Search results

At the beginning of the 21st century, multiple and diverse social entities, including the public (consumers), private and nonprofit healthcare institutions, government (public health) and other industry sectors, began to recognize the limitations of the current fragmented healthcare system paradigm. Primary stakeholders, including employers, insurance companies, and healthcare professional organizations, also voiced dissatisfaction with unacceptable health outcomes and rising costs. Grand challenges and wicked problems threatened the viability of the health sector. American health systems responded with innovations and advances in healthcare delivery frameworks that encouraged shifts from intra- and inter-sector arrangements to multi-sector, lasting relationships that emphasized patient centrality along with long-term commitments to sustainability and accountability. This pathway, leading to a population health approach, also generated the need for transformative business models. The coproduction of health framework, with its emphasis on cross-sector alignments, nontraditional partner relationships, sustainable missions, and accountability capable of yielding return on investments, has emerged as a unique strategy for facing disruptive threats and challenges from nonhealth sector corporations. This chapter presents a coproduction of health framework, goals and criteria, examples of boundary spanning network alliance models, and operational (integrator, convener, aggregator) strategies. A comparison of important organizational science theories, including institutional theory, network/network analysis theory, and resource dependency theory, provides suggestions for future research directions necessary to validate the utility of the coproduction of health framework as a precursor for paradigm change.

The purpose of this paper is twofold: (1) to map and analyze existing complexity typologies and (2) to develop a framework for characterizing complexity-based approaches.

This study was conducted in three stages: (1) initial identification of typologies related to complexity following a structured procedure based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol; (2) backward and forward review to identify additional relevant typologies and (3) content analysis of the selected typologies, categorization and framework development.

Based on 17 selected typologies, a comprehensive overview of complexity studies is provided. Each typology is described considering key concepts, contributions and convergences and differences between them. The epistemological, theoretical and methodological diversity of complexity studies was explored, allowing the identification of the main schools of thought and authors. A framework for characterizing complexity-based approaches was proposed including the following perspectives: ontology of complexity, epistemology of complexity, purpose and object of interest, methodology and methods and theoretical pillars.

This study examines the main typologies of complexity from an integrated and multidisciplinary perspective and, based on that, proposes a novel framework to understanding and characterizing complexity-based approaches.

This paper highlights the opportunities and challenges for family firms in managing Generation Z (Gen-Z) employees. This perspective article explores several considerations for family firms in managing their Gen-Z employees and the potential implications for their socioemotional wealth (SEW).

The authors provide a brief review of what is known about the values/work habits of Gen-Z employees and attracting, retaining and managing nonfamily employees in family firms.

The unique values, motivations and working styles of Gen-Z employees suggest the need for family business leaders to adopt a different approach to managing these employees. A focus on Gen-Z’s psychological contract, technological savviness and entrepreneurial orientation is provided with respect to how they can be managed.

The authors suggest the importance of approaching NFEs as a heterogenous group and offer avenues for future research with prospective research questions to better understand nonfamily Generation Z employees’ place in the family firm.

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered an increase in online traffic, with many assuming that this technology would facilitate coping through active social connections. This study aims to interrogate the nature of this traffic-engagement relationship by distinguishing between passive (e.g. browsing) and active (e.g. reacting, commenting and sharing) engagement, and examining behavioral shifts across platforms.

Three field studies assessed changes in social media engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic. These studies included social media engagement with the most followed accounts (Twitter), discussion board commenting (Reddit) and news content sharing (Facebook).

Even though people spent more time online during the pandemic, the current research finds people were actively engaging less. Users were reacting less to popular social media accounts, commenting less on discussion boards and even sharing less news content.

While the current work provides a systematic observation of engagement during a global crisis, it does not claim causality based on its correlational nature. Future research should test potential mechanisms (e.g. anxiety, threat and privacy) to draw causal inference and identify possible interventions.

The pandemic shed light on a complex systemic issue: the misunderstanding and oversimplification of how online platforms facilitate social cohesion. It encourages thoughtful consideration of online social dynamics, emphasizing that not all engagement is equal and that the benefits of connection may not always be realized as expected.

This research provides a postmortem on the traffic-engagement relationship, highlighting that increased online presence does not necessarily translate to active social connection, which might help explain the rise in mental health issues that emerged from the pandemic.

Despite similarities, research across family business and business advising forwards contradictory conclusions when considering family business advising. The authors seek to integrate these literature and in doing so uncover both the hurdles facing family business advisors attempting to adapt tools developed in corporate advising to the family business context as well as the potential for greater integration of these streams in ways that contribute to both family business and advising research and practice.

Primary data were collected both in the form of a survey questionnaire and website marketing content. In the survey, 47 family business advisors evaluated the distinctiveness of their family business clients across structural, cognitive and relational social capital dimensions. Motivated by unexpected findings, a content analysis of advisor websites uncovered specific marketing themes that illustrate the divides between family business advising and scholarship.

Family business advisors reliably acknowledge structural and cognitive social capital as preeminently characterizing the distinctiveness of their family business clients. Expanding on this, the authors’ findings suggest that the urgency signaled in advisor marketing via their websites may inspire tactics misaligned with the long-term time horizon typically characterizing family businesses strategy.

The few family business advising studies that exist predominantly consider post-hoc evaluation of advising by family business clients. The primary data the authors collect are unique in the literature in that the data detail how family business advisors perceive and engage with potential clients.