Search results

Consumer Behavior.

This case is suitable to be used in advanced undergraduate and MBA/MSc level.

This case illustrates an animal shelter’s challenge pertaining to lack of awareness among individuals with regard to animal adoption and proper treatment toward animals. Brian Teoh, the founder of a local animal shelter “We Care For You (WCFY),” was really worried by observing the situation of the animals’ vulnerability as well as pet owners’ irresponsible behavior. Overpopulation in animal shelters is a common problem. The space of the shelter is limited and not enough to take more animals to take care unless existing animals are being adopted by the pet owners. Adoption is a way to give room for other animals to be taken by animal shelters. However, most of the individuals prefer to buy rather to adopt. Moreover, potential adopters are usually selective of the animal they intend to adopt by having criteria preferences for adoption. Brian was thinking how to make people aware about the animal right and proper treatment with animals and also how to make individuals aware about the necessity to adopt rather than purchasing them. He was drowned in deep thought. Although the situation seemed not so promising, he felt determined to work on this awareness-building issue.

This objective of this case is to:

• highlight the challenges faced by the animal shelters in order to make individuals aware of the importance of adopting animals rather than purchasing them from shops;

• emphasize the importance of using social media in disseminating information nationwide; and

• the necessity to educate people about the right treatment toward animals.

highlight the challenges faced by the animal shelters in order to make individuals aware of the importance of adopting animals rather than purchasing them from shops;

emphasize the importance of using social media in disseminating information nationwide; and

the necessity to educate people about the right treatment toward animals.

Misconduct by lawyers in law firms is often attributed to pressures from increasing competition for legal services. Modern firms do face fierce competitive pressures. We can gain more subtle insights, however, by focusing on the specific markets in which particular firms operate and how forms of influence in law firms interact with common patterns of behavior in organizations. This chapter draws on this approach to analyze the experience of Jenkens & Gilchrist, a national law firm that had to close its doors in 2007 because of tax shelter work that triggered civil lawsuits and government investigations.

This chapter explores how hybrid organizations navigate the challenges (and opportunities) associated with advancing unconventional logic combinations. It draws from a study of the 180-year history of sheltered workshops in the United States. Sheltered workshops are hybrids that combine social and commercial logics to provide gainful employment to individuals with disabilities. This chapter theorizes a connection between the governance system – that is, country-based social norms and regulatory settlements – framing hybrids and the agency that allows them the discretion required to advance unconventional combinations. It introduces the term hybrid agency to describe this connection and identifies four types: upstream, midstream, downstream, and crosscurrent. Upstream agency draws from the entrepreneurial vision of charismatic founders. It allows hybrids the discretion to advance unconventional logic combinations in unsupportive times, but it also requires them to observe certain dominant cultural norms. Midstream agency draws from hybrids’ adaptation and advocacy skills and resources in periods of historical change. It allows access to resources and legitimacy for unconventional combinations. Downstream agency draws from organizational slack possible in supportive times. Slack eases tensions and tradeoffs between conflicting logics but may also fuel mission drift. Finally, crosscurrent agency also draws from hybrids’ adaptation and advocacy skills and resources. It provides hybrids with the opportunity to grapple with challenges in periods of contestation.

Purpose – There are many unknowns about the obstacles as well as the resilient characteristics that vulnerable youth possess as they engage in the transition to adulthood. This chapter seeks to address some of these unknowns.

Methodology/approach – This chapter is based on qualitative interviews with 60 youths residing in a homeless shelter and follow-up interviews with 39 of these youths after they left the shelter.

Findings – This chapter presents the difficult life histories of these youths and how these histories affect their ability to successfully transition into adulthood. Youths reported elevated levels of instability, most often due to physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, as well as parental drug abuse, poverty, and transience. From these experiences, youths learned to rely only on themselves for support and believe resiliently in their own ability to achieve their goals. However, when located after they had left the shelter, many were still struggling mightily to achieve these goals. Post shelter, the most stable group of participants was women with children and many young mothers spoke evocatively about the support and motivation given to them by their children.

Research limitations/implication – This chapter is limited by its small, nonrandom sample. Future research on the transition to adulthood would benefit from analyzing the transition for youths with diverse backgrounds and experiences.

Originality/value of paper – The sample population and the use of qualitative, longitudinal data make this paper an important contribution to the broader transition to adulthood literature as well as the growing sociological literature on homeless youth.

In his first two months at the immigration detention facility, euphemistically called a ‘shelter’, Deruba consumed his daily lessons of vocabulary and math. ‘Good morning. My name is Deruba. What is your name?’ he would chant. ‘I am from Guatemala. Where are you from?’ ‘Good afternoon. How are you? I am fine’. He had only attended school for four years in Guatemala before his parents died in a bus accident forcing him to support his younger sister, Isura. ‘It was not a good time. We did not have anybody. No aunts, no uncles to help us. My grandparents died long ago. I don't even remember them. It was just me and my little sister’.⁵ Deruba, 13 years old at the time, and Isura, then 11 years old, lived on the streets of Livingston, Guatemala for over 2 years. He worked as a boat hand on boats [lanchas] transporting tourists to Livingston, painting cars at a small auto body shop and selling marijuana to young German and American tourists coming to soak up Livingston's bohemian environs.⁶

Bill Freudenburg’s concept of recreancy is used as a frame for explaining processes that perpetuate questionable regimes of emergency response planning. The specific instance of tar sands upgrading in Alberta, Canada, is used as a case in point. When recreancy is institutionalized so that the results correlate across permitted hazardous facilities, it must be concluded that recreancy is less of a situational response than a normative dynamic.

The commentary proposes an analysis of a case study conducted on a self-managed shelter for homeless migrants based in Italy. The shelter was created in 2015 by a group of young activists within an abandoned barracks located in the city centre of Bologna. The shelter was run by the activists in collaboration with the homeless migrants, who were invited to take active part in the shelter’s management. The chapter analyses this experience through the concept of ‘resilience’, seeking to disentangle the complex relationship between fragility and participation. In so doing, the analysis reflects on how participation can develop as a form of resilience and discusses the characteristics distinguishing participation originating from vulnerability. Analysing the practices of participation of fragile people and communities through the lens of resilience sheds light on the combination of dynamics of adjustment and of change in their forms of engagement. From this perspective, the role of the context emerges as crucial in shaping (young) people’s possibilities to react to adversity. Based on this analysis, the chapter draws comparison with the case studies conducted with the refugees and homeless youth in Manchester (Chapters 8 and 9) and reflects on issues of legitimacy and recognition across different contexts when engaging with those living at the margins of society.