Search results

This study aims to reconcile previous research that has provided mixed results regarding motivation for sustainable behaviors: pure altruism (cooperation) or competitive altruism (status). Drawing on evolutionary altruism and identity-based motivation, the authors propose that a match between pure (competitive) altruism and individualistic (collectivistic) identity goals enhance consumers’ motivations to engage in recycling (green buying).

Three experimental studies show how pure and competitive altruism are associated with specific sustainable consumption (Study 1) and how altruism types should be matched with identity goals to motivate sustainable consumption (Studies 2 and 3).

Study 1 shows that pure altruism is associated with recycling but not with green buying. Studies 2 and 3 show that pure (competitive) altruism and individualistic (collectivistic) goals lead to higher recycling (green buying) intentions.

The present research extends previous findings by showing that pure and competitive are indeed associated with specific sustainable behaviors. The authors suggest that the interaction between motives and identity goals can lead to a greater impact on recycling and green buying intentions.

Public policymakers and companies will benefit by better understanding how specific combinations of altruism types and identity goals can foster recycling or green buying intentions.

This research is the first to show how matches between pure and competitive altruism types and individualistic and collectivistic identity goals affect consumers’ motivations to engage in recycling and green buying.

The purpose of this paper is to integrate the corporate market and non‐market behaviors (such as social, legal, and political activities) into the research of competitive interaction.

“Structured content analysis” is used in analyzing the longitudinal data of five real estate enterprises from an industrial journal during the last seven years.

Competitive interactions with market and non‐market contents involve the expanded competitive scope, behaviors, and relationships. New explanations beyond previous literatures are provided to explain the expanded competitive behaviors (especially in resource‐oriented and mixed scope) by analyzing the characteristics of actions and responses.

Firms must effectively focus on the interaction of market and non‐market competitive behaviors. Industrial competitors in the market environment can engage in collaborative or cooperative actions with non‐market issues in order to obtain collective benefits.

This paper expands on previous studyies of competitive interaction by integrating the important non‐market content, especially categorizing it in the Chinese transitional environment with typical evidence.

As one of the most important emerging markets, China presents the greatest challenge to companies that are planning to enter its market. The purpose of this study is to examine a critical process required for any successful market entry – negotiation – and explore the impact of individual perception on negotiation process within Chinese culture.

Specifically, the paper explores how negotiators' perception of the negotiation structure and the alternatives to the negotiated agreement would affect negotiation behaviors and outcomes in a Chinese context.

The results showed that the perception of an integrative potential for the negotiation situation predicted more integrative behaviors and the perception of better alternatives predicted more competitive behaviors during a negotiation simulation.

Implications are discussed on how to negotiate into China.

