Search results

The research investigates valuers' understanding of the value of sustainability in property and its' consideration in valuation practice in Australia. This paper explores valuers' perceptions of the relationships between sustainability and market values, sustainability and valuation variables, and the value influence of industry sustainability certification schemes. Further, this paper tracks prevalence of certified buildings in Australian commercial markets and the evolution of valuers' knowledge of sustainability certifications used in Australia.

This paper reports on the next rendition of a longitudinal study examining valuers’ practice in Australia. This research explores the evolution of Australian valuers' perception and knowledge of sustainability in valuation practice. The survey data has been periodically collected from practising valuers from 2007 to 2021. The survey questions investigate valuers' knowledge development, understanding, reporting and consideration of the relationship between sustainability and market value.

The results have identified the evolution of the influence of normative research on valuers' perceptions of the relationship between sustainability and value; with a clearer understanding emerging over time of where the value relationships are identified in valuation variables. Greater alignment between empirical Australian studies and valuers' perceptions of the influence of sustainability ratings on value, demonstrate the value connection for higher rated buildings under NABERS (energy rating) and Green Star. Whilst only 41% of the study's participants are including sustainability in their valuation reports, they include a higher level of commentary on building descriptions and initiatives, building ratings, and reporting of owner and tenant objectives, than in previous studies. Knowledge development relating to sustainability certification tool, NABERS was identified. This is likely linked to the introduction of mandatory disclosure legislation. This has also led to increased awareness and valuers' knowledge of the differences between the two key rating tools used in Australia.

The research has several limitations: firstly, recruitment of valuers and the number of valuers' responses has varied over time; secondly, due to collection methods respondents have a greater likelihood of having an interest in and knowledge of sustainability creating potential for positive bias; thirdly, respondents may have responded to the survey in different years, but due to anonymity there has been no ability to track this. The results provide insights into the Australian valuation profession but may not be fully representative of the profession overall in Australia.

The broader agenda of net zero, climate change, mitigation and carbon requirements, whether driven by market forces or government legislation, are generating changes in property markets as investors' reconsider their positions and model the implications of carbon emissions on their bottom lines. Introductions of policy and legislation over time in the Australian context have led to changes in valuation practice and increasing consideration of energy efficiency and ratings in the valuation of assets. However, further guidance and research still is required in Australia to assist in the knowledge development of valuers, and their ability to consider the emerging effects of sustainability, net zero and other market driven objectives including legislation, and how these may affect or influence their evaluation of market evidence and thus property values.

The research has tracked valuers' understanding, knowledge, and consideration of sustainability and energy efficiency in valuation practice since 2007. In that time the research has found that, as the market has evolved and more rated buildings are built (or retrofitted), so too has valuers' knowledge and consideration in valuation practices evolved. Valuers are more engaged with industry rating tools such as NABERS. This suggests that the Australian mandatory disclosure policies have contributed to changes in the market, which are then interpreted by valuers and reflected in their perceptions and consideration of energy ratings in valuation practice.

The other-race effect shows that people are better recognizing faces from their own-race compared to other-race faces. This effect can have dramatic consequences in applied scenarios whereby face identification is paramount, such as eyewitness identification. This paper aims to investigate whether observers have insights into their ability to recognize other-race faces.

Chinese ethnic observers performed objective measures of own- and other-race face recognition – the Cambridge Face Memory Test Chinese and the Cambridge Face Memory Test original; the PI20 – a 20-items self-reported measured of general face recognition abilities; and the ORE20 – a new developed 20-items self-reported measure of other-race face recognition.

Recognition of own-race faces was better compared to other-race faces. This effect was also evident at a phenomenological level, as observers reported to be worse recognizing other-race faces compared to own-race faces. Additionally, although a moderate correlation was found between own-race face recognition abilities and the PI20, individual differences in the recognition of other-race faces was only poorly associated with observers’ scores in the ORE20.

These results suggest that observers’ insights to recognize faces are more consistent and reliable for own-race faces.

Self-reported measures of other-race recognition could produce misleading results. Thus, when evaluating eyewitness’ accuracy identifying other-race faces, objective measures should be used.

In contrast to own race recognition, people have very limited insights into their recognition abilities for other race faces.

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to provide an introductory exploration of how the modern Master of Library and Information Science (MLIS) may contribute to the effect of imposter phenomenon (IP) in graduate students and early career librarians and to offer solutions to mitigate the effect.

