Search results

The overall goal of science is to build a valid and reliable body of knowledge about the functioning of the world and how applying that knowledge can change it. As personnel and human resources management researchers, we aim to contribute to the respective bodies of knowledge to provide both employers and employees with a workable foundation to help with those problems they are confronted with. However, what research on research has consistently demonstrated is that the scientific endeavor possesses existential issues including a substantial lack of (a) solid theory, (b) replicability, (c) reproducibility, (d) proper and generalizable samples, (e) sufficient quality control (i.e., peer review), (f) robust and trustworthy statistical results, (g) availability of research, and (h) sufficient practical implications. In this chapter, we first sing a song of sorrow regarding the current state of the social sciences in general and personnel and human resources management specifically. Then, we investigate potential grievances that might have led to it (i.e., questionable research practices, misplaced incentives), only to end with a verse of hope by outlining an avenue for betterment (i.e., open science and policy changes at multiple levels).

Milton Nascimento is one of the most prolific Brazilian singers and songwriters of all time, an artist who has formed friendships and made songs with a host of Brazilian artists, with international stars from Latin America, and with artists abroad. Milton’s repertoire has made its way into the fabric of musical compilations of Brazilian music for international listeners. Perhaps unbeknownst to these international listeners, Milton, as an Afro-Brazilian artist, reflects a complex and paradoxical relationship to “race” in his music – at times openly touching upon racial themes, even during an area when the government forbade open discussion of racial tension in Brazil – but at times signifying race more subtly, either through subtle references to diversity in Brazil or through the very elements of his music.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of subjective ambivalence on ethical consumption behaviors and the role of ethical claims in reducing feelings of ambivalence toward buying ethical products.

The authors conducted two studies. In study 1, the authors carried out an online survey with a sample of 230 French consumers. The authors applied structural equation modeling with Amos to test the relationships among skepticism, ambivalence and ethical consumption behaviors. Study 2 is an experimental design in which the authors manipulated ethical claims (low – few ethical arguments vs. high – many ethical arguments) in advertising (176 French panelists). The authors tested the relationships among consumer ethical sensitivity, perceived brand ethicality, skepticism, ambivalence and intention to purchase an ethical product, depending on ethical claims in advertising.

Study 1 shows that skepticism toward advertising of ethical products amplifies feelings of ambivalence and that ambivalence reduces consumers’ willingness to adopt ethical consumption behaviors. Study 2 shows that strong claims in advertising of ethical products reduce skepticism toward advertising of ethical products and feelings of ambivalence toward buying an ethical product through perceived brand ethicality, with consumers’ ethical sensitivity positively moderating these relationships.

The two studies explore only one form of ambivalence (i.e. subjective), and the experimental study focuses on a single category of products.

The findings highlight the difficulties in promoting ethical products. Consumers need to know if a product is “really” ethical, as they may feel ambivalent toward that product. This paper shows that strong ethical claims in advertising ethical products significantly help to overcome this barrier.

Based on attribution theory and persuasion models, this research reveals how ethical claims in advertising affect feelings of ambivalence, which negatively influence consumers’ willingness to adopt ethical consumption. In addition, it follows a holistic approach to ethical consumption behaviors to explore consumers’ ambivalence.

The paper aims to investigate the role of the network in managing the tradition and innovation paradox in the agribusiness industry. In particular, this study aims to demonstrate that agribusiness firms can innovate through tradition by joining a network, to capture the way intellectual capital (IC) is created, shared and transformed.

The authors approached the study using the social capital conceptual framework, considering the network a critical determinant of social capital, which enhances the organization's ability to share, create and utilize knowledge. Then, the authors also employed the extended territorial strategy theory. The authors derived empirical evidence from companies belonging to the PGI-labeled Consortium of Pasta di Gragnano (Consortium). The authors used a quantitative approach, carrying out a panel data analysis.

The results suggested that belonging to Consortium had a positive impact on the operating performance, the financial performance and the environment where consortium firms operate. Thus, being part of a network helps firms to innovate in a traditional industry.

The evidence of this work provided several implications for managers, IC community and the policy public. For managers, the authors observed that agribusiness firms can preserve their traditions through knowledge sharing with firms that operate in the same network. For IC community, the authors contributed to the debate on the social capital theory, arguing that the one area of IC that has received significant attention is the role of the network, which enhances the organization's ability to generate, share and apply knowledge effectively (Lin, 2017; Solitander and Tidström, 2010). Finally, the authors argued that policymakers should implement new reforms that facilitate the formation of networks, especially in socio-economic contexts where the unemployment rate is high.

This is the first study that employs quantitative analysis to investigate this paradox.

Work-life flexibility policies (e.g., flextime, telework, part-time, right-to-disconnect, and leaves) are increasingly important to employers as productivity and well-being strategies. However, policies have not lived up to their potential. In this chapter, the authors argue for increased research attention to implementation and work-life intersectionality considerations influencing effectiveness. Drawing on a typology that conceptualizes flexibility policies as offering employees control across five dimensions of the work role boundary (temporal, spatial, size, permeability, and continuity), the authors develop a model identifying the multilevel moderators and mechanisms of boundary control shaping relationships between using flexibility and work and home performance. Next, the authors review this model with an intersectional lens. The authors direct scholars’ attention to growing workforce diversity and increased variation in flexibility policy experiences, particularly for individuals with higher work-life intersectionality, which is defined as having multiple intersecting identities (e.g., gender, caregiving, and race), that are stigmatized, and link to having less access to and/or benefits from societal resources to support managing the work-life interface in a social context. Such an intersectional focus would address the important need to shift work-life and flexibility research from variable to person-centered approaches. The authors identify six research considerations on work-life intersectionality in order to illuminate how traditionally assumed work-life relationships need to be revisited to address growing variation in: access, needs, and preferences for work-life flexibility; work and nonwork experiences; and benefits from using flexibility policies. The authors hope that this chapter will spur a conversation on how the work-life interface and flexibility policy processes and outcomes may increasingly differ for individuals with higher work-life intersectionality compared to those with lower work-life intersectionality in the context of organizational and social systems that may perpetuate growing work-life and job inequality.