The nature and extent of our knowledge of stock market efficiency are examined. The development of “efficiency”, as a way of thinking about stock markets, is traced from Roberts (1959) and Fama (1965) onward. The early work successfully introduced competitive economic theory to the study of stock markets and paved the way for a flood of empirical research on the relation between information and stock prices. This literature irreversibly altered our views on stock market behavior. The theory and evidence of seemingly‐rational use of information lay in sharp contrast to prior beliefs. It was associated with a widespread increase in respect for stock markets, financial markets, and markets in general, at the time. Researchers began developing and using a variety of formal models of security prices. Nevertheless, “efficiency” has its limitations, both theoretically (as a way of characterizing markets) and empirically (by stretching the quality of the data, the estimation techniques used, and our knowledge of price behavior in competitive markets). Extensive evidence of anomalies suggests either that the market systematically misprices securities or that the theoretical or empirical limitations are binding, or both. The less interesting research question now is whether markets are efficient, and the more interesting question is how we can learn more about price and transactions behavior in competitive stock markets. The concept of an “efficient stock market” has stimulated both insight and controversy since Fama (1965) introduced it to the financial economics literature. As a construct, “efficiency” models the stock market in terms of the reaction of prices to the flow of information. Like all theory choices, modelling the market in this fashion involved tradeoffs. The benefits included opening the literature to an abundance of high‐quality researchable data, covering a variety of information, and the resulting insights obtained on the role of information in setting prices. The opportunity costs included temporarily closing the literature to alternative ways of viewing stock markets, for example by modelling public information as a homogenous good and thus ignoring factors such as differences in beliefs among investors, differences in information processing costs, and the “animal spirits” that might drive group behavior. The costs also included reliance on particular asset‐pricing models of how an “efficient” market would set prices. Not surprisingly, the ensuing deluge of research has produced some startling evidence, for and against the proposition that financial markets are “efficient”. Strongly‐conflicting views and puzzling anomalies remain. The early evidence seemed unexpectedly consistent with the theory. The theory, and its implications, also seemed clear at the time. After a period that seems short in retrospect, the growing body of evidence in favor of the efficient market hypothesis emerged as one of the most influential empirical areas of economics. Fama's (1970) review described a flourishing, coherent and confident literature. This research had an irreversible effect on our knowledge of and attitude toward stock markets, and financial markets generally. It coincided with an emergence of interest in, and respect for, all markets among economists and politicians, and influenced the worldwide trend toward “liberalizing” financial and other markets. The research consistently appeared to show an unbiased reaction of stock prices to public information. The property of “unbiased reaction” to public information, which formed the basis of the early definitions of “efficiency”, was seen to be an implication of rational, maximizing investor behavior in competitive securities markets (Fama 1965, p.4). Reduced to a basic level, the reasoning was that any systematicallybiased reaction to public information is costlessly publicly observable, and thus provides pure profit opportunities to be competed away. Characterizing the market in terms of its reaction to information is only one of many feasible ways of modelling stock price behavior, but it introduced economic theoryto the empirical studyof stock prices, which had received little serious attention from economists prior to that point. Despite the subsequent spate of anomalies, the early efficiency literature not only adapted standard economic theoryto provide the first formal economic insights into how stock prices behave, but it helped pave the way for an outporing of theoretical and empirical work on stock markets and capital markets in general. Subsequent empirical research was not as consistent with the theory. Evidence of “anomalous” return behavior now is widespread and well‐known. It generallytakes the form of variables (for example, size, day‐of‐the‐week, P/E ratio, market/book value ratio, rank of scaled earnings change, dividend yield) that are significantly but inexplicablyrelated to subsequent abnormal stock returns. Much of this evidence has defied rational economic explanation to date and appears to have caused many researchers to strongly qualify their views on market efficiency. Disagreement has not been not confined to the evidence. The literature has produced a variety of research designs, ranging from the “market model” of Fama, Fisher, Jensen and Roll (FFJR, 1969) to Shiller's (1981a,b) variance‐bounds tests. The very term “efficiency” has engendered controversy: there is a modest literature on precisely what efficiency means, on the role of transaction costs, and on whether efficient markets are logically feasible. Making sense of this literature requires careful definition of “efficiency” in this context and careful analysis of the type of evidence that has been offered in relation to it. This involves an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of both the theory of efficient markets, as a way of characterizing stock markets, and of the data and research designs used in testing it. Not surprisingly, a mixed conclusion emerges. While the concept of efficient markets was an audacious departure from the comparative ignorance and suspicion among economists of stock markets that preceded it, and provides valuable insights into their behavior, the concept has its limitations, in terms of both its internal logical coherence and its fit with the data. Section 1 ofthis survey sketches the development of the efficient market theory, reviewing the principal contributions in terms of their usefulness in guiding and evaluating empirical research. Section 2 addresses the limitations inherent in what is knowable about stock market efficiency, given the present state of theory about how security prices might behave in an “efficient” market. It argues that there are binding limitations in the theoryof asset pricing, some of which are known and others of which are unknown or even unknowable. These limitations must be borne in mind when choosing whether to interpret the data as evidence of: (1) market efficiency, under the maintained hypothesis that a specific research design, including a specific model of asset pricing used to benchmark price behavior, correctly describes pricing in an efficient market; or (2) the ability of our models and research designs to encapsulate how prices behave in an efficient market, under the maintained hypothesis of efficiency. Against this background, section 3 then provides an assessment of the accomplishments of the theory of stock market efficiency, including an interpretation of the evidence. It focuses on the nature and influence of the evidence and does not attempt to provide a comprehensive literature taxonomy. The final section offers conclusions. The principal conclusion is that the theory of efficient markets has irreversibly enhanced our knowledge of and respect for stock markets (and perhaps for all financial market or even for markets in general) but that, like all theories, it is fundamentally flawed.

This article aims to provide knowledge on the antecedents and consequences of individual proactive behaviour. The proposed research model includes two unexplored antecedents (experienced meaningfulness of work and industry competitive intensity) and one consequence (individual proficiency).

Data were collected from 297 salespeople working at 105 enterprises in a range of industries. Data analysis was performed by applying confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling.

The results show (1) a positive association between industry competitive intensity and salespeople’s experienced meaningfulness of work and their proactivity at work; (2) a positive relationship between salespeople’s proactive behaviour and their individual proficiency and (3) that salespeople’s proactivity mediates the relation between industry competitive intensity and the experienced meaningfulness of work and individual proficiency.

The results suggest that managers could stimulate proactive behaviour by increasing the experienced meaningfulness of work. They also indicate that it is not only individual factors that are relevant in stimulating proactive behaviour at work, as contextual factors (particularly external ones) can also influence individual decisions with regard to engaging or not in proactive behaviour. Our findings regarding the positive relationship between proactivity and proficiency would help managers to encourage salespeople’s proactive behaviour.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the prediction of competitive response based on the characteristics of market and non‐market actions comprehensively, and develop a four‐stage decision‐making model of firm's competitive action, which is significant for Chinese practicing managers when formulating and implementing the strategies, and further predicting competitors' strategic choices.