Design/Methodology/Approach – Six university American Library Association-accredited library master’s programs in North America were identified and compared based on publicly available information on program websites. The authors pose questions about the modern MLIS and identify potential solutions to the issues raised about IP in graduate school and the workplace. Ideas in the chapter are supported by best practices suggested by academic literature on organizational behavior and Library and Information Studies (LIS) scholarship as well as invaluable personal reflections found on blogs and other gray literature sources.

Findings – The modern MLIS produces graduates who can vary greatly in their knowledge of LIS topics and career preparedness. MLIS programs and employers can mitigate the effects of nervousness, burn out, and isolation for high-achieving individuals through career preparedness and continuing education courses and opportunities for positive onboarding and mentorship.

Originality/Value – To date, there is a gap in the LIS literature about IP, especially the connection between the modern MLIS and IP. This chapter provides an exploratory look and asks questions to further the conversation on this topic.

Managers must make numerous strategic decisions in order to initiate and implement a business model innovation (BMI). This paper examines how managers perceive the management team interacts when making BMI decisions. The paper also investigates how group biases and board members’ risk willingness affect this process.

Empirical data were collected through 26 in-depth interviews with German managing directors from 13 companies in four industries (mobility, manufacturing, healthcare and energy) to explore three research questions: (1) What group effects are prevalent in BMI group decision-making? (2) What are the key characteristics of BMI group decisions? And (3) what are the potential relationships between BMI group decision-making and managers' risk willingness? A thematic analysis based on Gioia's guidelines was conducted to identify themes in the comprehensive dataset.

First, the results show four typical group biases in BMI group decisions: Groupthink, social influence, hidden profile and group polarization. Findings show that the hidden profile paradigm and groupthink theory are essential in the context of BMI decisions. Second, we developed a BMI decision matrix, including the following key characteristics of BMI group decision-making managerial cohesion, conflict readiness and information- and emotion-based decision behavior. Third, in contrast to previous literature, we found that individual risk aversion can improve the quality of BMI decisions.

This paper provides managers with an opportunity to become aware of group biases that may impede their strategic BMI decisions. Specifically, it points out that managers should consider the key cognitive constraints due to their interactions when making BMI decisions. This work also highlights the importance of risk-averse decision-makers on boards.

This qualitative study contributes to the literature on decision-making by revealing key cognitive group biases in strategic decision-making. This study also enriches the behavioral science research stream of the BMI literature by attributing a critical influence on the quality of BMI decisions to managers' group interactions. In addition, this article provides new perspectives on managers' risk aversion in strategic decision-making.

Even the smartest organizations believe that “good enough is never good enough.” Highly intelligent people may be able to do important things individually; still, it is their accumulated brainpower that allows them to do great things. Collective intelligence means when a group of people do things that seem intelligent. On the other hand, when intelligent people are gathered or hired in an organization, they tend toward collective stupidity and slow-wittedness. Therefore, the purpose of the present study is to develop a model of the factors affecting and affected by collective stupidity.

This study was conducted using a mixed-method approach and in two phases: qualitative and quantitative. First, in the qualitative phase and in order to achieve new findings, semi-structured interviews with experts from 12 knowledge-based companies were used to design a conceptual model and formulate the hypotheses. At the end of the qualitative phase, the conceptual model and relationships between variables were drawn. Then, in the quantitative phase, by running structural equation modeling, the antecedents and consequences of collective stupidity derived from the qualitative phase findings were analyzed and the research hypotheses were tested in 110 industrial knowledge-based companies.

The results of the qualitative phase revealed that individual, group and organizational factors were the antecedents of collective stupidity, with individual factors having three dimensions, collective ones including two dimensions and organizational ones focusing on the characteristics of managers/companies. It was also found that collective stupidity had individual consequences in three dimensions and organizational consequences in five dimensions; and one-sidedness, non-strategic thinking, organizational injustice and weakness in the management of key personnel were extracted as mediators. The results of the quantitative phase confirmed the research model and showed that individual factors and organizational consequences had the lowest (0.037) and highest (1.084) effect sizes on collective stupidity, respectively.

