Search results

The purpose of this paper is to identify under what circumstances advisor gender and advice justification influence advice taking by managers.

The authors designed a quasirational managerial decision experiment with both analytic and intuitive cues. The design was a 2 × 2 between-subjects factorial, in which gender (male/female) and advice justification (intuitive/analytic) were crossed. The experiment involved two independent samples, taken from Amazon Mechanical Turk workers and Brazilian professionals.

Results suggest that, in general, analytic justification is more valued than intuitive justification. The findings also infer that depending on the advisees’ sample and providing that advice justification is analytic, quasirational scenarios seem to favor male advisors (MTurk sample) or both male and female advisors with “male values” (professional sample), as analysis is traditionally considered a “male value.”

Analytic justification will likely lead to more advice utilization in quasirational managerial situations, as it may act as a safeguard for the accuracy of the offered advice.

The results might signal an ongoing, but slow, process leading to the mitigation of gender stereotypes, considering that the male gender stereotype was active in the MTurk sample, but not in the professional one.

This study contributes to the advice-taking research field by showing the interplay between advisor gender and advice justification in a quasirational managerial decision setting with both analytic and intuitive cues. In advice-taking literature, observations are usually collected from students. However, as this study focused on managerial decisions, the authors collected independent samples from MTurk workers and Brazilian professionals.

This study aims to explore how university language students evaluate different sustainability themes and examine the overall relevance of ecological, social, cultural and economic sustainability dimensions in language education.

A questionnaire was designed to study Finnish university language students’ (n = 55) order of priority for sustainability dimensions and their sub-themes and the justifications for the priority orders using a mixed methods design. Qualitative content analysis was conducted using NVivo software, and weighted rankings were used to analyse the quantitative data.

The findings of the study showed that language students evaluated the social and cultural dimensions as the most relevant in language teaching. In all dimensions, students approached sustainability mainly by prioritising larger issues and advancing towards smaller ones. Most non-directional responses appeared in the economic dimension. In addition, individual prioritising and justification approaches varied between different sustainability dimensions.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no previous studies have examined language students’ evaluations of and justifications for all four sustainability dimensions. The results highlight the need to use multiple, holistic approaches and systems thinking to incorporate education for sustainable development.

The paper aims to explore the role of climate for creativity and innovation as the situational variable to lead to both expected and unexpected consequences (e.g. performance and unethical behavior), by discovering the relationships among task characteristics (e.g. difficulty, clarity and performance pressure), individual psychological aspects (e.g. mindfulness and self-justification) and work environmental conditions (e.g. peer behavior and climate for creativity and innovation). In this study, task characteristics are proposed to positively associate with unethical behavior via mindfulness. Moreover, climate for creativity and innovation is proposed to moderate the relationship between self-justification and unethical behavior. Finally, unethical behavior is predicted to positively influence on performance.

Data were collected from the sample of salespeople, who are working for variety of companies in Vietnam. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) and SmartPLS 3 are implemented to test the path model.

Emphasizing both bright and dark sides of promoting creativity and innovation, the study highlights the role of climate for creativity and innovation in strengthening the positive relationship between self-justification and unethical behavior. In turn, unethical behavior positively influences performance. Further, the findings indicate that mindfulness contributes in explaining unconscious unethical behavior.

Exploring the relationships among climate for creativity and innovation, unethical behavior and performance, this paper contributes for deeper understanding of variety aspects of innovation. Demands for an intelligent management in modern workplaces are suggested.

This focal chapter deals with the understanding of important ethical theories used in executive moral reasoning such as teleology, deontology, distributive justice and corrective justice, virtue ethics versus ethics of trust, from the perspectives of intrinsic versus instrumental good, moral worth versus moral obligation, and moral conscience versus moral justification. Ethical and moral reasoning will power executives to identify, explore, and resolve corporate moral dilemma, especially in the wake of emerging gray market areas where good and evil, right or wrong, just or unjust, and truth and falsehood cannot be easily distinguished. We focus on developing corporate skills of awareness of ethical values and moral imperatives in current otherwise highly commoditized and turbulent human, market, and corporate situations. The challenges of morality are multifaceted and diverse. Professionals usually have self-discipline and self-regulation abilities, ego strength, and social skills. Morality in the professions is not concerned with the issues of rudimentary socialization; rather, the issues involve deciding between conflicting values, where each value represents something good in itself. There are problems in both knowing what is right, good, true, and just on the one hand, and on the other hand, in doing what is right and avoiding wrong, doing good and avoiding evil, and being fair and just while avoiding being unfair and unjust. Several contemporary cases will illustrate the challenging dimensions of ethical and moral reasoning, moral judgment and moral justification embedded in executive decision processes, and corporate growth and profitability ventures.

Due to the gender norms in Indonesia, married women are vulnerable to domestic violence perpetrated by their husband. With a paucity of studies on this issue, the purpose of this paper is to explore the vulnerability to domestic physical violence among married women in Indonesia by measuring the acceptance of being beaten by their husband and factors associated with married women’s approvals were also identified.

Secondary data analysis of three rounds of Indonesia Demographic and Health Survey in 2002/2003, 2007 and 2012 was performed. Data were analyzed descriptively to reveal the trend of women’s acceptance and binary logistic regression was applied to identify determinants.

Women’s acceptance of wife beating in some circumstances experienced an increase during 2002–2012. Determinants varied by type of beating justification. Overall, determinants fell into three groups of women’s, husband’s and household’s characteristics.

