Browse by title
Joanne B. Ciulla and Tobey K. Scharding
These are troubling times on both sides of the Atlantic. Immigration, Brexit, terrorism, the financial crisis, the election of Donald Trump, and the emergence of nationalism in the US and Europe have created ethical challenges for business leaders as well as most others. Populist political leaders have tapped into the feelings of voters who have been ignored by leaders, left behind during globalization, replaced at work by new technologies, and disheartened by social legislation in areas such as gay marriage and abortion. While some citizens in the US and Europe believed that the world was getting better, others silently watched in dismay. Meanwhile, we also see an increase in xenophobia, racism, antisemitism, and Islamophobia. The increasingly polarized political environment has made it difficult for leaders to reach a consensus about how to best tackle pressing questions about immigration, human rights, the environment, and the regulation of business and new technologies. This is a challenging environment, one where business leaders may sometimes be called upon to decide where they stand. In a speech, Apple CEO Tim Cook said, “The reality is that government, for a long period of time, has for whatever set of reasons become less functional and isn’t working at the speed that it once was. And so it does fall, I think, not just on business but on all other areas of society to step up” (Sorkin, 2017). His comment raises a cluster of foundational questions about Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and the role of business in turbulent times: Who should be responsible for what in a society? What are the responsibilities of businesses and business leadership to society? Moreover, do the responsibilities of businesses increase when there are social and political problems? And finally, what does it mean for a business to “step up”?
Americus Reed II and Mark Forehand
The above quotation illustrates the importance of identity. It is hard to imagine any behavior a person could engage in that would somehow not have implications for how they see themselves and how the world sees them. Indeed, the question of “Who am I?” is one that we as human organisms ponder. We surmise, re-evaluate and update our self-conceptions throughout our lifespan. The cognitive sophistication and complex ability to articulate self-reflective thoughts separates humans from other species; the ability to define who we are and what we want to become. Therefore, “identity is important” is probably not a controversial statement. That is the easy part. What is more difficult is to pinpoint the best way to define and study it. After all, if something defies definition and measurement, then it is nothing more than lofty philosophical rhetoric, a useful metaphor, perhaps (Cohen 1989). If the idea of “identity” is a serious area of empirical inquiry, then one must face the difficult challenge of developing a precise theoretical, methodological and substantive set of ideas to capture this construct. In that regard, there has been great progress, yet there is much more work to do. From the early days of personality research (Allport 1937; Murray 1938; Barenbaum and Winter 2008), the idea of a monolithic self was appealing. A person has a “self-concept”: the sum total of thoughts, ideas and beliefs about who they are, and what they want to be. If you could identify what the key elements were, then you might be able to predict what that person is going to say, think and do. It made sense to focus on static and enduring traits that may be an important set of building blocks to base this conception on (Cristal and Tupes 1992; Costa and McCrae 1997; Costa et al. 1998). The fact that measuring these traits often produced weak relationships to other outcomes pointed to the need for additional nuance within the conception of what a self-concept actually means (see Griffith and Jenkins 2004). It was the information processing revolution, the self as an organizing structure in memory (Kihlstrom and Klein 1986), and the idea that the self-concept is better thought of as categories or a collection of “social identities” (Tajfel and Turner 1979; Abrams and Hogg 1990) that opened a door forward to deeper understanding. This need for complexity comes at a price, though. Now the questions are: What are the key social categories that matter? When do they matter? Why do they matter? How do they change over time?
Mikaela Backman, Charlie Karlsson and Orsa Kekezi
Amanda Bullough, Diana M. Hechavarr'a, Candida G. Brush and Linda F. Edelman
While women’s entrepreneurship is widely recognized as a source of economic and social development, there is a persistent storyline that women entrepreneurs do not perform as well as their male counterparts, and research examining performance and growth shows inconclusive results regarding gender differences in performance and the causes of them. This introduction chapter defines programs, policies, and practices, and explains why they matter for understanding and stimulating higher levels of growth among women’s businesses. This chapter provides an outline for the book that is organized about three key themes that emerged from the research produced by the collaborators in this book: the practice of building networks, programs and the support environment, and policies and regulations. These three themes comprise the elements of our new framework for policies, programs and practices for high-growth women’s entrepreneurship.
