Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  Special Issue Call for Papers

    Posted 09-20-2010 11:24

    Apologies for cross-posting

    CALL FOR PAPERS
    JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS SPECIAL ISSUE ON LEADERSHIP, ETHICS, AND IDENTITY PAPER DEADLINE JANUARY 3RD, 2011

    This special issue is jointly edited by:

    Dawn L. Eubanks – University of Bath – d.eubanks@bath.ac.uk Sierk Ybema – VU University Amsterdam – SB.Ybema@fsw.vu.nl Andrew D. Brown – University of Bath – a.d.brown@bath.ac.uk

    This special issue of the Journal of Business Ethics focuses on the interactions between leadership, ethics and identity. A substantial literature is developing centered on ethics and morality in work organizations (e.g. den Nieuwenboer & Kaptein, 2008; Illies & Reiter-Palmon, 2008; White & Lean, 2008). In recent times, critical attention has focused on how identities are best conceived and researched, the discursive resources that are drawn on in processes of identity construction, and how identities are embedded in relations of power (Kuhn, 2006, Sveningsson & Larsson, 2006). A much larger and longer established management and organization studies literature exists which has theorized and explored empirically aspects of leadership (Illies & Reiter-Palmon, 2008; Ligon, Hunter, & Mumford, 2008). However, surprisingly little attention has been devoted to how notions of 'leadership', 'ethics' and 'identity' are connected conceptually or in practice. This is an important gap which our special issue seeks to address, and is aimed equally at scholars whose principal interest is 'ethics and leadership' and 'ethics and identity'.

    Leadership is intrinsically bound up with questions of ethics. Leaders' aspirations, relationships to others, day-to-day practices, decisions and behaviors have all been shown to have a moral component. Exploring these issues may include delving into leaders' early life and early career experiences in the formation of identity or, instead, studying leadership theories and training sessions as attempts to shape, regulate, and control managers' identities as ethical beings. From an interactional point of view, leadership presupposes 'followership': claiming to be a leader is itself a firm statement of ethical identity which inadvertently or perhaps purposefully casts other organizational actors in the role of followers, victims, opponents, etc. These actors may in turn influence leaders, while simultaneously being influenced by leaders of companies, countries, and religious or social movements. Leadership (and 'followership') can thus be seen as a process of making meaning of, and for 'self' and others with an ethical dimension. In studying how ethics are embedded in leadership and identity issues we thus hope to gain a better understanding of basic sensemaking practices of organizational actors involved in 'leading' and 'following' and of how identity issues are bound-up with the desire to become a leader, the style that a leader adopts, influence strategies used, and use of power.

    Identities are involved in processes of organizing, are fundamental to the routine activities and strategizing that characterize much organizational life, and central to the objectives that organizations claim to pursue. Outstanding groundwork has been undertaken which has established 'identity' as a key concept in organization studies, a bridge between individual, group and organization levels of analysis, and a means of theorizing the competing dynamics of agency and structure. To ensure that progress in identity studies continues to be made, however, there is a need to expand our understanding of how identities are coupled to organizational processes and to other literatures. One way of establishing and elaborating further the considerable contribution that identity studies can offer is to investigate how notions of identity can assist efforts to theorize and to investigate empirically ethical aspects of organizing.

    We encourage qualitative and quantitative submissions of papers on the following research themes:

    Early life experiences and formation of leadership identity: how early life experiences are drawn on to shape an ethical identity as a leader; for example does the leader have experiences early in life that help him or her believe that he or she can become a leader; how do early life experiences help an individual to author a version of the 'type of leader' he or she is (e.g. becoming an ethical, unethical, personalized or socialized leader).

    Leadership talk, training and theory as an ethical identity-building project: how notions of being or becoming a 'leader' are central to organizational members' morality-enhancing narratives of themselves and of their organizations (being 'a good leader in the market') and provide them with an aspirational identity or, conversely, how leadership discourse regulates and controls the careers, aspirations, and commitments of contemporary managers.

    Identity and ethical behavior intentions: exploration of leaders' accounts of their actions and intentions and how these link to identities; how does the leader suppress or sublimate intentions that may be in conflict with his or her ethical identity.

    Leaders and others/othering: how scholarly discourse on leadership casts the main character in the 'play' as ideally being someone who is morally 'good', inspirational, charismatic, communicative, and visionary, implicitly casting others in more passive, leadership-confirming supernumerary roles; plotting them, for instance, as 'victims' in need of rescue by a self-proclaimed saviour, 'followers' in awe of a 'charismatic' leader, or, alternatively, as reluctant 'resistors' in opposition to a 'strong' leader.

