Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether innovation effort is lower for firms exhibiting signs of higher chief executive officer (CEO) dominance and whether such CEOs can be incentivized to pursue risky ventures such as innovation projects in line with shareholder's interests that are geared toward the long-term growth of the firm.

The paper utilizes panel data of US publicly listed companies (2007–2016) to address the influence of CEO dominance on firm innovation effort and the moderating effects of incentives in this relationship through ordinary least squares (OLS) estimations. A two-stage least squares (2SLS) technique is also employed to address possible endogeneity. As a robustness check, further analysis is conducted utilizing an alternative proxy for CEO incentive as well as Tobit analysis (with panel-level random effects).

Results from both OLS and Tobit estimations offer two key findings. First, there is a significantly negative relationship between CEO pay slice and firm research and development (R&D) intensity. Second, the interaction effect of CEO incentives and CEO dominance is significant and positive.

When provided with the right incentives, such as those that reward long-term performance, dominant CEOs can be incentivized to go after risky ventures like innovation projects that are crucial to promoting the long-term growth of the firm.

This paper utilizes R&D instead of patent outputs as proxies for innovation where the former enables studying R&D efforts for more recent periods compared to prior studies that utilize patent data.

This paper reports the findings of a two‐year EPSRC funded research project into relationship and performance strategies in power regimes. The findings from 12 very different industrial and service sector cases studies demonstrate that there is a correlation between the ability to improve the performance of suppliers and the power circumstances that exist between the buyers and suppliers. Buyers appear to be able to achieve improved performance from suppliers in situations of buyer dominance or interdependence. The research also demonstrates that whatever the objective power circumstance managers often subjectively misperceive the appropriate sourcing choices available to them. As a result business relationships can be aligned, but they are often misaligned. Furthermore, misaligned relationships may be “remediable” but they may not.

This paper aims to explain the effects of national and organizational cultures of boundary spanners on their choices of using three archetype power-based behaviors – dominance, egalitarian and submissive – with supply chain partners. Improved outcomes for global supply chain (GSC) partners are anticipated due to the ways that cultural intelligence affects these culturally guided decisions.

Drawing on multiple streams of literature and focusing on boundary spanners in GSCs, the authors build a conceptual framework that highlights cultural antecedents of predispositions toward power-based behaviors and explains the moderating role of cultural intelligence of boundary spanners on behaviors performed.

The authors propose that boundary spanners’ national and organizational cultural values influence predispositions toward applying and accepting power-based behaviors. They also discuss how cultural intelligence moderates the relationship between culturally determined predispositions and power-based behaviors applied by partners. The cultural intelligence of boundary spanners is argued to have a pivotal role in making power-based decisions, resulting in healthier cross-cultural buyer–supplier relationships.

This paper is the first paper to advance an understanding of the cultural antecedents of boundary spanners’ power-based behaviors that are exercised and interpreted by partners in GSCs. Furthermore, the potential role of cultural intelligence in inter-organizational power dynamics and power-based partner behaviors in supply chains has not previously been discussed.

In this chapter, the approach of radical interactionism is juxtaposed against symbolic interactionism, its older conservative turned rival cousin, to highlight primarily the major differences between them. The five key differences identified are as follows: (1) the major progenitors for symbolic interactionism are Mead and Blumer, while those for radical interactionism are Park and, by default, myself; (2) although radical interactionism presumes that domination and power are always of great importance for understanding human group life, symbolic interactionism assumes that they now have only limited importance for understanding it; (3) radical interactionism makes it mandatory for researchers to examine the role of dominance and power during social interaction, whereas symbolic interactionism makes it only discretionary; (4) while radical interactionism stresses the impact of individuals’ and groups’ unstated assumptions on their interaction with one another, symbolic interactionism de-emphasizes their impact on it; and finally (5) radical interactionism discourages, while symbolic interactionism encourages researchers falling into the trap of linguistic phenomenalism. Thus, unlike radical interactionism, symbolic interactionism facilitates sociologists not only falling prey to linguistic phenomenalism, but also conservative and idealistic biases, while allegedly conducting “value-free research.”

Bullying knowledge hiding has been recently identified as a manifestation of knowledge hiding behavior. As a relatively new concept, it is still underexplored. Previous research has focused on the antecedents of bullying hiding. However, there is a lack of research on the negative consequences that bullying hiding may have on employees. This study aims to uncover the effects of supervisor bullying hiding on employees knowledge behavior. The study also aims to examine the moderating effect of power values and the mediating effect of job stress.

Data were gathered in two waves from 444 employees with higher education in Poland. Data collection was conducted in July and August 2022. A general linear model mediation analysis with jamovi Advanced Mediation Models software was used to examine the hypotheses.

The results indicate that bullying knowledge hiding by supervisors triggers subordinates’ job stress and aggression in the form of bullying knowledge hiding toward co-workers. Contrary to expectations, job stress does not mediate the relationship between supervisor bullying hiding and subordinate bullying hiding toward co-workers. Power-dominance values, contrary to power-resources values, moderate the above relationship.

As bullying hiding has significant potential to spread among organizational members, managers seeking to reduce it should check the personal values of job applicants and employees.

Based on the behavioral contagion and frustration–aggression–displacement theories, to the best of the author’s knowledge, this study is the first to investigate the relationships between supervisor bullying hiding, job stress, power values and subordinate bullying hiding toward co-workers.

The study of power is essential to any study of leadership, as power is fundamental to human organization and is understood to be a driving force of leadership. Power is typically thought of in terms of having dominance over others from a hierarchically higher position. In this chapter, we explore how power is typically defined in the literature and propose that mutualism represents an expanded definition of power and one that more closely aligns with the concept of inclusive leadership. We make a case for viewing power as a capacity that can be developed in others rather than a commodity that can be obtained, horded, or doled out. With this in mind, we explore how these two phenomena intersect from the perspectives of powerdistance, hierarchy, and empowerment. We argue that power expressed as dominance creates distance between leaders and employees, while mutualistic expressions reduce such distance, and that hierarchy and power have been erroneously conflated and when disaggregated can serve a useful purpose in a low-power-distance culture. Finally, through empowerment, we consider approaches to the development of power in others, which is a topic that is rarely considered in the leadership literature. Inclusive leadership offers an important pathway for moving organizations and society toward justice through the creation of cultures characterized by cooperation, unity, and diversity where greater numbers of people step into their capacity for power and begin to address the challenges facing humanity. This is realizable in cultures that promote mutualistic power.