OB Digest - 15 Feb 2014 to 17 Feb 2014 (#2014-45) Table of contents: - references on 'how to manage Supply Relationship Management in case of Open Innovation'
- teaching case-studies involving middle-managers
- Sir Mark Moody-Stuart's Responsible Leadership and more new titles from Greenleaf Publishing
- Call: Management & Org Review - Inaugural Research Frontiers Conference
- Militaryness in Organizations
- 45th Decision Science Institute Conference Call for papers (OB/HR)
Browse the OB online archives. Hi! A student of mine is looking for references on 'how to manage Supply Relationship Management in case of Open Innovation', and more specifically on organizational structure/form oriented to collaboration and to collaboration with supplier (for supplier innovation's integration). Please send me good references you may know. Thanks, Ricardo Hi! I am looking for teaching case-studies involving middle-managers and change initiatives. Please send me good references you may know. Thanks, Ricardo
*Apologies for cross-posting* Dear OB members, We are delighted to announce the following forthcoming titles from Greenleaf Publishing: Responsible Leadership: Lessons from the Front Line of Sustainability and Ethics Sir Mark Moody-Stuart
March 2014 | hardback | ISBN 978-1-906093-96-9 As Chairman of the Royal Dutch Shell Group from 1991–2001 and of Anglo American plc from 2002–2009, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart is as qualified as anyone on the planet to discuss the realities, dilemmas and lessons to be learnt from the last 20 years of corporate engagement with sustainability, ethics and responsibility. In this unique book – part memoir, part confessional, part manifesto for leadership – we hear a unique voice from the front line of corporate responsibility. Drawing on a wealth of personal experience, Mark Moody-Stuart's book reminds us of the urgent need for responsible corporate leadership... Responsible leadership is necessary to develop trust between governments and business, to create the conditions to lift millions out of poverty, and to promote inclusive growth and protect the environment. - Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General Creating Social Value: A Guide for Leaders and Change Makers Cheryl Kiser and Deborah Leipziger with J. Janelle Shubert February 2014 | paperback | ISBN 978-1-906093-99-0 The first textbook to focus on social value creation, including case studies on trailblazing entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs inside who create social value and drive profits simultaneously. "Much-needed insights on important global trends and how they affect the viability of private sector activities... the boundaries between the public and private spheres are blurring. Creating social value is no longer an externality; it is deeply connected to the long-term success of enterprises." - Georg Kell, Executive Director, UN Global Compact Healing Capitalism: Five Years in the Life of Business, Finance and Corporate Responsibility Jem Bendell and Ian Doyle March 2014 | paperback | ISBN 978-1-906093-91-4 Drawing on Lifeworth's annual reviews of corporate responsibility (CR), this book investigates the key events, issues and trends in CR from the financial crisis onwards. It considers the impact that the nascent corporate responsibility movement has had and presents a vision and practice of a new form of capitalism. "Bendell is a guru in the world of Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate "Voluntarism"... So prepare to have your cherished illusions unceremoniously set aside, and be forced to acknowledge that, when it comes to capitalism, there is no healing without a lot of pain." - Jonathon Porritt, Founder Director, Forum for the Future; author, Capitalism As If the World Matters If you need any more information regarding these titles please don't hesitate to contact us. If you would like to review a title or receive an inspection copy, please place your request on our website, using the links below. Sincerely,
Anna Comerford
Assistant Publisher
Greenleaf Publishing
Aizlewood's Mill, Nursery Street, Sheffield S3 8GG, United Kingdom
Telephone: 0113 386 9278 (International +44 113 386 9278) Fax +44 113 386 9277
Email: anna@greenleaf-publishing.com
Twitter: @greenleafbooks Hello Ricardo, Our recent article on Open Collaboration may be helpful. Please see link below. Warmly, SSL From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Ricardo
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 6:45
To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: [OB-LIST] references on 'how to manage Supply Relationship Management in case of Open Innovation' Hi! A student of mine is looking for references on 'how to manage Supply Relationship Management in case of Open Innovation', and more specifically on organizational structure/form oriented to collaboration and to collaboration with supplier (for supplier innovation's integration). Please send me good references you may know. Thanks, Ricardo Hi Ricardo, Best, ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 6:50 AM Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] references on 'how to manage Supply Relationship Management in case of Open Innovation'