    Identity and leader brand: how do organizational actors 'brand' or 'market' themselves as ethical leaders and how do they portray themselves as a leader in more private situations; for example a leader that portrays him or herself as an advocate of corporate social responsibility would take a public stance on certain issues while sounding a less committed voice in the back regions of the organization. Are there certain styles of leaders that work harder at crafting their image?

    Leadership, ethics and temporal identities: leaders tend to move away from past identities and invest heavily in future identities, embracing notions such as 'mission' or 'vision' (implicitly seeing themselves as 'missionaries' or charismatic 'visionaries') or 'planning' and 'forecasting' (seeing themselves as rationally planning actors). What are these temporal identities, how can they be researched and what are their implications for other aspects of ethics and organizing?

    Ethics, identity and power: how a leader's use of his or her image and identity connects with power and organizational politics; for example if a leader is seen as being a "kind, helpful, mentor" he or she might use strategies of encouragement and empowerment to meet goals whereas a leader with a self-presentation or an image of being "no-nonsense and hard-nosed" might use strategies such as setting tight deadlines, using threats, or coercion to meet goals. How does power used by leaders change during rise to power, in power and fall from power episodes?

    Ethics, identity and role conflict: how the identities that individuals claim (e.g. caring, empathetic leader) may be in conflict with the roles they need to perform as a leader (e.g. making tough decisions, downsizing, etc.); how an individual with strong technical skills comprising his or her identity reconciles a leadership role where technical skills will not be as central.

    Ethics, leadership and 'followership': while leadership attracts much more attention in organization studies than 'followership', leadership may only be fully understood by exploring the role of leaders in the blind obedience, admiration, derision and outright resistance in the stories of 'followers'.

    Sample References
    den Nieuwenboer, N. A. & Kaptein, M. (2008). Spiraling down into corruption: A dynamic analysis of the social identity processes that cause corruption in organizations to grow. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 133-146.

    Illies, J. J. & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2008). Responding destructively in leadership situations: The role of personal values and problem construction. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 251-272.

    Kuhn, T. (2006). A "demented work ethic" and a "lifestyle firm": Discourse, identity, and workplace time commitments. Organization Studies, 27(9): 1339-1358.

    Ligon, G. S., Hunter, S. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2008). Development of outstanding leadership: A life narrative approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 19: 312-334.

    Sveningsson, S. & Larsson, M. (2006). Fantasies of leadership: Identity work. Leadership, 2(2): 203-224.
    White, D. W. & Lean, E. (2008). The impact of perceived leader integrity on subordinates in a work team environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 765-778.

    Processes for the submission of papers

    Papers submitted must not have been published, accepted for publication, or presently be under consideration for publication elsewhere. Submissions should be 7,500-9,000 words in length (10-12 pages). Copies should be submitted via email PDF attachment (in one file including all figures and tables) to all guest editors. To be eligible for review papers must be set up according to the journal's guidelines - see the "Notes for Contributors" from a recent issue of the Journal of Business Ethics, or see the home page at http://www.springer.com/east/home?SGWID=5-102-70-35739432-detailsPage=journal|description. Papers must use standard English. Suitable papers will be subjected to a double-blind review; hence authors should not identify themselves in the body of the paper. Please address any questions to the first guest editor d.eubanks@bath.ac.uk. The publication is planned for 2012.

    Dawn L. Eubanks, Ph.D.
    Senior Lecturer in Organization Studies
    School of Management
    University of Bath
    Bath, BA2 7AY
    United Kingdom
    Tel: + 44 1225 386743




  • 2.  Special Issue Call for Papers

    Posted 06-19-2017 11:06

     

    SPECIAL ISSUE:

    CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND FAMILY BUSINESS:

    LEARNING ACROSS DISCIPLINES

     

    Submission Deadline: 15 June 2018

     

     

    Guest Editors:

    Tommaso Minola, University of Bergamo, Italy

    Franz W. Kellermanns, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA

    Nadine Kammerlander, WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management, Germany

    Frank Hoy, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, USA

     

    JMS Editor: Riikka Sarala, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA

     

     

    Background to Special Issue

    Scholars have been calling for research into corporate entrepreneurship (CE) for decades (Guth and Ginsberg, 1990; Schendel and Hofer, 1979). Early contributions to the literature proposed recommendations for introducing entrepreneurial and innovative behaviour into large, complex organizations, while acknowledging that successful applications were the exception rather than the rule (Block and MacMillan, 1993; Kanter, 1984; Pinchot, 1985). Although resistance to innovative behaviour within large organizations can still be found (Vuori and Quy, 2015), evidence now indicates greater acceptance of entrepreneurship by corporate leaders (Clarysse et al., 2011; Czarnitzki et al., 2010; Dess and Lumpkin, 2005; Dunlap-Hinkler et al., 2010; Zahra and Covin, 1995). After resolving initial definitional issues (Sharma and Chrisman, 1999), interest in CE has been growing in strategic management research (Covin and Miles, 2007; Hitt and Ireland, 2000).

