Search results

The purpose of this paper is to understand why some US Senators have more low-quality followers than others and the potential impact of low-quality followers on understanding constituent preferences.

For each US Senator, data on Twitter followers was matched with demographic characteristics proven to influence behavior. An OLS regression model evaluated why some Senators attract more low-quality followers than others. Then, observations on the impact of low-quality followers were discussed along with potential effects on information gathering and constituent representation.

This study finds that total followers, ideology and length of time on Twitter are all significant predictors of whether a Senator might attract low-quality followers. Low-quality followers can have wide-ranging implications on Senator’s use of social media data to represent constituents and develop public policy.

The data set only includes Senators from the 115th Congress (2017–2018). As such, future research could expand the data to include additional Senators or members of the House of Representatives.

Information is essential in any decision-making environment, including legislatures. Understanding why some users, particularly public opinion leaders, attract more low-quality social media followers could help decision-makers better understand where information is coming from and how they might choose to evaluates its content.

This study finds two practical implications for public opinion leaders, including Senators. First, accounts must be actively monitored to identify and weed-out low-quality followers. Second, users need to be wary of disinformation and misinformation and they need to develop strategies to identify and eliminate it from the collection of follower preferences.

This study uses a unique data set to understand why some Senators have more low-quality followers than others and the impact on information gathering. Other previous studies have not addressed this issue in the context of governmental decision-making or constituent representation.

This case investigation used firsthand statements, reports, testimony and regulatory records. While widely publicized in the popular press, this case is based on primary documents. On their website, many documents were obtained from Wells Fargo’s Corporate newsroom, such as the internal audit report shared with shareholders and press releases. Most other sources were from US regulatory websites (.gov) or congressional testimony. In a few places, quotes and comments came from reliable journalistic sites that cite their sources and follow a journalist’s code of ethics and conduct, ensuring that the reported remarks and data were verified.

Since 2016, Wells Fargo Bank has faced multiple customer mistreatment investigations and resultant fines. Public outcry and distrust resulted from Wells Fargo employees creating hidden accounts and enrolling people in bank services without their knowledge to meet desired levels of sustained shareholder growth. Over the past five years, Wells Fargo has been fined and returned to customers and stockholders over $3bn. Wells Fargo executives spent the first year of the scandal citing improper behavior by employees. Leadership did not take responsibility for setting the organizational goals, which led to employee misbehavior. Even after admitting some culpability in creating the extreme sales culture, executives and the Board of Directors tried to distance themselves from blame for the unethical behavior. They cited the organizations’ decentralized structure as a reason the board was not quicker in seeing and correcting the negative behaviors of these ‘bad apple’ employees. Wells Fargo faced multiple concurrent scandals, such as upselling services to retirees, inappropriately repossessing service members’ vehicles, adding insurance and extra fees to mortgages and other accounts and engaging in securities fraud. As time has passed, the early versions of a handful of “bad apples” seem to be only a part of the overall “poison tree.”The dilemma, in this case, is who is responsible for the misbehavior and the inappropriate sales of products and services (often without the customer’s knowledge)? Is strategic growth year-over-year with no allowances for environmental and economic factors a realistic and reasonable goal for corporations? This case is appropriate for undergraduates and graduate students in finance, human resources, management, accounting and investments.

An active case-based learning pedagogical approach is suggested. The materials include a short podcast, video and other materials to allow the faculty to assign pre-class work or to use in the classroom before a case discussion.

Over the last two decades Bill George has been researching the basic ingredients of authentic leadership through one of the most extensive empirical studies of leadership ever undertaken. He and his team have extended their research to include both international and rising generation leaders and parlayed their findings into a development process aimed at helping current and aspiring leaders to become both more authentic and effective. His latest book, True North: Leading Authentically in Today’s Workplace (Emerging Leader Edition), is co-authored with Zach Clayton.

Interview with authors Bill George, former CEO of Medtronic, and Zach Clayton, CEO of Three Ships, conducted by Brian Leavy, Emeritus Professor of Strategy at Dublin City University Business School, a Strategy &Leadership contributing editor and author of the S&L masterclass, “ Effective leadership today – character, not just competence.

Authentic leaders engender trust and develop genuine connections, which enables them to motivate people to achieve high levels of performance.

“I believe the hardest person you will ever have to lead is yourself.” -- Bill George

“The authors interviewed hundreds of CEOs and found that the self-awareness that they develop in the process of self-discovery is the most essential determinant of their effectiveness as a leader.”

This paper aims to explore how historical context influences the content and selection of rhetorical legitimation strategies. Using case study method, this paper will focus on how insurance companies and labor tried to defend their legitimacy in the context of enactment of Medicare in the USA. What factors influenced the strategic (rhetorical) decisions made by insurance companies and labor unions in their institutional work?

The study is empirically grounded in archival research, involving an analysis of over 9,000 pages of congressional hearings on Medicare covering the period 1958–1965.

The authors show that rhetorical legitimation strategies depend significantly on the specific historical circumstances in which those strategies are used. The historical context lent credibility to certain arguments and organizations are forced to decide either to challenge widely held assumptions or take advantage of them. The authors show that organizations face strong incentives to pursue the latter option. Here, both the insurance companies and labor unions tried to show that their positions were consistent with classical liberal ideology, because of high respect of classical liberal principles among different stakeholders (policymakers, voters, etc.).

It is uncertain how much the results of the study could be generalized. More information about the organizations whose use of rhetorics the authors studied could have strengthened our conclusions.

The practical relevancy of the revised paper is that the authors should not expect hegemony challenging rhetorics from organizations, which try to influence legislators (and perhaps the larger public). Perhaps (based on the findings), this kind of rhetorics is not even very effective.

The paper helps to understand better how organizations try to advance their interests and gain acceptance among the stakeholders.

In this paper, the authors show how historical context in practice influence rhetorical arguments organizations select in public debates when their goal is to influence the decision-making of their audience. In particular, the authors show how dominant ideology (or ideologies) limit the options organizations face when they are choosing their strategies and arguments. In terms of the selection of rhetorical justification strategies, the most pressing question is not the “real” broad based support of certain ideologies. Insurance company and labor union representatives clearly believed that they must emphasize liberal values (or liberal ideology) if they wanted to gain legitimacy for their positions. In existing literature, it is often assumed that historical context influence the selection of rhetorical strategies but how this in fact happens is not usually specified. The paper shows how interpretations of historical contexts (including the ideological context) in practice influence the rhetorical strategies organizations choose.