Hello Ricardo, Our recent article on Open Collaboration may be helpful. Please see link below. Warmly, SSL From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Ricardo
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 6:45
To: OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: [OB-LIST] references on 'how to manage Supply Relationship Management in case of Open Innovation' Hi! A student of mine is looking for references on 'how to manage Supply Relationship Management in case of Open Innovation', and more specifically on organizational structure/form oriented to collaboration and to collaboration with supplier (for supplier innovation's integration). Please send me good references you may know. Thanks, Ricardo Call for Proposals Management and Organization Review Inaugural Research Frontiers Conference Globalization of Knowledge Creation and Innovation in the Context of Emerging Economies Co-sponsored by Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) School of Business, HKUST Institute for Emerging Market Studies, City University of Hong Kong, and the International Association for Chinese Management Research (IACMR) Hong Kong, December 4–7, 2014 We are very pleased and excited to announce the Inaugural Management Organization Review (MOR) Research Frontiers Conference. The purpose of the annual MOR Research Frontiers Conference is to serve as the exploration mode of the journal to stimulate investigation and knowledge creation of phenomena in the social sciences underlying management and organizations and globalization through boundary-crossing dialog and discourse. The conference is intended to provide the Editors of MOR the basis for framing future special issues of MOR. The conference draws together social science thought leaders, management and organization scholars, executives, entrepreneurs, policy-makers, and non-business scholars in a community building and enhancing setting. The core theme of the inaugural conference revolves around the Globalization of Knowledge Creation and Innovation in the Context of Emerging Economies. Potential sub-themes include but are not limited to the antecedents and future of emerging economy innovations; exploiting formal institutional voids embedded in state and local policies and national innovation systems of emerging economies; industrial clusters and innovation; MNEs and innovation in emerging economies; culture goods; social and management innovations; the role of universities on innovation in emerging economies; new ways of organizing innovation of emerging economies in the global ecology of innovation; evolution and role of global on-line STEM communities and innovation in emerging economies; role of national culture and creativity at the individual and group levels; business management practices and promotion of creativity and innovation; innovation competition between emerging economies (e.g., China and India). The choice of the overall theme is wide ranging by design. It recognizes the national aspirations and priorities that emerging economies are placing on knowledge creation as a new lever of economic development and a new arena of competition between nations in the sphere of knowledge creation. It
creates the opportunity to examine many other evolving dynamics such as structural changes in the supply and location of science, and technology pools of talent, the emerging online communities of talent and the reality of companies rethinking how and where to conduct their innovation activities including the reorganization of processes and the many activities involved in R&D and engineering support functions. Assembling and Functioning of the Program The design of the program itself also involves a new approach. The program will consist of 7 plenary panel sessions in addition to the opening and closing gala plenary sessions. The Program Committee is soliciting 3-4 page proposals for plenary panels on any aspect of the theme of the conference. The proposals must describe the sub-theme focus of the panel and why it represents an underexplored but important line of inquiry. The proposal must also identify 4-5 panelists, the nature of their expertise, and the panel sub-theme that they will inform and motivate. Together each panel is expected to outline and delineate the contours of new lines of inquiry and opportunities for leading edge research directions. Panelists are not expected to present lengthy papers. The challenge for each panelist is to plan on a high level, 15-minute compelling presentation. Lastly each plenary panel proposal must also include explicit statements from each panelist committing to personally participate for the entire conference if the plenary panel proposal is accepted for presentation and discussion in the conference. Each plenary panel session is allocated two and half hours (150 minutes). The format of each plenary panel involves a maximum of 90 minutes for the presentations by the panelists and the leadoff commentator. The formal presentation is followed by commentaries and discourse among the participants. It does not follow the traditional Q&A with panel. The key is to stimulate conversation and plant the seeds for follow up networking and new collaborations. At the conclusion of each