to external, or situational) attributions for outcomes.

This logic suggests that directors’ political ideologies may shape their perceptions of how much — or how little —CEOs matter to a firm’s profitability and survival. According to our theory, conservative boards will be more inclined to believe that the fortunes of an organisation hinge on the actions of its CEO. And this higher assessment of CEO impact translates into higher CEO pay. In contrast, liberal boards are more likely to attribute firm performance to social structures, market conditions and broader environmental factors, resulting in lower CEO pay.

What does it mean?

For practitioners and astute observers of business, our findings suggest that the criteria for evaluating corporate governance may be less objectively clear-cut than previously thought. Instead, opinions about whether governance practices are good versus bad may be in part driven by the politics of the beholder. For instance, conservative directors could reasonably argue that higher CEO pay is good governance. After all, it is their responsibility to recruit and retain uniquely talented CEOs, a task that takes on heightened importance when CEOs matter — or are perceived to matter — a great deal to the organisations they lead.

For corporate directors, it may be beneficial to have the awareness that their political beliefs are shaping their views and influencing their approaches to corporate governance. Political biases may creep into these really important decisions. To understand that this is happening is informative. However, the question is: if you knew about your biases, would it make you more reflective? Would it alter your behaviour?

Notes:

 

Follow Administrative Science Quarterly on Twitter!