ILR Review Special Issue: Work and Employment Relations in Health Care

8639003804_2bd2b5f140_zThe August special issue of ILR Review is now available and open to access for the next 30 days! Included in the special issue on Work and Employment Relations in Health Care are papers that discuss the relationship between nurse unions and patient outcomes, the effect of electronic health record adoption on physician productivity, and the impact nurse staffing strategies have on patient satisfaction. In the introductory editorial essay, Ariel C. Avgar, Adrienne E. Eaton, Rebecca Kolins Givan, and Adam Seth Litwin outline the problems inherent in US health care, most notably the fact that despite outspending other countries on health care costs per capita, the US demonstrates above-average rates of medical errors and below-average life expectancies. As the health care system moves toward reform, the authors argue for careful consideration of how workplace dynamics impact the outcomes for everyone involved in health care. The editorial thus highlights the importance of research on work and employment relations in the health care industry:

This special issue of the ILR Review is designed to showcase the central role that work organization and employment relations play in shaping important outcomes such as the quality of care and organizational performance. Each of the articles included in this special issue makes an important contribution to our understanding of the large and rapidly changing health care sector. Specifically, these articles provide novel Current Issue Coverempirical evidence about the relationship between organizations, institutions, and work practices and a wide array of central outcomes across different levels of analysis. This breadth is especially important because the health care literature has largely neglected employment-related factors in explaining organizational and worker outcomes in this industry. Individually, these articles shed new light on the role that health information technologies play in affecting patient care and productivity (see Hitt and Tambe; Meyerhoefer et al.); the relationship between work practices and organizational reliability (Vogus and Iacobucci); staffing practices, processes, and outcomes (Kramer and Son; Hockenberry and Becker; Kossek et al.); health care unions’ effects on the quality of patient care (Arindrajit, Kaplan, and Thompson); and the relationship between the quality of jobs and the quality of care (Burns, Hyde, and Killet). Below, we position the articles in this special issue against the backdrop of the pressures and challenges facing the industry and the organizations operating within it. We highlight the implications that organizational responses to industry pressures have had for organizations, the patients they care for, and the employees who deliver this care.

You can read the special issue of ILR Review free for the next 30 days by clicking here. Want to stay current on all of the latest research published by ILR Review? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!

*Nurse image attributed to COD Newsroom (CC)

The American Economist Is Now Online!

AEX_72ppiRGB_powerpointWe’re pleased to announce that The American Economist is now online with a new, special March 2016 issue! The special issue takes a look back at some of The American Economist‘s most influential articles, each with a new Editor’s Introduction. Editor-in-Chief Paul Grimes introduces the special issue:

This edition of The American Economist marks a new chapter in the history of the journal and its sponsoring organization, Omicron Delta Epsilon, The International Honor Society in Economics. For more than five decades, Omicron Delta Epsilon self-published the journal using a variety of university presses and contract printers to physically produce and distribute the journal to members of the society, individual subscribers, and libraries around the world. Its deep red cover and distinctive title wordmark became iconic symbols within the economics profession. Although the size and format of the journal evolved over time, the journal was produced only in a hardcopy format—until this issue. With Volume 61, Number 1, Spring 2016, The American Economist enters the digital age of journal publication…

Omicron Delta Epsilon recently celebrated its 100th birthday and The American Economistrecently passed the 50th anniversary of its association with the honor society. As we move past these important milestones and into the digital future, it is fitting that we take the time to look back on the journal’s valuable legacy. This issue opens with a bibliographic history of The American Economist that chronicles the journal’s path from a student-edited and student-produced annual publication into a well-respected academic journal with a global readership. The history is followed by the republication of 12 classic articles from the journal’s backfile. These curated articles were selected to provide readers with a feel of The American Economist’s rich heritage of publishing original work by some of the world’s most prominent economists. Papers by Milton Friedman, Paul Samuelson, John Kenneth Galbraith, Robert Solow, and Elinor Ostrom are included here, among others. Each article opens with a new Editor’s Introduction to set the paper and the author into its proper context.

In honor of the impressive legacy of The American Economist, we Nobels_fredspris,_medalje_-_no-nb_digifoto_20160310_00042_NB_NS_NM_10016are pleased to present a special collection of articles from the journal that we written by Nobel Peace Prize winning authors. You can read the special collection from The American Economist free for the next 30 days by clicking here.

To read the March 2016 special issue, also free for the next 30 days, click here. Want to know all about the latest research from The American Economist? 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.

Journal of Management Seeks Papers on Global Work in the Multinational Enterprise

global-team-895440-mJournal of Management invites scholars to submit research for an upcoming Special Issue entitled “Global Work in the Multinational Enterprise: New Avenues and Challenges for Strategically Managing Human Capital Across Borders.” The issue will be guest edited by David Allen of Rutgers University, Yih-teen Lee of IESE Business School at University of Navarra and Sebastian Reiche of IESE Business School at University of Navarra.

Journal of Management particularly welcome studies that apply wider theoretical lenses and multilevel approaches in order to better capture the JOM 41(3)_Covers.inddcomplexity of global work in multinational enterprises (MNE). Specifically, this special issue seeks to promote and shape the future direction for research addressing questions at the intersection of the following themes: (1) global work in MNEs – what structures, systems, and policies and practices do MNEs need to facilitate global work? (2) strategic HRM in MNEs – how does the system design and implementation fit an MNE’s global strategy?, and (3) global talent management in MNEs – how do we define, conceptualize, and identify global talent, and how do we manage it within multiple MNE contexts? Original empirical research, theory development, and meta-analytic reviews are all suitable for potential inclusion in the special issue.