plenary panel the panelists will be given a few minutes to reprise and respond to discussion that followed the plenary panel presentation. Each day will also include a period of downtime for networking, reassessment of discussions, emergence of new collaborations, and decompression. Attendance Participation in the MOR Research Frontiers Conference is by invitation only on the basis of the quality, originality, and fit of the panel proposal with the overall conference theme. The program committee will make every effort to ensure that the assembled participants represent a cross section of senior and junior scholars including advanced PhD students and that participants come from as many diverse geographies as possible. Attendance in future MOR Research Frontiers Conferences will strictly implement a requirement that 50% of the participants have not participated in a prior MOR Research frontiers Conference. This rule is intended to ensure that this prestigious and influential conference continues to stay vigorously stimulating, welcoming of new ideas and new perspectives and counteracts formation of an in-groups and creeping parochialism. The program committee expects that much of the plenary program will be created from proposals and suggestions received from scholars wishing to participate in the Inaugural MOR Research frontiers Conference. Some authors will be able to join the conference by participating in a pre-conference Paper Development Workshop to be organized and hosted by City University Hong Kong (details to be announced separately at a later date). Individuals interested in attending the Inaugural MOR Research Frontiers Conference but not as participant on the program are invited to please submit a statement expressing desire and reasons for participating. The program committee will make every effort to accommodate such requests. The application deadline for plenary panel proposals or individual applications to attend is May 5, 2014. However, overall participation will be limited to a maximum of 60 participants organized in a Chinese Banquet arrangement (round tables accommodating up to 8 persons each) at all sessions.
Conference Venue and Schedule The conference is hosted on the campus of Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST). The conference will open with a plenary gala session on December 4th 2014. Plenary sessions will be held December 5th and 6th. The closing Gala and special closing plenary and wrap up sessions will be held evening of December 6th and morning of 7th. The pre-conference paper development workshop will be organized and hosted by City University Hong Kong. Program Committee Arie Lewin (Duke University), Kwok Leung (City University of Hong Kong), Albert Park (Hong Kong University of Science and Technology), Chen Jin (Tsinghua University), Martin Kenney (University of California, Davis), and MOR Senior Editors Silvia Massini (University of Manchester), J. Peter Murmann (University of New South Wales), Bilian Sullivan (Hong Kong University of Science and Technology), and Michael Witt (INSEAD, Singapore). Local Arrangements Committee J. T. Li (Hong Kong University of Science and Technology), Albert Park (Hong Kong University of Science and Technology), Brian Boyd (City University of Hong Kong), Jiing-Lih (Larry) Farh (Hong Kong University of Science and Technology), Sam Garg (Hong Kong University of Science and Technology), Yaping Gong (Hong Kong University of Science and Technology), Paul Hempel (City University of Hong Kong), and Bilian Sullivan (Hong Kong University of Science and Technology). Submission of Plenary Panel Proposals Plenary Panel Session proposals should be submitted to Ms Stefanie McAdoo (smcadoo@duke.edu) Submission of Papers for Paper Development Workshop (details to come) Accommodations and Registration Fee (details to come) Individuals having substantive questions are invited to contact the convener of the Inaugural MOR Research frontiers Conference and Editor in Chief of MOR Professor Arie Lewin (ayl3@duke.edu) Hello Everyone!
Please forgive cross postings with RMNET.
We've been collecting data with fireman as the respondents, and gotten some surprising results. We are looking at the following relationship: INDEPENDENT VARIABLE: an individual's performance as a mentor; DEPENDENT VARIABLES: his or her protégé's job performance and OCB. Contrary to our theory, we get a non-significant correlation between mentor's performance and protégé's performance and a significant but negative relationship between mentor's performance and protégé's OCB. Also we noticed VERY little variance in job performance and OCB. The means and variances were 6.1 (7 point scale) mean, .34 variance and 5.34 (7 point scale) mean, .71, respectively. Perhaps lack of variance explains the non-significant correlation???? Our sample consists of firefighters which we judge to work within an organization with characteristics similar to military organizations. All new employees are assigned a mentor for their first year, and many individuals enter into informal mentoring relationships after that point. Respondents indicated that 88% have been mentored, 47% are currently being mentored, and about 50% of individuals currently are serving as mentors.
