Search results

Literature on nontraditional firms has focused on behavioral differences with for-profit firms. Less attention has been given to the variations in behavior among nontraditional firms. This chapter examines differences across three types of Uruguayan nonprofit health care organizations.

This chapter draws on a unique dataset of Uruguayan health care organizations during the period 1982–1990, as well as interviews with doctors working in the three types of nonprofits during spring 2010. We use a simple OLS regression to identify differences in average behavior, and differences in reaction to a regulatory change.

The chapter shows that structure of stake holding and governance significantly affect behavior, even where many behaviors are highly regulated.

These findings highlight the importance of specifying governance structure when predicting behavior of nontraditional firms. Empirical tests of behavioral differences between traditional and nontraditional firms will be more meaningful if the governance structure of nontraditional firms is common and specified. A limitation of our study is our inability to control for the timing of degeneration of producer cooperatives. This would be one element of governance structure to consider in future data collection.

These findings highlight the need to avoid drawing broad policy conclusions from the behavior of a specific subset of nontraditional firms.

This chapter highlights the importance of carefully specifying stakeholder and governance structure when predicting behavior of nontraditional firms. It is of interest to anyone using a sample of nontraditional firms to test general hypotheses about their behavior.

A common way to promote cooperative and collectively beneficial behavior in organizations is to sanction self-interested and collectively harmful behavior. Social science researchers recently focus more and more on the negative effects of sanctions. In particular, it is argued that sanctioning noncooperative behavior can undermine people's personal motives to behave cooperatively. In this chapter we argue that, in the decision to behave cooperatively, or in one's own self-interest, perceptions of other people's motives play an important role. In this chapter we discuss research on sanctioning systems in social dilemmas which shows that sanctioning noncooperative behavior undermines trust in others being motivated to cooperate. In a series of studies we show that the undermining of trust may lead to a general increase of noncooperation. Moreover, the newly developed “social trilemma” paradigm demonstrated that it may induce people to show self-interested behaviors they had not considered before. These negative effects of a sanctioning system are moderated by the trust people initially may have in their fellow group members’ cooperative intentions, in the sanctioning authority and by the way people regard authorities in general. Implications of these results for organizations are discussed.

This study analyses and presents the main differences that exist in the quality of management as practised by Cooperative and Non-Cooperative companies in the Basque Country within the industrial and company services sectors. The results obtained suggest that the quality level of cooperative company management is higher than that shown in the non-cooperative sector, the principal differences in quality of management being related to aspects where the social commitment of a company is reflected. These results prove to be more conclusive within the subgroup of cooperatives that are incorporated within the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation (MCC).

The focus of this paper is on altruism and coordination among agents with different income levels. A special form of altruism (fairness based or ethical altruism) is investigated by means of experiments. The definition of altruism used here follows from A. Sen’s concept of obligation, i.e. behaviour that produces advantage for someone whose welfare is not important at all for the agent’s well-being. In this sense, the paper investigates altruism without reciprocity. A second hypothesis investigated is that the extent of ethical altruism is influenced by gender and by income differences within the population.

Despite the number of articles over the past two decades mentioning the importance of the negotiation stage in the M&A process, there has been very limited theoretical development and empirical analysis emphasizing multiple factors critical to M&A negotiations. The purpose of our paper is twofold. First, we provide a review of the extant academic literature on negotiations in the M&A process. Then, drawing on the M&A process perspective and classical negotiation theory, we develop a framework to highlight major components of the M&A negotiation stage examined in existing studies and offer key insights of how this underdeveloped area of study is ripe with opportunities for future theoretical development and empirical research.

In this research, we address the following questions: (1) Do joint ventures (JVs) create value for both parent firms in the dyad? (2) How is the total value created in the venture influenced by resources and capabilities of the two parent firms? In addressing these questions, our objective is to provide added insight into the performance of JVs by shifting the level of analysis to the dyad from the individual parent firm. Our results indicate that a significant proportion of JVs created value for both parents. However, there was also considerable evidence of value destruction with a large proportion of JVs resulting in positive returns to one parent and negative returns to the other. In terms of the second question, we find that the total value created in a JV increases as the value of resources in the dyad increases and decreases with the differential in the value of resources between parents. We argue that the latter effect occurs because when there is a wide differential in capabilities, incentives are shifted away from joint value creation and cooperative behavior toward non-cooperative behavior and appropriating private benefits. Our findings broadly highlight the important role of private benefits in JVs and provide evidence that these benefits significantly influence the performance and dynamics of inter-firm collaboration in various ways.

This paper examines the role of cultural values measured as collectivism, face-saving, and conflict-avoidance, in predicting employee voice behavior. Using data (n = 198) collected from automotive-industry employees in the United States (US) and Korea, several interesting findings emerged. First, and most notably, for a “leaver” who chooses the exit option, culture does not matter, such that none of the three cultural values have a significant association with the exit option across countries. Second, for a “stayer,” who chooses the voice, loyalty, or neglect option, culture does matter in that cultural-specific values, such as collectivism, face-saving, and conflict-avoidance were found to affect employees nonexit options in the Korean sample, but not in the U.S. sample. The results of this study suggest that these three cultural values guide and predict employee voice behavior. Additionally, the results of this study confirm that job alternatives are a significant predictor of the exit option across cultures. This study therefore presents strong empirical evidence of the effect of culture on employee voice behavior and increases our understanding of employee voice behavior across cultures.

The research problem investigated in this paper addresses how love can intentionally be reflected in decision-making processes. The study is built on a theoretical and a practical foundation. The theoretical foundation comprises two parts with perspectives from theology and organizational theory. The practical foundation is derived from field research in the area of public administration and church leadership. Examples from field research indicate that trust and building of relationship will change adversarial behaviour into cooperative behaviour. Three network strategies are identified to make decision-making intentionally relational. The conceptual contribution is original, although the authors draw on existing insights from theology and public administration.