University rankings and metrics have become an increasingly prominent basis of student decisions, generalized university reputation, and the resources university’s…
University rankings and metrics have become an increasingly prominent basis of student decisions, generalized university reputation, and the resources university’s attract. We review the history of metrics in higher education and scholarship about the influence of ranking on the position and strategic behavior of universities and students. Most quantitative analyses on this topic estimate the influence of change in university rank on performance. These studies consistently identify a small, short-lived influence of rank shift on selectivity (e.g., one rank position corresponds to ≤1% more student applicants), comparable to ranking effects documented in other domains. This understates the larger system-level impact of metrification on universities, students, and the professions that surround them. We explore one system-level transformation likely influenced by the rise of rankings. Recent years have witnessed the rise of enrollment management and independent educational consultation. We illustrate a plausible pathway from ranking to this transformation: In an effort to improve rankings, universities solicit more applications from students to reduce their acceptance rate. Lower acceptance rates lead to more uncertainty for students about acceptance, leading them to apply to more schools, which decreases the probability that accepted students will attend. This leads to greater uncertainty about enrollment for students and universities and generates demand for new services to manage it. Because these and other system-level transformations are not as cleanly measured as rank position and performance, they have not received the same treatment or modeling attention in higher education scholarship, despite their importance for understanding and influencing education policy.
Universities in both North America and Europe are under substantial pressure. We draw on the papers in this volume to describe those pressures and explore their consequences from an organizational standpoint. Building on the institutional logics perspective, field theories, world society theory, resource dependence, and organizational design scholarship, these papers show how the changing relationship between the state and higher education, cultural shifts, and broad trends toward globalization have led to financial pressures on universities and intensified competition among them. Universities have responded to these pressures by cutting costs, becoming more entrepreneurial, increasing administrative control, and expanding the use of rationalized tools for management. Collectively, these reactions are reshaping the field(s) of higher education and increasing stratification within and across institutions. While universities have thus far proven remarkably adaptive to these pressures, they may be reaching the limits of how much they can adapt without seriously compromising their underlying missions.
People centrally located within networks enjoy a variety of benefits. Why some people achieve such advantage while others do not is not well understood. Using a novel…
People centrally located within networks enjoy a variety of benefits. Why some people achieve such advantage while others do not is not well understood. Using a novel dataset that maps the workflow network among software engineers at a Fortune 500 technology company, I trace the evolution of the position of 804 new entrants to the firm over a period of three years. Findings paint a consistent picture as to the determinants of position in this network: one’s team and one’s job at time of entry, rather than intellectual or social endowment, play the strongest roles in determining one’s subsequent centrality and autonomy.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the tax aggressiveness among family firms considering their different levels of family involvement. Based on the family influence…
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the tax aggressiveness among family firms considering their different levels of family involvement. Based on the family influence on power, experience, and culture approach proposed by Astrachan et al. (2002), this study examines to what extent the heterogeneity among family firms generates distinctive (and unique resource) combinations of family involvement that explain different levels of tax aggressiveness.
A sample of 282 small and medium-sized family enterprises and a structural equation modeling approach have been used to study simultaneously the effects of family influence through the power, experience, and culture dimensions of tax aggressiveness in family firms.
The family influences the business’ tax aggressiveness in different ways. As such, the greater the family experience, by the incorporation of second and subsequent generations, the greater the tax aggressiveness; in contrast, greater family power in terms of firm ownership and management negatively affects tax aggressiveness. Additionally, greater alignment of the family and business culture does not exert a significant effect on tax behaviors of family firms.
Tax aggressiveness is a complex activity that should be managed from a global point of view in family firms. Managers should compensate for the negative influence of family governance on tax aggressiveness with the positive effect of the family generations in order to obtain proper and balanced tax management that contributes to the sustainability of family firms.
This study contributes to the understanding of tax behavior heterogeneities among family firms by going further than most research (usually based mainly on comparative ownership aspects between large, publicly quoted family and non-family firms), considering some other more representative factors of family small and medium-sized enterprises, where the influence of characteristics of family management, family generation, and family values can be the main determinants of the firm taxation policies.