Search results

The purpose of this article is to investigate how national-level characteristics such as country wealth, a floating exchange rate and European Union (EU) membership influence firm-level perceptions of competition and firm-level innovation. Greater understanding of these relationships can promote more effective policymaking as well as add to the existing academic conversation regarding national factors and firm competitiveness.

The authors’ data consist of a panel of 27 countries in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia from 2002 to 2009 with a total of nearly 27,000 firms from the World Bank Enterprise Survey. The authors utilize a multinomial logistic regression to estimate firm-level perceptions of both domestic and foreign competition upon decisions to introduce new products and manage new product costs. The authors then estimate the probability of innovation (introduction of a new product/service, obtaining international quality certification) using a logistic regression. The marginal effects of the key explanatory variables for country wealth, floating exchange rate and EU membership are calculated.

While EU membership heightens perceptions of competition, firms in the EU are less likely to introduce new products or services. On the other hand, a firm in an EU member country is more likely to obtain international quality certification than one that is not. Both country wealth and a floating exchange correlate with enhanced perceptions of competition and innovation as expected.

The first finding regarding heightened perceptions of competition yet lower likelihood of introduction of new products/services among EU firms is surprising. Beyond adding to the empirical store of knowledge regarding the relationship of national factors to firm competitiveness, it suggests that more needs to be done with regard to innovation policy. The authors offer a general recommendation to employ more public–private partnerships for innovation among small and medium enterprises, as this has been effective in other parts of the world.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.

For many of the current leadership theories, models, and approaches, the answer to the question posed in the title, “Is leadership more than ‘I like my boss’?,” is “no,” as there appears to be a hierarchy of leadership concepts with Liking of the leader as the primary dimension or general factor foundation. There are then secondary dimensions or specific sub-factors of liking of Relationship Leadership and Task Leadership; and subsequently, tertiary dimensions or actual sub-sub-factors that comprise the numerous leadership views as well as their operationalizations (e.g., via surveys). There are, however, some leadership views that go beyond simply liking of the leader and liking of relationship leadership and task leadership. For these, which involve explicit levels of analysis formulations, often beyond the leader, or are multi-level in nature, the answer to the title question is “yes.” We clarify and discuss these various “no” and “yes” leadership views and implications of our work for future research and personnel and human resources management practice.

This issue is a selected bibliography covering the subject of leadership.

This paper aims to discuss research ethics in mixed-methods research (MMR) and MMR development with a focus on ethical challenges that stem from working with technical instruments such as mobile eye-trackers.

The case of an interdisciplinary mixed-methods development study that aimed at researching the impacts of emerging mobile augmented-reality technologies on the perception of public places serves as an example to discuss research-ethical challenges regarding (1) the practical implementation of the study, (2) data processing and management and (3) societal implications of developing instruments to track and understand human practices.

This study reports challenges and experiences in ethical decision-making in the practical implementation of the study regarding the relationship to research subjects, the use of mobile research instruments in public places and the interdisciplinary cooperation among research team members. Further, this paper expounds on ethical challenges and recommendations in data processing and management and with a view to societal implications of method development and the aspirations of transdisciplinarity. This study concludes that institutionalized ethics need to become more flexible, while applied ethics and reflection must make their entry into university curricula across disciplines.

Complex interdisciplinary mobile and mixed-methods projects that involve sensors and instruments such as mobile eye-trackers are on the rise. However, there is a significant lack of engagement with practical research ethical challenges, practices and requirements in both mixed-methods and method-development literature. By taking a context- and process-oriented perspective focusing on doing ethics, the paper contributes a concrete empirical case to these underdeveloped fields.

Addresses the standardization of the measurements and the labels for concepts commonly used in the study of work organizations. As a reference handbook and research tool, seeks to improve measurement in the study of work organizations and to facilitate the teaching of introductory courses in this subject. Focuses solely on work organizations, that is, social systems in which members work for money. Defines measurement and distinguishes four levels: nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio. Selects specific measures on the basis of quality, diversity, simplicity and availability and evaluates each measure for its validity and reliability. Employs a set of 38 concepts ‐ ranging from “absenteeism” to “turnover” as the handbook’s frame of reference. Concludes by reviewing organizational measurement over the past 30 years and recommending future measurement reseach.