Has anyone seen these type of results?
Of course it doesn't have to be mentoring, but the idea that in a military type sample, otherwise sound relationships may not hold.
We wonder if perhaps some moderating variable (militaryness [for lack of a better term]) could be attenuating the relationships. We were wondering because it makes much sense to us that if someone was mentored well, then they would perform well, or at least better than someone who was mentored poorly. Of course, our theory could be wrong but before giving up, we wanted to see if anyone had any input for us. Further, we'll be conducting more surveys at other fire and police departments in the near future and would like to include a measure to capture this unique "militaryness," but I have had trouble finding a construct that quite embraces what we're looking for. I was hoping someone could recommend a construct (ideally with measures) for the individual's perception of the degree of "militaryness" of the organization.
Many thanks in advance!
Stephanie Maynard-Patrick
PHD Candidate Department of Management New Mexico State University svmp@nmsu.edu 575-646-6847 Dear OB Division members,
This is Chanchai Tangpong at North Dakota State. I currently serve as the OB/HR track chair for the 45th Decision Sciences Institute (DSI) Conference, which will be held in Tampa, FL, November 22 – 25 this year. Please see attached for the OB/HR track Call-for-Papers. The DSI conference is an established multi-business disciplinary conference and welcomes contributions from diverse disciplines. The DSI conference submissions are open to both work-in-progress and complete research papers, as well as research abstracts. The deadline for paper submission this year is May 1 and for abstract submission is May 15.
I hope that the DSI conference in November still fits your overall conference/travel plan this year, and would greatly appreciate that you would consider the DSI conference as an alternative outlet for your work-in-progress or complete research papers. Thank you very much for your consideration and I look forward to your submissions.
Regards, Chanchai Tangpong
College of Business
North Dakota State University
Hi Stephanie,
Just a quick thought... I have done some research using military samples ( though not on the topic of mentoring) and using police samples. I too have found seemingly counterintuitive relationships on occasion. Might I suggest that the 'militariness' you refer might be a strong group level effect. The soldiers, firefighters, police are often physically clustered within units, fire stations, police stations. As a result of that and a certain level of camaraderie that develops within units the workgroup becomes a strong situation. There may be more variance across groups than within.
You might look at some of the research done by folks like Paul Bliese, Tom Britt, who have done multilevel research in military settings.
Hope this helps. Good luck! Gary
Gary A. Adams, Ph.D.
Industrial and Organizational Psychologist
Professor of Human Resource Management
College of Business
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Oshkosh, WI 54901
Tel. 920.424.2071
Fax. 920.424.7413
Web. http://www.uwosh.edu/faculty_staff/adamsg
==========================================
This e-mail may contain privileged, confidential, or proprietary information. If you were not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all electronic copies and destroy any printed copies. We may monitor email to and from our network.
Thank you.
========================================== On Feb 17, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Stephanie Maynard-Patrick < svmp@nmsu.edu> wrote: Hello Everyone!
Please forgive cross postings with RMNET.
We've been collecting data with fireman as the respondents, and gotten some surprising results. We are looking at the following relationship: INDEPENDENT VARIABLE: an individual's performance as a mentor; DEPENDENT VARIABLES: his or her protégé's job performance and OCB. Contrary to our theory, we get a non-significant correlation between mentor's performance and protégé's performance and a significant but negative relationship between mentor's performance and protégé's OCB. Also we noticed VERY little variance in job performance and OCB. The means and variances were 6.1 (7 point scale) mean, .34 variance and 5.34 (7 point scale) mean, .71, respectively. Perhaps lack of variance explains the non-significant correlation???? Our sample consists of firefighters which we judge to work within an organization with characteristics similar to military organizations. All new employees are assigned a mentor for their first year, and many individuals enter into informal mentoring relationships after that point. Respondents indicated that 88% have been mentored, 47% are currently being mentored, and about 50% of individuals currently are serving as mentors.