     

    McKelvie et al. (2014) proposed that there is a need to increase research on CE strategies in family businesses, offering the following justifications: 1) "strategic management in family businesses differs from non-family businesses based on their systems of governance and needs for family harmony" (p. 340); 2) "family involvement can result in the development of resources unique to family businesses" (p. 340), which can influence CE activities; and 3) "agency problems are thought to influence CE, and family businesses experience different agency problems than non-family businesses" (p. 341). These issues, as well as many others driven by family firm uniqueness, together with family firm dominance across the world, open up fruitful paths for future research.

     

    Early contributions to the family business literature in the 1980s and 1990s were predominantly from consultants as well as based on biographies and autobiographies of business owners. These publications laid frameworks that were mostly unsubstantiated by empirical research but some of them still serve as assumptions for how family businesses should and do operate. One important assumption is that family firms are not as professionally managed as nonfamily businesses (Stewart and Hitt, 2012), suggesting inherent problems in family firms and dysfunctional behaviour that need to be resolved. Contrary to that rather pessimistic view, however, in 2005, Miller and Le Breton Miller published a breakthrough comparison study of family and nonfamily firms in Canada finding superior performance by many family-owned and -managed enterprises. Based on lessons learned from family businesses, those authors were able to formulate recommendations from their research for nonfamily companies. Another disruptive contribution in this regard was a study by Anderson and Reeb, published in 2003, indicating that family-owned firms were more profitable over time than nonfamily corporations. In 2016, a meta-analysis by Duran, Kammerlander, van Essen, and Zellweger revealed that family businesses, and particularly those firms that are managed by later generation family members, are more efficient in their innovation processes leading to higher innovation output as compared to nonfamily firms, despite lower input. Thus, while much attention from scholars continues to be given to problems characterizing family businesses, theories and models are being developed that propose best practices from family businesses that can be applied to other organizations (e.g., König et al., 2013). These and several other highly rigorous contributions, particularly surging from the last decade, have contributed to make family business a research field that fulfils the requirements of top tier management journals, contributes to mainstream management disciplines and even finds ways to give back to business and economics general theories (such as behavioural theory and agency theory) (Gedajlovic et al., 2012; Melin et al., 2014; Sharma, 2010).

     

    The field of CE makes no exception in this respect. So, while we expect a number of contributions to take advantage of CE literature to address the distinctiveness of family firms' entrepreneurial behaviour in the proposed special issue, we also aim at stimulating contributions for the CE literature in general. That is, research on family business that has the potential to provide insightful suggestions to CE scholars. For example, Minola et al. (2017) provide a developmental perspective to corporate venturing in enterprising families that introduces the concept of norms and attitudes as 'internal triggers' of CE. This complements and extends the notion of 'external triggers' largely adopted in holistic, process-based models of CE (Kuratko, 2010). In a similar vein, concerns for noneconomic goals (Gomez-Mejia et al., 2011), imprinting of a firm's legacy (Jaskiewicz et al., 2015; Kammerlander et al., 2015) and stakeholder engagement (Eddleston et al., 2012) have been recently used to explain entrepreneurial behaviour in family firms. They provide insights that are generalizable and customizable also to nonfamily firms. Hence, for the proposed special issue we will also solicit submissions that examine prospective applications from the family firms literature to CE theories, models and practical recommendations (Hoskisson et al., 2011; Teng, 2007; Williams and Lee, 2011).

     

    This special issue seeks to determine the relevance that research findings from studies of CE have for family businesses and the relevance that findings from family business investigations have for CE. While the crossroad of the two fields of research is deemed as promising, it is the reciprocity of the two directions of scholarly contributions that represents the novelty of this special issue. Such area of inquiry has not been satisfactorily addressed in management literature, but it has the potential to stimulate the contributions from a broad scholarly community as well as the interest of a quite vast readership. It could also substantially advance our scholarly understanding of both family business behaviour and CE.

     

    There are many interesting questions that could be addressed in the context of family business, with the aim of capturing their distinctiveness and the sources of such distinctiveness, providing conceptual elements that are generalizable to nonfamily businesses (Miller et al., 2016). The following questions would represent illustrative examples of such research endeavours:

     

    •             How are the behavioural antecedents and foundations of CE represented in family and nonfamily firms?