The research adopted the method of structured content analysis and carried out the survey in Chinese home appliance industry, mainly covering the largest firms, including TCL, Hisense, Changhong, Konka, Haier, and Skyworth. The method of multiple regression analysis was employed to test the hypotheses.

The results show that in order to comprehensively forecast competitor's responding behaviors, the firms could not only limit their perspective to market field but also pay attention to non‐market. Additionally, in the process of dynamic interaction, the attacking or responding action is not independent and it is related significantly to another three type decisions, which are market and non‐market, strategic and tactic, and collective and individual. Further, the study asserts that, in market field, tactic activity is more likely to trigger competitor's response than strategic one, while in non‐market, the situation is just the opposite. Meanwhile, the study figured out that individual market attack is easier to trigger individual market and non‐market response, as well as collective market response. While for non‐market action, whatever it is individual or collective, both would be easy to provoke competitor's collective response.

The research findings extend the existing competitive interaction theory to non‐market field. When forecasting competitor's choice of the competitive action, the firms could not only limit their perspective to market field but also pay attention to non‐market, attaching importance to certain situation of competitor's taking such non‐market action as corporate philanthropy, etc. to launch an attack or a response for gaining competitive advantage.

The research in competitive facility location (CFL) is quite dynamic, both from a problem formulation and an algorithmic point of view. Research direction has changed immensely over the years to address various competitive challenges. This study aims to explore CFL literature to highlight these research trends, important issues and future research opportunities.

This study utilises the Scopus database to search for related CFL models and adopts a five-step systematic approach for the review process. The five steps involve (1) Article Identification and keyword selection, (2) Selection criteria, (3) Literature review, (4) Literature analysis and (5) Research studies.

The paper presents a comprehensive review of CFL modelling efforts from 1981 to 2021 to provide a depth study of the research evolution in this area. The published articles are classified based on multiple characteristics, including the type of problem, type of competition, game-theoretical approaches, customer behaviour, decision space, type of demand, number of facilities, capacity and budget limitations. The review also highlights the popular problem areas and dedicated research in the respective domain. In addition, a second classification is also provided based on solution methods adopted to solve various CFL models and real-world case studies.

The paper covers 40 years of CFL literature from the perspective of the problem area, CFL characteristics and the solution approach. Additionally, it introduces characteristics such as capacity limit and budget constraint for the first time for classification purposes.

This paper examines whether patterns in communication behavior over time can predict the outcome of crisis negotiations. A sample of 189 interaction episodes was transcribed from 9 resolved negotiations and coded according to differences in the degree and type of behavior. Partial order scalogram analysis (POSAC) was used to produce a graphical representation of the similarities and differences among episodes while simultaneously uncovering the role of each behavior in shaping the negotiation process. Results showed that episodes could be represented along a partially ordered scale of competitiveness, which was structured by the occurrence of two types of behavior: Distributive‐Expressive and Integrative‐Instrumental. The likelihood of negotiation success reduced with movement up the competitive scale, and negotiations involving episodes that passed a threshold of extreme competition on the scale inevitably ended unsuccessfully regardless of future developments. As negotiations developed over time, behavior alternated between periods of increasing cooperation and periods of increasing competition, with unsuccessful negotiations associated with a concluding trend of increasing competitive behavior.

The behavioral framework presents a logic for understanding the relationships between characteristics of the organization and the HRM system. Drawing on this logic to connect the broader management oriented area of strategy with HRM, a micro-level lens is used to examine how competitive strategies and human resource (HR) practice subsystems cohere to influence employees' role behaviors and performance outcomes.

Online survey data were collected from 301 employees working in the retail trade and hospitality segments of New Zealand's service industry.

Relationships represented in the behavioral model are supported. Specifically, this study finds identifiable differences between the types of HR practices employed and the competitive strategy followed by an organization. Distinguishable sets of HR practices could also be connected to discernible employee role behaviors, which in turn, were related to strategically-aligned performance outcomes. Some commonality in these relationships were evident however.

HR practitioners need to be cognizant of their organization's competitive strategy and ensure the design and messages sent by their HRM system supports the realization of desirable employee role behaviors that promote organizational success. This alignment is supported with job descriptions that clearly articulate to prospective employees the role behaviors required, along with screening processes that support this assessment.

This descriptive, exploratory study presenting data about the alignment between competitive strategies, HR practices, behavioral and performance outcomes contributes to our understanding of contingency arguments and employees' experiences and reactions to HRM. Moreover, by adopting a particularistic focus, this research is able to highlight the salient role of context in SHRM research.

Embedded within firms are unique stores of intangible human assets that likely influence the way firms compete. We argue that human and social capital of a firm, particularly at the upper echelon level, contributes to the firm’s awareness of the competitive environment and its motivation and ability to undertake numerous, complex, and strategic competitive actions, and therefore improve its competitive intensity. By examining how human capital and intra firm social capital influence firm competitive intensity, we advance a humanistic perspective of firm competitive behavior and outline several implications for future research.