Has anyone seen these type of results?
Of course it doesn't have to be mentoring, but the idea that in a military type sample, otherwise sound relationships may not hold.
We wonder if perhaps some moderating variable (militaryness [for lack of a better term]) could be attenuating the relationships. We were wondering because it makes much sense to us that if someone was mentored well, then they would perform well, or at least better than someone who was mentored poorly. Of course, our theory could be wrong but before giving up, we wanted to see if anyone had any input for us. Further, we'll be conducting more surveys at other fire and police departments in the near future and would like to include a measure to capture this unique "militaryness," but I have had trouble finding a construct that quite embraces what we're looking for. I was hoping someone could recommend a construct (ideally with measures) for the individual's perception of the degree of "militaryness" of the organization.
Many thanks in advance!
Stephanie Maynard-Patrick
PHD Candidate Department of Management New Mexico State University svmp@nmsu.edu 575-646-6847
17 Feb 2014 Hi Stephanie, I have surveyed EMT/firefighters several times and I am not sure the concept of "militaryness" is entirely represented as you intend in that sample occupation. You suggest EMT/firefighters and police are military-type occupations. However, they may be in uniform and have strong cultures but are often unionized, have long tenures with their organizations and expect to be employed for an entire career, and conduct their work in the surrounding community. Military personnel are non-union and often have expectations of short careers in the military except for the career personnel. The firefighters all have similar jobs and work in the same conditions and environments while military personnel have varied jobs and ranks. Military personnel differ by enlisted and commissioned designations, too. I am not sure the military personnel often have mentors. These are some of the differences that might influence construction of a measure of your construct. If I were designing a measure, I might relate it to organizational commitment and organizational culture. I might also relate it to a requirement for obedience to the command structure--not necessarily an authoritarian view but an implied respect for rank and position of authority. Good luck with your work. Dave McLain Hamilton, NY On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Stephanie Maynard-Patrick <svmp@nmsu.edu> wrote: Hello Everyone!
Please forgive cross postings with RMNET.
We've been collecting data with fireman as the respondents, and gotten some surprising results. We are looking at the following relationship: INDEPENDENT VARIABLE: an individual's performance as a mentor; DEPENDENT VARIABLES: his or her protégé's job performance and OCB. Contrary to our theory, we get a non-significant correlation between mentor's performance and protégé's performance and a significant but negative relationship between mentor's performance and protégé's OCB. Also we noticed VERY little variance in job performance and OCB. The means and variances were 6.1 (7 point scale) mean, .34 variance and 5.34 (7 point scale) mean, .71, respectively. Perhaps lack of variance explains the non-significant correlation???? Our sample consists of firefighters which we judge to work within an organization with characteristics similar to military organizations. All new employees are assigned a mentor for their first year, and many individuals enter into informal mentoring relationships after that point. Respondents indicated that 88% have been mentored, 47% are currently being mentored, and about 50% of individuals currently are serving as mentors.
Has anyone seen these type of results?
Of course it doesn't have to be mentoring, but the idea that in a military type sample, otherwise sound relationships may not hold.
We wonder if perhaps some moderating variable (militaryness [for lack of a better term]) could be attenuating the relationships. We were wondering because it makes much sense to us that if someone was mentored well, then they would perform well, or at least better than someone who was mentored poorly. Of course, our theory could be wrong but before giving up, we wanted to see if anyone had any input for us. Further, we'll be conducting more surveys at other fire and police departments in the near future and would like to include a measure to capture this unique "militaryness," but I have had trouble finding a construct that quite embraces what we're looking for. I was hoping someone could recommend a construct (ideally with measures) for the individual's perception of the degree of "militaryness" of the organization.
Many thanks in advance!
