Search results

This paper examines the effects of contract award announcements on the stock returns of successful grantees. Contract awards are identified using Lexis/Nexis and classified according to whether the grantor is another corporation or government body. The government grantors are further classified according to the type of government entity granting the contract. Four subsamples emerge: federal (non-military), military, municipal, and foreign. The results suggest that contract awards granted by foreign governments are more lucrative than contract awards granted by corporations or American governmental bodies. This finding endures even after controlling for potentially confounding factors.

Through the analysis of different initiatives of all EU countries in relation to business excellence models, there is a need to map these initiatives and to compare the most “interesting” quality awards of European Union by means of their substantial differentiation from European Foundation of Quality Management (EFQM) model. The aim of this paper is to propose the necessity for a diverse business excellence system, which respects the cross‐cultural differentiations of EU countries.

This research is based on information gathered by means of structured questionnaires, telephone interviews with representative Quality Award organizations and other written material collected from literature.

The findings are summarized as follows. EU countries do not have a common framework to address business excellence, however the “European Quality Award” based on the “EFQM Excellence Model” is the most widespread in the previous decade. There is a tendency towards own developments on national quality awards in the current decade. There is a clear indication of Quality Awards “nature” across EU: there are the national ones which are supported by their governments in the sense of financial support to organizations and the private ones which are supported by associations, chambers, private organizations and non profit organizations. There is a tendency of all social and business partners (in the governmental and private sector) to participate in the organizations so as to administer and manage the awards and business excellence models. This participation varies according to the political system of the EU country.

This paper reviews only 31 major Total Quality Awards out of the 51 that are identified excluding entrepreneurship awards and regional ones that tend to represent their national quality awards. Future research could include a sector analysis, such as SMEs business excellence awards, or a thorough analysis of public sector awards.

The paper reviews all major NQAs in EU and indicates an inclination to move from EFQM model to a more dynamic system of business excellence, which respects the diverse cultures of EU nations. The models, which are called TQM models, business excellence models or national quality award ones are used throughout the paper with the same meaning.

This paper is based on both a structured survey and on literature review. It is the first time that is proposed to be published.

The value of winning the Baldrige Quality Award to the shareholders of the firm has been the subject of a debate motivated by bipolar perceptions and an opposing set of viewpoints held by both industry leaders and academic professionals. One of the key concerns that must be addressed to place the impact of the Baldrige Award in a proper perspective (and thus contribute to the resolution of this debate on the issue of the value to the shareholders of the winning firms) is the short‐term negative effect imputed by the views and the actions of the critics, especially the short sellers who see the announcement of the award as an opportunity to make profits by short selling the stock. In this study, we focus on this concern and examine the short‐term impact of the Baldrige Award announcement on the shareholder wealth by applying a rigorous statistical methodology to analyze the stock price movements around the day of the announcement of the award for statistically significant abnormal behavior. Our analysis falsifies the critics’ claim that the financial and other resources spent by the companies toward winning the Baldrige Award are wasteful and reduce shareholder wealth.

Research has focused primarily on the antecedents that influence the risk taking of CEOs themselves. This study examines how an important event experienced by a CEO at a direct rival firm influences a CEO's risk-taking. It also examines how prior firm performance relative to aspirations moderates the relationship.

In order to test the hypothesis, the authors perform an a difference-in-differences methodology.

Using a difference-in-differences methodology, we find that when a CEO wins a prestigious CEO award, competitor CEOs increase their firm risk-taking in the post-award period. The proclivity becomes stronger when their prior firm performance relative to aspirations is better. These findings suggest that a CEO winning a prominent CEO award influences competitor CEOs' risk-taking.

This study contributes to the literature on managerial risk-taking by highlighting that a star CEO winning a prominent award may serve as a striving aspiration and induce competitor CEOs to take risks, and that two different types of aspirations – striving and competitive aspirations – interact to influence the competitor CEOs' risk-taking.

Offshoring is the process of using unaffiliated foreign companies or affiliated offshore entities (AOEs) to manufacture goods or perform services. The Big 4 public accounting firms offshore tax services (Houlder, 2007) and, more recently, have started to offshore audit tasks of their U.S.-based clients to AOEs located in India (Daugherty & Dickins, 2009). While the benefits of offshoring might be substantial, there are also costs associated with moving domestic work to foreign locations. One of these costs may be greater damage awards in lawsuits involving an audit failure where audit tasks were performed overseas as opposed to the United States. This study investigates that possibility by experimentally examining the effect of offshoring audit tasks requiring different levels of judgment on the amount of damages awarded by potential jurors as a result of an audit failure. The results show potential jurors awarded greater damages against the auditor when audit tasks were performed offshore than when they were performed in the United States. There was no effect of the level of judgment of the audit task on damages awarded. Since this study examines offshoring to only one location, India, results may not be generalizable to other offshore locations.

In Chapter 10 in this volume, Comandé (2009) has proposed that American courts adapt “scheduling” for use by juries in awarding nonpecuniary damages in personal injury and wrongful death cases. Comandé suggests that American courts can develop schedules for awarding damages for nonpecuniary losses on the basis of the severity of the injury and the age of the injured party, based on data on prior awards by particular courts in specific jurisdictions. Comandé's proposal is shaped by the experiences of European jurisdictions that have developed scheduling for awarding nonpecuniary damages.

This chapter presents a brief history of the James Partridge Award from its founding in 1997 to the present day.

The history of the James Partridge Award is told as a narrative account. Both authors were personally involved in the founding and early development of the award.

The James Partridge Award has celebrated the accomplishments of African American information professionals since the first award was presented in 1998. The award is an important part of the Conference on Inclusion and Diversity in Library and Information Science.

Multiple factors contribute to the attrition of women from STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). A lack of recognition for scholarly contributions is one piece of the puzzle. Awards are crucial not only for recognizing achievement but also for making individuals feel that their contributions are valued. Additionally, awards for research are important for promotion to various levels within the academic hierarchy, including tenure and promotion. With a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Association for Women in Science (AWIS) has been examining the ways in which women are recognized for their achievements by professional disciplinary societies.

Working with the leadership of scientific societies, we developed best practices to increase gender parity and the transparency of awards processes. These recommendations included using gender-neutral language for solicitations and letters of recommendation, increasing the nomination and selection pools, clearly defining and discussing the types of achievements being sought and evaluated, including women on nomination and selection committees (particularly as committee chairs), and educating the committees about implicit bias.

AWIS partnered with 18 different societies and has seen an increase in the transparency of awards processes leading to more equitable recognition since the project’s inception in 2010.

Professional societies play critical roles in scientists’ professional development, and their awards programs make powerful statements about values. When awards show a gender gap, the implication is that men and women are valued differently by the society. Thus, leaders of disciplinary societies should work to ensure that their recognition processes do not disadvantage women.