    •             How do capabilities and attitudes towards CE evolve and interact over time? How do these patterns relate to the complexity of the family business system?

    •             What is the role of social dynamics (such as social exchange, social comparison and social identity processes) in entrepreneurial family firms? How do they affect entrepreneurship-oriented and human resource management practices?

    •             How are different types of CE initiatives (e.g., internal vs. external, explorative vs. exploitative) affected by the trade-off of economic and noneconomic goals of family firms?

    •             How does CE create value and by which criteria is this assessed in family vs. nonfamily firms?

    •             What are the founding conditions of family- and corporate-sponsored new ventures and how do these conditions affect the development of such ventures (e.g., behaviour, performance)?

    •             How does a family firm's embeddedness in a local innovation ecosystem affect CE investment and performance?

    •             When, and under which circumstances, does stewardship behaviour induce individuals within an organization to behave entrepreneurially?

    •             How and when does psychological ownership emerge and deploy into CE?

    •             How do family firms conceive, manage and allocate resources in CE? Which resources are particularly valuable?

    •             What family-related factors and contingencies determine the way CE initiatives are operationally managed (e.g., autonomy, delegation, accountability)?

    •             How do family firms engage in CE to support the growth of the enterprising family?

    •             What are the components of family and organizational culture that are at work in promoting and managing CE initiatives?

    •             How does family involvement determine the emergence of CE initiatives in periods of crisis or declining business performance?

     

    There are no universally accepted definitions of either CE or family business. For the special issue, we require authors to specify how they are defining the terms for their studies, whether conceptual or empirical, in order to assist scholars in assessing and in replicating the studies. We will provide guidance to authors by referencing frequently cited articles addressing the terms including Sharma and Chrisman (1999) for CE and Chua et al. (1999) for family business.

     

     

    Submission Process and Deadlines

    •             Manuscripts will be reviewed according to the JMS double-blind review process.

    •             Submissions should be prepared using the JMS Manuscript Preparation Guidelines (see: http://www.socadms.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/JMS-Manuscript-Preparation-Guidelines.pdf)

    •             The deadline for submission is 15th June 2018.

    •             Manuscripts should be submitted by e-mail to business.jms@durham.ac.uk 

    •             For informal inquires related to the Special Issue, proposed topics and potential fit, and/or the conferences below, please contact the guest editors at jms.ce.fb@gmail.com.

     

     

    Special Issue Workshop

    November 2018 at University of Bergamo (Italy)

    To help authors advance their manuscripts, the proponents of the Special Issue will organize a special issue workshop. Authors of R&R manuscripts will be invited to present their papers and react to their colleagues' papers during the workshop, but presentation at the workshop will not guarantee acceptance of the paper for publication in JMS. Attending the workshop will not be a precondition for acceptance into the Special Issue.

     

    References

    Anderson, R. C. and Reeb, D. M. (2003). 'Founding‐family ownership and firm performance: evidence from the S&P 500'. Journal of Finance, 58, 1301-28.

    Block, Z. and MacMillan, I. C. (1993). Corporate Venturing: Creating New Businesses within the Firm. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

    Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J. and Sharma, P. (1999). 'Defining the family business by behavior'. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 19-39.

    Clarysse, B., Wright, M. and Van de Velde, E. (2011). 'Entrepreneurial origin, technological knowledge, and the growth of spin-off companies.' Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1420-42.

    Covin, J. G. and Miles, M. P. (2007). 'Strategic use of corporate venturing'. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 183-207.

    Czarnitzki, D., Dick, J. M. H. and Hussinger, K. (2010). 'The contribution of corporate ventures to radical innovation'. ZEW Discussion Papers, No. 10-060.

    Dess, G. G. and Lumpkin, G. T. (2005). 'The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating effective corporate entrepreneurship'. Academy of Management Executive, 19, 147-56.

    Dunlap-Hinkler, D., Kotabe, M. and Mudambi, R. (2010). 'A story of breakthrough versus incremental innovation: Corporate entrepreneurship in the global pharmaceutical industry'. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4, 106-27.

    Duran, P., Kammerlander, N., van Essen, M. and Zellweger, T. (2016). 'Doing more with less: Innovation input and output in family firms'. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1224-64.

    Eddleston, K. A., Kellermanns, F. W. and Zellweger, T. M. (2012). 'Exploring the entrepreneurial behavior of family firms: does the stewardship perspective explain differences?'. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36, 347-67.

