Search results

This study was conducted in the Western Province of Rwanda to explore to what extent youth aged between 18 and 22 years participate in reconciliation processes and what the factors enabling and hindering reconciliation are that, from the perspective of youth, policies and practices should take into account. Six focus group discussions and 20 individual interviews were conducted in 2017. Respondents recognized the range of efforts undertaken by the government following the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi to promote unity and reconciliation. The “family” was identified as an additional key setting to discuss reconciliation in a free and open manner. However, it was observed that some parents tend to shy away from such discussions due to the heaviness of their past genocide-related experiences in addition to the changing family lifestyles and obligations that limit the time allocated to dialogue. Youth suggest specific interventions targeting the microlevel including, in particular, the family to maximize efforts made at macrolevel regarding reconciliation. Programs that promote parents’ healing and provide them with specific skills for effective communication may be deployed to ensure a smooth transition from the painful past. Additionally, since genuine reconciliation is a long-term process, youth have a key role to play in it. Hence, they as followers should be provided with tools to increase their critical thinking and challenge family and peer narratives if needed.

This study investigates the relationship between board gender diversity (BGD) and the time to Initial Public Offering (IPO), which stands as an entrepreneurially risky choice, particularly challenging in family firms. We also investigate the moderating role of family ownership dispersion (FOD).

We draw on an integrated theoretical framework bringing together the upper echelons theory and the socio-emotional wealth (SEW) perspective and on hand-collected data on a sample of Italian family IPOs that occurred in the period 2000–2020. We employ ordinary least squares (OLS) regression and alternative model estimations to test our hypotheses.

BGD positively affects the time to IPO, thus, it increases the time required to go public. FOD negatively moderates this relationship. Our findings remain robust with different measures for BGD, FOD, and family business definition as well as with different econometric models.

The article develops literature on family firms and IPO and it enriches the academic debate about gender and IPOs in family firms. It adds to studies addressing the determinants of the time to IPO by incorporating gender diversity and the FOD into the discussion. Finally, it contributes to research on women and outcomes in family firms.

Interactive or moderation effects are normally examined using hierarchical regression analysis and the product‐term. The purpose of this paper is to test an alternative perspective of interaction, which is based on how leaders combine different leadership behaviors (i.e. task‐oriented and socio‐emotional leadership).

Data from 191 full‐time, white‐collar employees were obtained using a cross‐sectional design and a self‐administered questionnaire. Task‐oriented leadership (i.e. pressure) and socio‐emotional leadership (i.e. support) were measured using items from Misumi. Two measures were used for follower satisfaction with the leader: the satisfaction component of the job descriptive index and a single‐item measure. Satisfaction with how the leader combines leadership behaviors was measured using a single‐item measure.

The findings show that follower satisfaction with the way the leader combines task‐oriented and socio‐emotional leadership augments the effects of these two types of leadership on follower satisfaction with the leader. Non‐significant interactions were found between pressure and support using the product‐term method for examining interactions.

The paper examined only satisfaction with the leader. The sample is relatively small, consisted entirely of white‐collar employees, and the response rate is unknown. All the data were obtained from participants and hence mono‐source effects are possible.

The findings draw attention to the need to approach interactive effects more carefully and demonstrate the importance of combinative aspects of leadership style.

The paper provides an alternative view of interaction effects.

Using data from a qualitative longitudinal sample of 31 non-traditional fathers-to-be interviewed in 2011 and then again in 2013, when the child was about 18 months old, we examine the relationship between prenatal anticipation and the development of ‘positive paternal involvement’ (i.e. an engaged, accessible and responsible type of fatherhood). We expect differences with regard to the antenatal development of a non-normative father identity to explain variations in subsequent paternal involvement. While there might be – and there often is – a discrepancy between fathers’ prenatal intentions and actual practices after childbirth, anticipating concrete needs and actively foreseeing particular paid work adaptations favour the development of a positive paternal involvement. Our analysis reveals the importance of anticipation during pregnancy – that is, the development of an identity as a father and of explicit plans for employment adaptations – in facilitating men’s greater implication in care. The empirical findings also show that non-traditional gender attitudes and favourable working conditions facilitate fathers’ involvement, yet are not enough in themselves to guarantee the development of a positive type of fatherhood covering the three noted dimensions of care. Achieving the latter in Spain will likely require the encouragement of shared parenting responsibilities through normative changes in workplaces, the revision of parental leave policies and the integration of fathers-to-be in prenatal education classes. Our research contributes to shedding new light on the elements that favour a positive paternal involvement, which has the potential to enhance both children’s well-being and gender equality.

While diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB) in the workplace means making space for all employees, it has unique implications for Indigenous employees who live and work in countries built on colonialism. Indigenous peoples represent diverse groups with unique and rich cultures that in general share values that are more holistic, spiritual, traditional, egalitarian, and other-oriented than non-Indigenous populations. Such distinct worldviews help explain why non-Indigenous organizations struggle to understand and accommodate Indigenous employees’ priorities and goal-oriented behavior. Creating equity, inclusivity, and belonging in the workplace for Indigenous employees requires more than implementing existing organizational practices with a new cultural awareness, it requires rethinking, reframing, and recreating organizational to facilitate a culture of trust. Re-examining organizational norms and assumptions with the ideas of relationship and responsibility that allow collaborative approaches to collective well-being and inclusivity is required. Creating inclusive workspaces requires that attention must be paid to both organizational (group-level) factors, such as organizational cultures of trust, and interpersonal (individual-level) factors, such as interpersonal trust. However, to build foundations of high-functioning and supportive organizational cultures and interpersonal trust that are sustainable, time and resources are necessary. Without this, the ability to reach the crucial result of engaging Indigenous employees and creating safe workplaces serves only to be performative and not meaningful in terms of action, longevity, and the overall well-being of Indigenous people in the workplace.

In this commentary, the author aims to question whether the socio-emotional wealth (SEW) construct should be limited to family firms by noting that non-family owners and founders, i.e. those who yet have to involve family in their enterprise‘s operations, management or ownership, are also motivated to maximize their socioemotional wealth.

The concept of SEW has generated significant traction in the family business literature and motivated an important body of work about how SEW alters decision-making in family firms. Professors Martin and Gomez–Mejia (this issue) extend past contributions by teasing apart complex relationships among the underlying dimensions of the construct. However, the domain of that paper, as well as the SEW construct, has heretofore been limited to family firms. The author builds his commentary on the work of Martin and Gomez–Mejia (this issue) to argue that the notion that SEW shapes decision-making in the owner controlled and owner-managed non-family firms, as well as family firms.

The author’s overarching conclusion is that there are several dimensions in which family interests materially alter decision-making but others in which family likely plays a moderating and possibly even a suppressor role. The surprising implication is that it may not be SEW per se that distinguishes family firms from non-family firms but rather how the family dynamic alters the influence of SEW on outcomes of interest.

Acknowledging that personal and familial SEW have a common foundation allows one to sharpen the research focus and shift it from questions about how SEW might alter decision-making in family firms to questions about how the presence of family members alters the influence of SEW on decision-making in owner-controlled and owner-managed firms. This commentary explicates the argument and offers some suggestions about how this re-framing might allow for the extension of the SEW concept from the family firm to its influence on founder-managed and non-family firms.

Drawing on the challenge–hindrance stressor framework and the “too-much-of-a-good-thing” principle, this study examined the curvilinear effects of two emic social challenge stressors (guanxi beliefs and participative decision-making (PDM)) and the moderating effect of an etic social hindrance stressor (perceived organizational politics) on Hong Kong and United States nurses’ job satisfaction.

A quantitative survey method was implemented, with the data provided by 355 Hong Kong nurses and 116 United States nurses. Structural equation modeling was used to examine the degree of measurement equivalence across Hong Kong and US nurses. The proposed model and the research questions were tested using nonlinear structural equation modeling analyses.

The results show that while guanxi beliefs only showed an inverted U-shaped relation on Hong Kong nurses’ job satisfaction, PDM had an inverted U-shaped relation with both Hong Kong and United States nurses’ job satisfaction. The authors also found that Hong Kong nurses experienced the highest job satisfaction when their guanxi beliefs and perceived organization politics were both high.

The results add to the comprehension of the nuances of the often-held assumption of linearity in organizational sciences and support the speculation of social stressors-outcomes linkages.

Managers need to recognize that while the nurturing and development of effective relationships with employees via social interaction are important, managers also need to be aware that too much guanxi and PDM may lead employees to feel overwhelmed with expectations of reciprocity and reconciliation to such an extent that they suffer adverse outcomes and become dissatisfied with their jobs.

First, the authors found that influences of guanxi beliefs and PDM are not purely linear and that previous research may have neglected the curvilinear nature of their influences on job satisfaction. Second, the authors echo researchers’ call to consider an organization’s political context to fully understand employees’ attitudes and reactions toward social interactions at work. Third, the authors examine boundary conditions of curvilinear relationships to understand the delicate dynamics.

This paper attempts to reconcile two opposing views of the strategies and conduct of closely held firms: that of entrepreneurship and that of family business. The former view suggests that these firms tend to be value maximizing organizations that pursue growth strategies and outperform. The latter often argues that these businesses are utility maximizers that pursue conservative harvest strategies and fail to outperform.

In order to reconcile the controversy, this paper examines the literature in an attempt to relate ownership priorities and risk taking preferences to governance distinctions relating to family involvement, ownership, and management.

It concludes that the value‐maximization expectations of the entrepreneurship literature apply only to lone or unrelated founder businesses whose owners, unencumbered by family distractions, embrace growth and outperform. By contrast the utility‐maximization expectations of the family business literature apply when there are multiple family owners or executives. These parties are argued to be harvest‐oriented, mediocre performers, especially after a new generation has entered the firm. This may be because their priorities and loyalties are shared between business and family considerations. However, family and lone founder firm outcomes are argued to be further shaped by owners' levels of control and ownership, their managerial roles, and the breadth of family personal and generational involvement.

The analysis has implications for the effective governance, board composition, and management of these different types of firms.

The paper reconciles two important literatures to derive implications for strategy and performance that must be addressed by agents of corporate governance in family and founder firms.