Search results

This paper serves two purposes: first, it is an apology for a failure to produce a planned special issue, along with the rationales as to why the authors decided to withdraw it; and second, a commentary on the apparent failure of the research community to address a neglected area of inquiry in emotional intelligence (EI) research.

The authors provide a commentary.

The authors draw attention to the possiblity that employing highly emotionally intelligent individuals may not always yield desirable outcomes for organisations, thus seeking to ignite a more balanced debate as to the merits of EI in management and leadership studies. The authors also detail briefly several avenues for future research.

The theme of the planned special issue was situated at the forefront EI research, so this commentary succinctly highlights the theorising that informed the background to it.

In this overview, the editors trace the history of 10 books they have helmed in what has become the legacy of the Emonet conferences. From the seeds planted in 1998 by a small group of international scholars assembled together at the first Emonet conference, the shift of the study of emotions in organizational studies from the almost “undiscussable” to mainstream scholarship is traced. Following this historical analysis, the story of “What have we learned? Ten years on,” the latest volume in the Emonet book series, is given. In a brief summary of each chapter in the current edition, the editors draw attention to eight topic areas to showcase the remarkable and broad-ranging advances in the field of organization studies that have been enabled by attention to the role of emotions in theory and practice in 10 years since the first publication in the book series. From advances in our knowledge and understanding of work, workers and consumers, to team behavior, leader-member exchange, and In Extremis work contexts, and methodological contributions in the assessment of noncognitive traits through to advances in knowledge of positive work environments, the reader is left in no doubt that organizational scholarship and practice has been deeply enriched through bringing emotions center stage.

Suggests that good forward planning in respect of dilapidations liabilities can make a tremendous difference for both landlords and tenants. It is therefore important for the practising surveyor to have a good working knowledge of the law and practice. Sets out pointers to good practice on the practical side. Discusses some important principles of law and draws examples from recent cases.

The purpose of this paper is to examine consumer demands for local foods at a farmers’ market. This includes examining both what products consumers want more of at the market and also what factors influence consumers’ attendance for a weekday farmers’ market.

This study was based on open-ended comments from a market survey of 270 participants in a farmers’ market in the USA.

This study revealed that consumers want more products at the farmers’ market that require significant resources and time to grow, such as meat and fruit. Consumers reported that they would be more likely to attend a weekday market if it had better hours of operation and better selection. Consumer comments also revealed that consumers often perceive the market to run out of products and not have the full supply that they want to purchase.

This research represents qualitative insights at one farmers’ market in the USA. While there are observations that may transfer to other markets, caution should be used when generalizing these findings.

This research is informative for farmers in providing them a list of consumer demands and also highlights the ways farmers need to make their market convenient to consumer work and life patterns.

This work adds value to the literature by expanding our understanding of specific foods customers see as limited in the farmers’ market, and it also provides much needed information regarding consumer behavior and weekday market attendance, which is not discussed as often in the literature.

To date, empirical research on shared leadership (SL) has been dominated by quantitative studies of antecedents and outcomes, frequently in simulated environments. Consequently, there have been few authentic accounts of how SL is practiced within organisational teams. Underpinned by shared leadership theory and leadership behaviour theory, this paper aims to provide a fine-grained view of the SL behaviours exhibited by team members over time, in five organisational teams in Ireland.

This longitudinal qualitative study uses critical incident technique, semi-structured interviews and participant diaries to explore SL behaviours emerging in five teams over time.

SL became widespread over time in each team, with almost all (96%) team members exhibiting SL behaviours. Ten different leadership behaviours were exhibited, indicating that SL permits a wide variety of leadership behaviours to be expressed. Some leadership functions were rarely or never fulfilled by team members (team composition, performance monitoring and resource allocation), suggesting that these leadership behaviours are not amenable to sharing.

This paper provides an insight into how SL could be used to increase the leadership capacity in team-based organisations.

This paper adds depth to the understanding of SL, revealing the specific behaviours underlying this approach, expanding our understanding of the micro-dynamics at play in SL processes.

As Gonedes and Dopuch point out, there are many alternative approaches to the allocation of financial accounting information which might be viewed as competitors to ASC, FASB and other extant processes. Even if one begins with the ethical premise that “individual preferences are to count” and it is assumed that some sort of regulatory approach is needed, there are still at least three basic types of standards‐setting processes worthy of consideration: (1) “representative or expert body” processes; (2) “voting” processes; and (3) “demand‐based” (i.e. “willingness‐to‐pay”) processes. While the first type relies on the delegation of decision making authority to a body of “representative” or “expert” parties, the latter two types base their respective decisions on ordinal preference and demand information elicited directly from the affected parties themselves.