    Gedajlovic, E., Carney, M., Chrisman, J. J. and Kellermanns, F. W. (2012). 'The adolescence of family firm research: Taking stock and planning for the future'. Journal of Management, 38, 1010-37.

    Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Cruz, C., Berrone, P. and De Castro, J. (2011). 'The bind that ties: Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms'. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 653-707.

    Guth, W. D. and Ginsberg, A. (1990). 'Guest editors' introduction: Corporate entrepreneurship'. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 5-15.

    Hitt, M. A. and Ireland, R. D. (2000). ‚The intersection of entrepreneurship and strategic management research'. In Sexton, D. L. and Landstrom, H. (Eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 45-63.

    Hoskisson, R. E., Covin, J., Volberda, H. W. and Johnson, R. A. (2011). 'Revitalizing entrepreneurship: The search for new research opportunities'. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1141-68.

    Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J. G., & Rau, S. B. (2015). 'Entrepreneurial legacy: Toward a theory of how some family firms nurture transgenerational entrepreneurship'. Journal of Business Venturing, 30, 29-49.

    Kammerlander, N., Dessi, C., Bird, M., Floris, M. and Murru, A. (2015). 'The Impact of Shared Stories on Family Firm Innovation: a Multi-Case Study'. Family Business Review, 28, 332-54.

    Kanter, R. M. (1984). Change Masters. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    König, A., Kammerlander, N. and Enders, A. (2013). 'The Family Innovator's Dilemma: How Family Influence Affects the Adoption of Discontinuous Technologies by Incumbent Firms'. Academy of Management Review, 38, 418-41.   

    Kuratko, D. F. (2010). 'Corporate entrepreneurship: An introduction and research review'. In Acs, Z. J. and Audretsch, D. B. (eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research. New York: Springer, 129-63.

    McKelvie, A., McKenny, A. F., Lumpkin, G. T. and Short, J. C. (2014). 'Corporate entrepreneurship in family businesses: Past contributions and future opportunities'. In Melin, L., Nordqvist, M. and Sharma, P. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Family Business. Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 340-63.

    Melin, L., Nordqvist, M. and Sharma, P. (Eds.). (2014). The SAGE Handbook of Family Business. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Miller, D. and Le Breton-Miller, I. (2005). Managing for the Long Run: Lessons in Competitive Advantage from Great Family Businesses. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

    Miller, D., Steier, L. and Breton-Miller, L. (2016). 'What can scholars of entrepreneurship learn from sound family businesses?'. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40, 445-55.

    Minola, T., Brumana, M., Campopiano, C., Garrett, R. and Cassia, L. (2017). 'Corporate venturing in family business: A developmental approach of the enterprising family'. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10, 395-412.

    Pinchot, G. (1985). Intrapreneuring: Why You Don't Need to Leave the Corporation to Become an Entrepreneur. Cambridge, MA: Harper & Row.

    Schendel, D. and Hofer, C. W. (Eds.). (1979). Strategic Management: A New View of Business Policy and Planning. Boston, MA: Little Brown.

    Sharma, P. and Chrisman, J. J. (1999). 'Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship'. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 23, 11-27.

    Sharma, P. (2010). 'Advancing the 3Rs of family business scholarship: Rigor, relevance, reach'. In Stewart, A. Lumpkin, G. T. and Katz, J. (Eds.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth. Bingley: Emerald Group, 12, 383-400.

    Stewart, A. and Hitt, M. A. (2012). 'Why can't a family business be more like a nonfamily business? Modes of professionalization in family firms'. Family Business Review, 25, 58-86.

    Teng, B.-S. (2007). 'Corporate entrepreneurship activities through strategic alliances: A resource-based approach toward competitive advantage'. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 119-42.

    Vuori, T. O. and Quy, Q. N. (2015). 'Distributed attention and shared emotions in the innovation process: How Nokia lost the smartphone battle'. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 1-43.

    Williams, C. and Lee, S. H. (2011). 'Political heterarchy and dispersed entrepreneurship in the MNC'. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1243-68.

    Zahra, S. A. and Covin, J. G. (1995). 'Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis'. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 43-58.

     

     

    Joanne Cheseldine
    JMS Editorial Coordinator

    Journal of Management Studies
    Durham University Business School, Mill Hill Lane, Durham, DH1 3LB, UK


    tel: +44 (0) 191 334 5411

    e: business.jms@durham.ac.uk   personal: joanne.cheseldine@durham.ac.uk

    JMS: www.journalofmanagementstudies.com

    SAMS: www.socadms.org.uk

     

    @JMS_Journal   JournalofManagementStudies    bit.ly/JMSLinkedIn