Search results

Organizations desire more accurate cost systems as competition increases, and consequently increase cost system complexity, as cost systems with greater complexity are potentially more accurate than simpler systems. However, even complex systems are prone to impactful inaccuracies, for example, due to design or calculation issues, that can adversely affect decision-making and firm performance. The authors investigate whether and the extent to which cost system complexity and competition decrease managers’ attribution of cost-system-driven adverse firm effects to the cost system. The authors find greater cost system complexity (by inspiring greater confidence in the cost system) and higher competition (by providing a plausible external cause) decrease managers’ attribution of cost-system-driven adverse firm effects to the cost system. With both greater cost system complexity and higher competition, managers observing signals of material cost inaccuracies are potentially the least likely to attribute cost-system-driven adverse firm effects to the cost system.

This paper explores the emergence and coordination of synchrony in networked groups like those that develop integrated product platforms in collaborative ecosystems. While synchronized actions are an important objective for many groups, interorganizational network theory has yet to explore synchrony in depth perhaps because it does not fit the typical diffusion models this research relies upon. By adding organizationally realistic features – sparse network structure and intentional coordination – to the firefly model from theoretical biology, I take some first steps in understanding synchrony in organizational groups. Like diffusion, synchrony is more effective in denser networks, but unlike diffusion clustering decelerates synchrony’s emergence. Coordination by a few group members accelerates group-wide synchrony, and benefits the coordinating organizations with a higher likelihood that it converges to the coordinating organization’s preferred rhythm. This likelihood of convergence to an organization’s preferred rhythm – what I term synchrony performance – increases in denser networks, but is not dependent on tie strength and clustering.

We extend the literature on scientific discovery and commercialization by examining entrepreneurial action by university-based scientists. Specifically, we investigate the decision process and the paths to commercialize academic technologies. University-based technology transfer involves multiple stakeholders with competing interests; hence, we believe researchers should apply a multilevel theoretical lens, which starts with the disclosure of discoveries made by scientists in their labs. We build a multilevel framework that views the scientists’ choice to first disclose viable discoveries to pursue entrepreneurial action as a function of three factors: (i) a scientist's rent orientation, (ii) a university's rent doctrine, and (iii) the rent doctrine of the scientific field in which the scientist conducts research. We suggest that commercial disclosure most often occurs when there is alignment between these three factors. Lastly, we advance an agenda for future empirical research by developing specific propositions about the key constructs and relationships concerning university-based entrepreneurial action.

No longer do resource economists merely regard nature as a collection of inert materials to be improved by human labor and manufactured capital; rather, nature is, to an increasing extent, taken to be a mindless producer of economically valuable ecosystem goods and services. Instances of natural capital are frequently said to produce such goods and services in a manner that is relatively detached from human agency. This article argues that, historically, the idea of nature as a systematic original producer capable of self-generation is hardly novel. The eighteenth-century roots of this idea can be found in the writings of Carl Linnaeus who depicted the whole Earth and all of its productions as the “oeconomy of nature.”

As I suggested earlier, Stabile's “lessons” typically take the form of questions. For example, what is the conceptual basis for defining a minimum income sufficient to sustain a labor force (what Stabile dubs the argument from sustainability)? Is there an absolute standard based strictly on basic biological needs, as Rose Friedman argued (p. 53)? Or do the necessities of life also include “whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without,” as Adam Smith declared (quoted in Stabile, p. 17)? Introducing Amartya Sen's notion of capability broadens our scope even further, for now we are concerned about developing the traits, abilities, and opportunities that can make workers more productive, effective, and valuable citizens (a concern that Stabile finds implicitly in numerous authors, including Aristotle, Smith, Marshall, and Richard Ely).

The paper published below was prepared by Taylor Ostrander for Frank Knight’s course, Economic Theory, Economics 301, during the Fall 1933 quarter.

The papers collected here were written for the second biennial Wirth conference on Austrian Economics. The Wirth Institute for Austrian and Central European Studies sponsored the conference in cooperation with the University of Toronto in Mississauga. The conference was held from 17 to 18 October 2008 in Mississauga. The Wirth Institute has a natural home in Edmonton on the campus of the University of Alberta, which is a leading center for Central European Studies. The fact that the Institute has received support not only from government of Austria, but also from the governments of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia reflects its historically minded recognition of the unique intellectual milieu of the Habsburg Empire. This intellectual milieu lasted beyond the breakup of the empire right through to the Anschluss in 1938. It is this milieu that shaped the Austrian school of economics and helped shape the context for the conference.

Prior research finds that auditors can be distinctively committed to multiple workplace targets (e.g., their audit firm, supervisors, profession, and clients). This study investigates an underexamined target of auditor commitment – engagement teams. Given that these teams are responsible for performing key audit tasks for clients and external stakeholders, we argue that auditors' commitment to their team can affect auditor behavior. Using a sample of 121 auditors, our results indicate that quality social exchange relationships between individual auditors and their engagement teams, activated by perceptions of team fairness, and reciprocated with team commitment, are associated with beneficial group-oriented behavior. Specifically, we posit and find that perceived team fairness predicts perceived team support, perceived team support predicts team commitment, and team commitment predicts citizenship behavior directed toward the engagement team (e.g., helping the team by taking on extra responsibilities during an audit). We also find that the social exchange proxies of perceived team support and team commitment sequentially mediate the positive effect of perceived team fairness on team citizenship behavior, and that team commitment is a stronger predictor of team citizenship behavior than auditors' commitment to their firm.