Below is an illustrative list of topics that are consistent with the scope of the special issue, but other topics may be appropriate as well:

1. Global Work and the MNE:

  • What are the challenges for HRM given the growing fragmentation of forms of global work (e.g., corporate expatriation, self-initiated expatriation, business travel, virtual collaboration)?
  • How does global work affect the debate between global standardization vs. local adaptation of HR policies and practices, e.g. to which extent is a global compensation system needed, etc.
  • What are the key competencies for individuals to perform global work effectively? What are the corresponding HR practices to identify and develop them?
  • How to deal with the geographic dispersion (extent of coordination across borders needed) and multiculturalism/multilinguism (extent of coordination among people from diverse cultures and native languages needed) of global work?

2. Strategic HRM in the MNE:

  • How do institutional, cultural, and other contextual influences affect the development, implementation, and effectiveness of high performance work systems and practices in MNEs?
  • How should human resources be managed on a global scale (when to move jobs; where to move people; where to leverage local talent versus sourcing talent globally)?
  • How does centralization/localization strategy affect performance? How does global staffing strategy affect performance? What is the best staffing strategy for starting new multinational facilities (Taking over existing vs. turning around ongoing operations)?

3. Global Talent Management and the MNE:

  • To what extent do MNEs evaluate global talent issues (e.g., integrating national cultures; relative competencies across locations; availability of talent) in making cross-border acquisition decisions? To what extent do these factors affect cross-border acquisition success?
  • To what extent does the make-up of the top management team (in terms of national origin and experiences) affect MNE success and cross-border acquisition strategies/decisions?
  • What are strategic issues in forming and managing multinational teams?

Please submit papers through the journal’s online submission system. To do so, please click here, create your user account (if you have not done so already), and for “Manuscript Type” choose the corresponding Special Issue. You will be able to submit your paper for this Special Issue between the 1st and the 30th of September 2016.

For more information, including submission timeline and contact information, click here. Want to know about all the latest news and research from Journal of Management? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!

Calling for Papers on Process and Variance Methods in Family Business Research!

pen-and-paper-1454441Family Business Review is currently accepting proposals for a Special Issue entitled “Process and Variance in Family Business Research.” This Special Issue will be guest edited by Jon C. Carr of Texas Christian University, G. Tyge Payne of Texas Tech University and Allison W. Pearson of Mississippi State University.

The journal seeks manuscripts that (1) summarize key challenges about the application of methods in the family business domain, (2) develop and/or demonstrate ways to resolve current challenges, and (3) discuss the implications of methodological changes on the field. The primary goal of this Special Issue is to feature articles that substantially enhance methodological practices within family business studies and thereby increase the confidence in and relevance of research findings.

Appropriate topics for the special include, but are not limited to:

  • FBR_C1_revised authors color.inddDevelopment and validation of key family business constructs (e.g., socioeconomic wealth, familiness)
  • Development and demonstration of particularly relevant research designs, measurement approaches, and analytical techniques to family business phenomena
  • Application of methods utilized in other fields (e.g., psychology, sociology, anthropology) to the family business context
  • The treatment of multilevel issues and designs within family businesses
  • The integration between family business theories and methodological approaches

The editors of this special issue invite authors to submit proposals to develop manuscripts suggesting improvements in process and variance methods in family business research. Due date for proposals is September 1, 2015. Both conceptual and empirical papers are welcome. All papers will undergo the standard double-blind review process and must meet the standards of Family Business Review. All articles published in this Special Issue must make a significant contribution to research methods in family business.

For more information, including submission timeline and contact information, click here. Want to know about all the latest news and research from Family Business Review? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!

Read the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science’s Special Issue on Illuminating the Scholarship of Coaching for Free!

JABS_72ppiRGB_powerpointIs goal attainment more likely when the coach or the client initiates goal and task statements? Can a coach’s transformational and transactional leadership behavior help explain the differences between dyadic and group coaching? What limitations to the ethical codes of conduct do executive coaches face? You can read about these topics and more in the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science‘s Special Issue entitled Illuminating the Scholarship of Coaching.

Guest editors Richard E. Boyatzis, Melvin L. Smith and Ellen B. Van Oosten collaborated on the introduction to the issue:

The intellectual integrity of coaching depends on research. However, the popularity of the practice of coaching began to dramatically increase at least 20 years before scholars designed studies to test its efficacy (Van Oosten, 2013). Coaching, like many other forms of helping, is most likely effective (i.e., producing sustained changes in a person’s behavior, attitudes, mental models, dreams of the future, etc.) less than 20% of the time when comparing the few performance statistics to other professions (Boyatzis, 2005; Spencer & Spencer, 1993). This would be consistent with research on impact from other helping professions. Therefore, there is a need for more research to help us determine, among other things, what coaching methods and processes work the best and for whom, which coaches are more effective and with whom, and when is the use of coaching likely to be most effective. To continue the dialogue and to increase the level of rigor of thought and evidence, we issued the call for abstracts and papers for a special issue of the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science.

We were delighted in the substantial response to our call for abstracts for this special issue on coaching. We received over 30 abstracts for empirical and conceptual papers from scholars representing a variety of countries spanning North America, Europe, and Asia. The number of deserving papers exceeded the space limits of the special issue, so some of them will appear in future issues of this journal. The collection of articles presented here cover a broad spectrum of topics on coaching and its effects in a variety of contexts.

You can read Illuminating the Scholarship of Coaching from the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science for free for the next 30 days! Click here to view the Table of Contents. Want to have all the latest research like this sent directly to your inbox? Click here to sign up for e-alerts from the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science!