Thomas P. Moliterno and Anthony J. Nyberg
This volume is about human capital resources (HCRs). Since the HCR construct is a newcomer to a long-standing literature on human capital (Becker, 1964), we begin with a brief historical thumbnail review of the history of research on HCR. We do so to provide a quick orientation to the focus of this volume: it is neither our intention nor hope to be exhaustive in this regard. Over the past 20 years, there has been an increasing convergence of scholarly disciplines exploring the association of human capital and organizational performance. Early gatherings at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Utah brought together arrays of scholars from diverse backgrounds who were interested in exploring the organizational effects and antecedents of human capital. As scholarly discourse at the intersection of these fields grew, researchers from strategic human resource management (HRM) and strategy disciplines combined to create the Strategic Human Capital Interest Group that first met in Rome in 2010 and has been one of the faster-growing interest groups of the Strategic Management Society (SMS). At this point, the HCR construct had not yet been articulated and defined. Its genesis came from the realization that the human capital construct had begun to take on different meanings in different literatures. Many scholars thought of human capital as something specifically owned by workers (i.e., “the individual’s human capital”), while others were focused on how workers contributed to organizational performance (i.e., “the firm’s human capital”). That is, some researchers (predominantly from the “micro” traditions of organizational behavior, organizational psychology, and human resource management) focused on the “human” and some researchers (predominantly from the “macro” traditions of strategy and economics) focused on the “capital.” Hence the term “human capital” was simultaneously being used too broadly, including all firm-level phenomena involving workers, and too narrowly, missing how individual differences in knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) help define the value of the worker to the firm.
Daniel Ericsson and Monika Kostera
The Introduction presents hope and organizing as radical ideas in the times of the interregnum. The book is outlined and its main thrust is narrated.
Anke Strauß and Christina Ciupke
Hope is a paradoxical place. It is where we store what we long for and what we are fearful of at the same time. It is where we acknowledge the fragility of our lives. Hope lies in uncertainty.
Edited by Daniel Ericsson and Monika Kostera
Edited by Leonidas C. Leonidou, Constantine S. Katsikeas, Saeed Samiee and Constantinos N. Leonidou
This book provides an edited volume of 19 chapters focusing on socially responsible international business which are organized into six parts. Part I consists of two chapters which introduce the subject by critically reviewing the pertinent literature. Chapter 1, ‘Socially responsible international business: review, synthesis, and directions’ was written by Leonidou, Katsikeas, Samiee, and Leonidou and offers an integrative review of the extant studies on socially responsible issues published in the top six international business journals. It provides input about the key contributors and the most influential articles on the subject, as well as evaluating the theoretical underpinnings of these studies, their research methodologies, and the main thematic areas tackled. Sinkovics, Sinkovics, and Archie-Acheampong contributed Chapter 2, ‘An overview of social responsibility dimensions in international business.’ This provides an analysis of 484 studies focusing on key firm-related social responsibility issues within an international context, such as those relating to ethical practices, environmental aspects, human rights, and corruption. The results of this analysis indicate an overemphasis of the literature on positive, rather than negative, issues relating to international business social responsibility. Part II includes four chapters examining the role of the foreign external environment – particularly the institutional – on socially responsible international business. In Chapter 3, ‘Trade-offs and institutional contradictions in formulating responsible international business strategies,’ Iyer sheds light on the various trade-offs encountered by MNEs when performing their CSR strategies across countries, due to institutional differences, which may impose conflicting demands and lead to suboptimal choices. These trade-offs refer to instrumental versus non-market objectives, legal compliance versus broader norms, and voluntary versus obligatory actions relating to the firm’s socially responsible behavior. Chapter 4, ‘Institutional drivers of stakeholder engagement and legitimacy of Chinese MNEs,’ was written by Hofman, Li, Sun, and Sun. Their study focuses on Chinese MNEs when operating in Western countries and uses both stakeholder and institutional theories to examine linkages between home–host country institutional distances, stakeholder engagement, and organizational legitimacy. Shin and Oh contributed Chapter 5, ‘Cross-country comparison of corporate social performance: how do institutions matter?’, in which they examine the effect of formal and informal institutions on environmental, social, and corporate governance performance. Using empirical data from 40 different countries, these authors reveal that while a country’s formal institutions affect environmental performance, informal institutions have a significant impact on social performance. Chapter 6, ‘Re-assessing risk in international markets: a strategic, operational, and sustainability taxonomy,’ was prepared by van Tulder and Roman and enquires into the types of risks encountered by MNEs in international markets. Using a longitudinal study among firms from different countries, they reveal an increasing number of risks, particularly those relating to sustainability, which can also be regarded as opportunities or mitigation strategy.