Search results

This chapter delves into the complex interplay between ethics, law and business case regarding diversity and inclusion within organisations. While the business case for diversity and inclusion has gained prominence, the ethical imperative often lacks comparable influence. Despite the coercive forces of laws and regulations, ethical values struggle to exert significant pressure on diversity-related issues.

This study concentrates on “ambiguity of law” and “abstaining from complaint” about discrimination, mistreatment, or unfair behavior to explain the weak pushing effect of ethical values on diversity- and inclusion-related issues. The ambiguity of law fosters open-ended discussions and varied interpretations, complicating efforts towards equitable treatment. Furthermore, the reluctance to voice complaints regarding discrimination or mistreatment blurs the boundary between ethics and business.

This chapter points out ethical values in the shade of the business case approach and proposes strategies to strengthen the influence of ethics in diversity management. Moral awareness, a sense of justice, and ethical coding of decisions are prominent components of this chapter that may contribute to strengthening the ethical infrastructure of organizations.

Patriotism is often described as the “love of country” that individuals display in the acclamation of their national community. Despite the prominence of this sentiment in various societies around the world, organizational research on patriotism is largely absent. This omission is surprising because entrepreneurs, human resource (HR) divisions, and firms frequently embrace both patriotism and patriotic organizational practices. These procedures include (among other interventions) national symbol embracing, HR practices targeted toward military members and first responders, the adulation of patriots and celebration of patriotic events, and patriotic-oriented corporate social responsibility (CSR). Here, the authors argue that research on HR management and organization studies will likely be further enhanced with a deeper understanding of the national obligation that can spur employee productivity and loyalty. In an attempt to jumpstart the collective understanding of this phenomenon, the authors explore the antecedents of patriotic organizational practices, namely, the effects of founder orientation, employee dispersion, and firm strategy. It is suggested that HR practices such as these lead to a patriotic organizational image, which in turn impacts investor, customer, and employee responses. Notably, the effect of a patriotic organizational image on firm-related outcomes is largely contingent on how it fits with the patriotic views of other stakeholders, such as investors, customers, and employees. After outlining this model, the authors then present a thought experiment of how this model may appear in action. The authors then discuss ways the field can move forward in studying patriotism in HR management and organizational contexts by outlining several future directions that span multiple levels (i.e., micro and macro). Taken together, in this chapter, the authors introduce a conversation of something quite prevalent and largely unheeded – the patriotic organization.

Ethical principles and practices frequently support the position that people with disability are vulnerable. Vulnerability in research traditionally infers a need for protection from harm and raises questions over the person’s capacity to consent and engage. In addition, vulnerability in ethics infers a state of permanency and one that is all-encompassing for everyone within the vulnerable groups. This construction of vulnerability in effect legitimises the exclusion of people with disability from research or monitors and restricts how people with disability can engage in research. This results in an implicitly ableist environment for research. In this chapter, which has been led by researchers with disability, we argue that there is a critical need to move beyond a popularised social construction of vulnerability which serves to perpetuate barriers to including people with disability in research. Like all terms, the traditional and popular construction of vulnerability is open to reclaiming and reframing. Under this reconstruction, what is traditionally viewed as a limiting vulnerability can be owned, openly disclosed and accommodated. Following a pandemic-inspired ‘new normal’ that supports flexible workplace practices, and in accordance with UNCRPD goals of inclusive employment and reducing disability inequity, we argue that the pathway for people with disability as career researchers needs an ethical review and overhaul. We provide readers with a practical roadmap to advance a more inclusive academy for researchers with disability.

This chapter explores a relatively underresearched assumption in the diversity literature, namely, that more variety in demographic characteristics, educational or functional backgrounds, or hierarchical status in the workforce represents a wider repertoire of perspectives, approaches, and ways of thinking. Using data from members of innovation teams across 27 organizations in 11 industries (for which variation in thinking should be highly valued), we explore at the individual level whether people with different demographic and informational backgrounds evidence differences in ways of thinking which we define in terms of cognitive styles, learning styles, cultural orientations, and communication preferences. We find large differences in ways of thinking due to culture and communication preferences but modest and limited differences in ways of thinking by level and type of education, occupational function, and hierarchical status. We find few differences by gender. The findings raise questions about the frequently repeated claims that categorical and informational diversity among organizational members reflects differences in ways of thinking.

To cope successfully with the pressures imposed by a devastating pandemic and other challenges, companies and policymakers need to look at how they conceptualize, define, measure and operationalize “value”. This paper aims to support this conversation.

This study presents a historical review of how the value construct has been conceptualized over time, demonstrating that its history is one of tension and debate with conceptualizations swinging between objective (i.e. the value of something exists independent of the observers) and subjective (i.e. the value of something depends on the personal response of the observer to what is being considered) views over time.

This paper outlines the implications to researchers of value’s low construct clarity, offering suggestions designed to exploit rather than ignore the duality of the value construct. Instead of thinking of the value construct as being subjective or objective, this study recommends that scholars consider value’s objectivity and subjectivity as being interrelated and complementary. The paper recommends that researchers use both quantitative and qualitative methodologies in studying this construct.

A major limitation of this paper is the word count limitation restricting the extent to which this paper could explore a more comprehensive list of the conceptualizations of value throughout history.

This paper presents practitioners with a nuanced understanding of value that should assist those interested in examining the worth of investments with observable expenses but less quantifiable outputs.

The authors have not found a similar analysis of the various conceptualizations of value.

Negative brand engagement represents a pervasive and persistent feature of interactivity in online contexts. Although existing research suggests that consumer negativity is potentially more impactful or detrimental to brands than its positive counterpart, few studies have examined negative brand-related cognitions, feelings and behaviours. Building on the concept of brand engagement, this study aims to operationalise negative online brand engagement.

This paper presents the results of nine studies that contributed to the development and validation of the proposed scale. Building on the concept of engagement, Studies 1–3 enhanced the construct conceptualisation and generated items. Study 4 involved validation with an academic expert panel. The process of measure operationalisation and validation with quantitative data was completed in Studies 5–8. Finally, the scale's nomological validity was assessed in Study 9.

The results confirm the multidimensional nature of negative online brand engagement. The validated instrument encompasses four dimensions (cognition, affection, online constructive behaviour and online destructive behaviour), captured by 17 items.

Progress in understanding and dealing with negative online brand engagement has been hampered by disagreements over conceptualisation and the absence of measures that capture the phenomenon. This work enhances managerial understanding of negativity fostering strategies that protect brand engagement and improve firm performance.