The study of the phenomenon in a particular context and the difficulty of generalizing the findings to other situations, the small size of the study population due to the disproportionate number of experts to the total staff in the qualitative phase, and the limited participation of experts due to the negative nature of the issue in the quantitative phase. Taking advantage of the diversity of experts' mental abilities through equipping the organization with tools for recognizing collective stupidity, improving collective decision-making, enhancing the efficiency of think tanks and organizational prosperity in the age of knowledge economy, preventing damage to the body of knowledge of the company and reducing social loafing can be the main operational implications of this study.

Using a mixed-method approach for analyzing the antecedents and consequences of collective stupidity in this study and examining such a phenomenon in a knowledge-based organizational context and its implementation in a developing country can be among the innovations of the present research. By following a few studies conducted in this field in addition to the organizational pathology of the phenomenon using a fundamental method, this study obtained deep results on how to make the maximum use of experts’ capacities. This was to the extent that in all of the three sections, i.e. the antecedents and consequences of collective stupidity, a new factor emerged.

The development of upcoming inclusive leaders requires not just knowledge of inclusion competencies but also knowledge of how to develop them and when to use them. This chapter examines the effectiveness of combining a psychometric assessment tool – the Inclusion Competencies Inventory (ICI) – and an improvement approach that places developmental responsibility in the hands of the student, not the instructor. The increased need for inclusivity in organizations requires business school graduates, who will soon be taking on the role of organizational leaders, to develop inclusion competencies. We seek to enhance inclusion competencies through a model based on reflective development and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). There are several implications for academicians and practitioners who may choose to adopt this unique, participant-driven approach to developing inclusion leadership competencies.

There are several ways that risks and uncertainties might be discussed in the context of assessment and analysis – several of which could be inferred from previous chapters. Here, Chapters 6 and 7 are structured around what might be called strategic risks/uncertainties and operational risks/uncertainties.

This chapter presents the strategic risk/uncertainty assessment and analysis challenge. Most current thinking on risk management – enterprise risk management (ERM), but even including more traditional approaches – place expectations on leaders and top managers to provide guidance on risk policy, but also require those individuals to understand the challenges for which they are responsible. As implied previously, this domain mainly consists of uncertainties. Typically, top managers deal with aggregated operational data that – in itself – might be measurable but owing to the effects of consolidation tend to present leaders with a singular strategy/issue that is unique to the organisation and therefore not well-suited to statistical analysis. Furthermore, scanning for future threats and opportunities is decidedly a matter of considering the unknown, the emergent, and even the unimaginable. Within this assortment of challenges are the very large-scale features that – among many things – compel consideration of collaboration with other organisations. Here these special risks/uncertainties are labelled global risks.

The issue of complexity is here revisited, and this discussion serves two particular purposes. Complexity theory (and complex adaptive systems) offers some insights into methods of assessment and analysis, but they also provide some useful views on the nature of the uncertainty field in the context of complex environments. This discussion will offer some consideration of traditional, ERM, and alternative approaches and the appropriate ‘fit’ of assessment and analysis into these frameworks.

Business graduates’ enterprising capability augments their work readiness, transforming them into professionals capable of driving successful outcomes. At the core lie self-confidence and negotiating competence. However, embedding enterprise education and developing assessments to evidence learning is challenging. This study aims to offer a blueprint for establishing enterprise learning in the classroom and investigating the effectiveness of cultivating negotiating competence and self-confidence.

Modelled on Kolb’s experiential learning cycle, students engage in in-class and real-life negotiations, assessing self-confidence using a scale founded in Bandura’s self-efficacy theory. Open-ended reflections are also submitted. Quantitative data is analysed through multiple linear regression, while quantitative and qualitative data triangulation substantiates enterprise learning in negotiating competence and self-confidence.

Students’ reflections show that low self-confidence poses an initial barrier in negotiations, overcome with successive engagements. Quantitative analysis uncovers response-shift biases, with female and male students overestimating initial self-confidence levels. The gender and difference score type interaction reveals a more pronounced bias among female students starting from a lower baseline than male students, implying a more substantial self-confidence improvement for female students. These findings challenge traditional assumptions about gender differences in negotiations and emphasize the need for nuanced perspectives.

Enterprising capability is pivotal for business professionals. This study highlights the advancement of negotiating competence and self-confidence. It contributes uniquely to the development of enterprise education pedagogy. Focusing on nuanced gender differences challenges prevailing assumptions, providing a perspective to the discourse on negotiating competence and self-confidence in management training.