Hi Stephanie, I did some research on firefighters in a cross-cultural study comparing the firefighters from Caracas, Venezuela and their counterparts in Oklahoma City, Ok! This so many moons ago that the paper was really typed on an IBM typewriter! Remember them? The firefighters in Venezuela (at the time) existed in more paramilitary discipline regime than the guys in OKC! Working conditions at the time were also different, but these two groups did not show any difference with respect to their satisfaction with the job itself! Looked at task technology but the measure applied (developed by one of my advisors) did not work well! I must tell you that I was a firefighter myself for many years in Venezuela before I became an academic. While it is true that in many fire departments they assign a mentor to the rookies it is also true that firefighters, more that police officers, spend a lot more time clustered together in their fire station! The togetherness that exists in the fire station is augmented when in fire situations. There is a whole lot of informal learning taking place all the time both in the fire station and when fighting fires! This learning comes from the mentor and from the veterans in the service. So, I don't think that it is too easy to separate both sources of learning! My last rank was that of Captain and I will be guiding, teaching, helping the other guys learn more and better what they were doing regardless of seniority. Some times the mentor would be there too! Although I have been away from the active service for many, many years many of the new guys still see me as one of them, even here in the U.S.! Thanks, Ivan Dr. R. Ivan Blanco Department of Management McCoy College of Business Administration Texas State University San Marcos, TX 78666
17 Feb 2014 Hi Stephanie, I have surveyed EMT/firefighters several times and I am not sure the concept of "militaryness" is entirely represented as you intend in that sample occupation. You suggest EMT/firefighters and police are military-type occupations. However, they may be in uniform and have strong cultures but are often unionized, have long tenures with their organizations and expect to be employed for an entire career, and conduct their work in the surrounding community. Military personnel are non-union and often have expectations of short careers in the military except for the career personnel. The firefighters all have similar jobs and work in the same conditions and environments while military personnel have varied jobs and ranks. Military personnel differ by enlisted and commissioned designations, too. I am not sure the military personnel often have mentors. These are some of the differences that might influence construction of a measure of your construct. If I were designing a measure, I might relate it to organizational commitment and organizational culture. I might also relate it to a requirement for obedience to the command structure--not necessarily an authoritarian view but an implied respect for rank and position of authority. Good luck with your work. Dave McLain Hamilton, NY On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Stephanie Maynard-Patrick <svmp@nmsu.edu> wrote: Hello Everyone!
Please forgive cross postings with RMNET.
We've been collecting data with fireman as the respondents, and gotten some surprising results. We are looking at the following relationship: INDEPENDENT VARIABLE: an individual's performance as a mentor; DEPENDENT VARIABLES: his or her protégé's job performance and OCB. Contrary to our theory, we get a non-significant correlation between mentor's performance and protégé's performance and a significant but negative relationship between mentor's performance and protégé's OCB. Also we noticed VERY little variance in job performance and OCB. The means and variances were 6.1 (7 point scale) mean, .34 variance and 5.34 (7 point scale) mean, .71, respectively. Perhaps lack of variance explains the non-significant correlation???? Our sample consists of firefighters which we judge to work within an organization with characteristics similar to military organizations. All new employees are assigned a mentor for their first year, and many individuals enter into informal mentoring relationships after that point. Respondents indicated that 88% have been mentored, 47% are currently being mentored, and about 50% of individuals currently are serving as mentors.
Has anyone seen these type of results?
Of course it doesn't have to be mentoring, but the idea that in a military type sample, otherwise sound relationships may not hold.
We wonder if perhaps some moderating variable (militaryness [for lack of a better term]) could be attenuating the relationships. We were wondering because it makes much sense to us that if someone was mentored well, then they would perform well, or at least better than someone who was mentored poorly. Of course, our theory could be wrong but before giving up, we wanted to see if anyone had any input for us. Further, we'll be conducting more surveys at other fire and police departments in the near future and would like to include a measure to capture this unique "militaryness," but I have had trouble finding a construct that quite embraces what we're looking for. I was hoping someone could recommend a construct (ideally with measures) for the individual's perception of the degree of "militaryness" of the organization.
Many thanks in advance!
|