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).

Most of the resource-based literature has concentrated on the sustainability of advantages rather than on the appropriability of rents that can be derived from these. In this paper, we focus on both of these issues by developing a classification of resources based on type of ownership and control. We use the U.S. motion picture industry to assess the degree of sustainable advantages and appropriable rents that can be generated by contracted, owned and embedded resources. We suggest that both sustainability and appropriability is likely to be lowest for contracted resources such as top-rated stars and directors. On the other hand, these are likely to be highest for embedded resources which typically reflect firm-specific knowledge and learning in the development and marketing of various types of film genres.

In this paper we develop a model for researching the influence that a board of directors can have on improving an organization’s sustainability performance. Our model explores sources of cognitive flexibility of boards needed to recognize and respond to the need for improved sustainability performance. We first define concepts of sustainability, sustainability competence, and sustainability performance. We then analyze two forms of board capital (a board’s human capital and its social capital) and three aspects of a board’s information processing (its patterns of information search, discussion and debate, and information absorption) that we suggest affect a board’s cognitive flexibility and thereby influence whether a board decides to adopt sustainability performance goals. Our model also suggests that an organization’s strategic flexibility – as represented by its current endowments of resource flexibilities and coordination flexibilities – will moderate the relationship between a board’s decision to adopt sustainability performance goals and an organization’s subsequent achievement of those goals. We also suggest that our model is generally relevant to any research seeking to predict the influence of boards on strategic change in many forms, not just to research focused on sustainability issues.

The growing modularization of complex products encourages the division of labor in industry. End product manufacturers outsource production of individual components to large module suppliers, saving on costs in the short term. In the medium term, however, they sacrifice competences. The competitive strategy they choose – either cost leadership or differentiation – determines how this conflict is resolved. This paper examines the shift in competences to module suppliers, and the likely reactions of end product manufacturers, particularly those pursuing a differentiation strategy. The discussion begins at a general level, and then focuses on the automotive industry as an example. The paper derives potential strategic actions going forward based on transaction cost theory and core competency theory, and conducts a content analysis to examine them empirically.