This study helps to identify determinants of women’s vulnerability to domestic physical violence and suggests some substantial approaches to address this pressing issue.

In real life, we only know the consequences of each possible action with some uncertainty. A typical example is interval uncertainty, when we only know the lower and upper bounds on the expected gain. A usual way to compare such interval-valued alternatives is to use the optimism–pessimism criterion developed by Nobelist Leo Hurwicz. In this approach, a weighted combination of the worst-case and the best-case gains is maximized. There exist several justifications for this criterion; however, some of the assumptions behind these justifications are not 100% convincing. The purpose of this paper is to find a more convincing explanation.

The authors used utility approach to decision-making.

The authors proposed new, hopefully more convincing, justifications for Hurwicz’s approach.

This is a new, more intuitive explanation of Hurwicz’s approach to decision-making under interval uncertainty.

The present article deals with the topic of migrants’ exclusion from welfare benefits in European host countries from the angle of the research on the so-called “welfare chauvinism” (Andersen and Bjørklund 1990, p. 212). More specifically, it explores the political justifications behind welfare chauvinism in the policy debate surrounding some recent chauvinist-oriented social policies. Drawing on that, the article develops a theoretical argument to generate expectations about how politicians use different types of justifications. The fundamental proposition is that the chauvinistic arguments used are shaped by the different types of social programs, i.e. either universal or means-tested programs.

Qualitative content analysis of several selected parliamentary debates in the period 2017–2019 in Austria is carried out. In order to improve the efficiency of the research, the author relies on MAXQDA, an advanced piece of software for qualitative data analysis, to code the qualitative data and analyze them. The author prefers this to other similar programs as it is considered a valid and reliable tool within the academic research world.

The article points out that programs design works as an explanatory factor to highlight variations of welfare chauvinist arguments.

It develops for the first time a theoretical argument explaining the presence and variation of welfare chauvinist arguments based on social programs design.

The paper examines how accounting and accounting experts provided important contributions to the Italian government's strategy to address the COVID-19 emergency in 2020, especially in terms of implementing new rules of conduct and providing justification for penetrating interventions in the life of individuals.

The paper adopts an interdisciplinary approach by drawing upon Agamben's concepts of the state of exception, bare life and biosecurity to understand the purposes of the decrees issued by the Italian government and data provided to the citizens in the “daily bulletin” on the crisis by the Civil Protection Department.

Accounting data provided essential contributions to the government's strategy that sought to spread disquiet and uncertainty in the population to ensure compliance with the strict rules in place, thereby sustaining the management of the country under a state of exception.

The study draws attention to the way in which accounting provides justification for measures that are promoted as provisional but which have enduring effects, most importantly the ability of governments in the future to suspend the rights of individuals. It shows how accounting can influence people's behaviour and contribute to the development of a permanent state of exception that significantly increases government prerogatives.

The work contributes to the literature on accounting and emergencies by studying the use of accounting information as a subtle means to ensure support for extreme government actions and ultimately as a political tool that promotes biosecurity as a new government paradigm.

This paper aims to analyze and evaluate the arguments provided in Gema Dari Menara that aim to justify Islamic prohibitions. The first part of this paper will attempt to indicate that the arguments concerning Islam’s prohibition of certain activities are surprisingly secular in their justification, in the sense that their reasoning rests on mundane empirical considerations rather than lofty theological exhortations. For instance, pre-marital sex must be prohibited because it would “ruin one’s personality and community”, Bruneians should not gamble because people who do so “forget their own responsibilities”, and alcohol should not be consumed because it can “ruin a sound mind and one’s personality”. These justifications do not appeal to the divine but instead refer to phenomena that can be observed, measured, and quantified. The second part of this paper will consider the implications of trying to justify absolute religious prohibitions through secular considerations. It will be argued that in doing so the film opens itself to empirical queries that must be addressed for the film to have its desired effect. This paper ultimately draws attention to some of the challenges facing religious apologetics as the social sciences gain prominence.

The main purpose of the study was to identify the key elements that characterize successful grant proposals and the relative importance of issues that constitute difficulties and concerns in preparing the proposals. The study aimed, in particular, to explore grantsmanship perceptions based on the experiences of researchers in Thailand who had, or had not yet, successfully been awarded domestic and/or international research funding.

Anonymous online questionnaires were distributed to researchers in biomedical and public health fields in Thai academic institutes. The online survey asked the anonymous participants to complete a questionnaire comprising both multiple-choice and open-ended questions.

About 19% of 300 respondents had received both domestic and international research grants, and 60% of domestic research grants. The top 5 issues in grant applications were: (1) choosing a topic that matched the grant opportunity, (2) feasibility of research design and methods, (3) suitable research design and methodology, (4) model and theoretical justification, and (5) ethical considerations. Significant differences in perceptions among researchers were found for the feasibility of research design and methods and proposing a reasonable and justifiable budget.

The information derived from this analysis reflected the perceptions of the researchers and may or may not correlate with those of grant agency reviewers. The results of this study may be insightful and instructive for other researchers and form the basis for training and mentoring researchers in informed and effective grantsmanship, particularly novice researchers with limited or no experience in grant proposal writing. This study particularly reflected grantsmanship perceptions among researchers in Thailand. It may also serve to exemplify lessons learned for researchers in other low-income and middle-income countries (LMIC) exposed to similar settings and situations applying for research grants.