Browse by title

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 109 items :

  • Business 2019 x
  • All accessible content x
  • Chapters/Articles x
Clear All Modify Search
This content is available to you

Edited by Joanne B. Ciulla and Tobey K. Scharding

This content is available to you

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”?

This content is available to you

Donna Ladkin

Corporate social responsibility suggests that businesses should be doing more to enact their obligations within society, an idea encapsulated by Tim Cook’s assertion that it is time for business to ‘step up’ and take responsibilities that governments are no longer able to cope with efficiently. This chapter argues a contrary view: rather than stepping up, the most appropriate ethical response for business in our troubling times is to ‘step down’. It critiques the notion of stepping up itself and links it to three critical issues we currently face: the growing disparity in wealth, global climate change and the rise of populism. Rather than assuming the primary role afforded to business by capitalist-based economic models and contemporary neoliberal ideology, in order to act ethically a first move for business would be to take its place amidst a range of other voices with equal rights. Such a reorientation could result in businesses taking care to fulfil their basic civic responsibility of paying tax, assuming an obligation to do no harm to the communities in which they are situated and the environment from which they draw natural resources, and enacting organizational practices that would allow employees to enjoy a balanced lifestyle in which they have time for personal, family and community engagement.

This content is available to you

Raquel Fonseca and Simon C. Parker

Few cross-country comparisons exist on the topic of third age entrepreneurship. We attempt to fill this gap by assembling comparable data on the United States, England and other European countries. Our contribution is threefold. First, we analyze drivers of self-employment among older workers across countries. Second, we investigate the relationship between self-employment rates and age groups, comparing different countries to understand the role played by country-level institutional variables. Third, we discuss policy implications. Key results are as follows. English and American institutions appear not to push older workers into self-employment; Southern Europe’s institutional rigidities and limited opportunities for flexible full-time work at older ages might explain the push into self-employment observed there. Among workers not retired, those wanting part-time work are largely found in self-employment. These facts challenge policy-makers to promote self-employment as an antidote to limited pension coverage and low incomes. Results lead us to suspect that successful entrepreneurship in old age is associated with earlier successful entrepreneurship experience. Hence, policies strengthening business start-up quality are to be encouraged.

This content is available to you

Keri L. Kettle

We each have a self-concept that includes multiple, interconnected identities which form and evolve over time. These identities can become differentially active, or salient, and in doing so guide our behavior in a seemingly predictable way. Although identity researchers know how to make identities salient, and understand how identities should guide behavior when salient, we currently struggle to accurately predict when a particular identity will drive a consumer’s real-world behavior. This issue stems from the unnatural interventions that identity researchers typically use in their studies to make identities salient. The author reviews the current state of identity salience research, and argues that we need to embrace subtle interventions; practical methods to predictably make identities salient that are simple for marketers to use in a natural setting. This will enable us to study a wider range of identities, better understand the process by which particular identities become more (or less) salient, and be more useful to practitioners.

This content is available to you

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?

This content is available to you

Mikaela Backman, Charlie Karlsson and Orsa Kekezi

This content is available to you

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.

This content is available to you

Samantha A. Conroy

The base pay setting process in organizations is a rarely studied but critical organizational process. In this chapter, organizational base pay setting processes for external hires are integrated with human capital research to explore the value creation and value capture opportunities and pitfalls of base pay setting processes. These processes are separated into those contributing to vertical (i.e., job evaluation, market pricing) and horizontal differences (i.e., individual pay adjustments) in the pay structure. This exploration suggests that base pay has potential to be a strategic competitive advantage or a competitive disadvantage depending on a number of factors. Furthermore, organizations may leverage knowledge regarding context and unit-level human capital resources to increase the value creation and capture associated with base pay. Future directions are discussed.

This content is available to you

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.