Search results

Purpose: The purpose of the paper is twofold: first, to examine whether the progress of strategic management research has been damaged by an excessive focus on statistical significance to the exclusion of substantive significance and second, to provide recommendations for improving research practice toward establishing the substantive significance of empirical findings.

Methodology/Approach: We conduct the same survey described in McCloskey and Ziliak (1996) on a sample of all 41 papers published in Strategic Management Journal during 2007 that use regression methodology. We use the criteria for good science represented by these survey questions as the foundation for our discussion. We present our arguments for the relevance of each of these criteria in strategy research with examples of best practice and provide a detailed analysis of areas of research practice that can be improved with associated recommendations.

Findings: Our survey suggests that there is indeed cause for concern, since 90% of our surveyed papers make no distinction between statistical and economic/substantive significance of their results. At the same time, many of the surveyed papers make some attempt to interpret their results in a substantively meaningful fashion.

Originality/Value of Paper: Our paper addresses a critical set of issues that influence progress in strategic management research. We provide a roadmap for how we can address these issues for progress in our field.

Today business, especially mainstream global business, seems to be at war with society and nature. Striving for profit and competitiveness, mainstream business produces monetary results at the expense of nature, society and future generations. With its exclusive focus on profit-making, mainstream businesses violates the integrity and diversity of natural ecosystems, the autonomy and culture of local communities and the chance that future generations will lead a decent life.

We should go beyond the market metaphysics of mainstream business and adopt a more substantive way of economic activities. The substantive meaning of the economy – as Karl Polanyi pointed out – stems from human beings’ patent dependence for their livelihood upon nature and their fellow beings. Humans survive by virtue of an institutionalised interaction between their communities and the natural environment.

If we want to sustain the Human–Earth system for a long time, we need a radical transformation of business. This requires that economic actors have the intrinsic motivation to serve the greater good and are ready to measure success using broader value categories than money alone. Without these motivational and institutional changes business cannot become a peace agent. Instead, it will generate more conflict and violence.

Although Research in Economic Anthropology (REA) actually hit the quarter-century mark in 2003 with the publication of Volume 22, the series has now done so also in terms of the number of volumes. Twenty-five seems like an important milestone, and perhaps this edition can be noted for passing that, but it also marks the third editorial change in the history of REA. When a new editor takes over, it seems prudent to offer a summary of the book series’ evolution to date. As many know, George Dalton was the original editor – beginning in 1978 (REA was then published by JAI Press). Dalton subsequently handed the reins to Barry Isaac, who produced Volumes 6 through 20, along with a number of supplemental publications that focused on specific topics or regions and contained only chapters of an archeological or ethnohistorical nature. In fact, Isaac is still recognized for his efforts at granting archeology an equal footing with ethnology in the study of human economic behavior.¹ While Dalton included previously published material in the pages of REA and welcomed works by non-anthropologists, Isaac considered only original manuscripts and generally limited his selection of chapters to those written by anthropologists. Since Volume 20, REA has been published by Elsevier.

The paper analyzes two major ways of aiming at ecological sustainability. One is represented by the green business movement while the other is represented by different models of the community economy (e.g. community‐supported agriculture). Ecological sustainability requires quantitative and qualitative limitations both on the supply and demand sides of economic activities. Theoretical and empirical arguments show that the green business paradigm is not sufficient for achieving ecological sustainability but the community economy might be able to meet the requirements of ecological sustainability.

This paper aims to examine the relationship between self‐efficacy and the outcomes that individuals achieve when they manage conflict at work. The authors propose that self‐efficacy is related to performance following a positive linear or curvilinear model depending on the outcomes assessed (objective versus subjective outcomes) and the conflict setting considered (transaction versus dispute).

Two studies were conducted. Study 1 was a face‐to‐face transaction in which self‐efficacy was measured using a survey. In study 2, participants were involved in a dispute and their self‐efficacy was manipulated using a false feedback technique.

Results suggest that high self‐efficacy participants obtain better objective (economic/substantive) outcomes. However, there is a curvilinear relationship, in a U‐inverted shape, between self‐efficacy and subjective (relational) outcomes, indicating that an increase in self‐efficacy improves subjective outcomes, but there are certain levels at which self‐efficacy may be dysfunctional.

Recent controversial findings in research into the relationship between self‐efficacy and performance are addressed in these studies. The present paper is one of the first to explore the role of self‐efficacy in a dispute and to consider the effects of self‐efficacy on subjective outcomes. Practical implications are discussed in light of the results.

This chapter examines Karl Polanyi's critique of formalism in economics and his case for a more institutional economics based upon a reconstitution of the facts of economic life on as wide an historical basis as possible. The argument below reviews Polanyi's argument with regard to the relation between economic anthropology and comparative economics, the contrast between the formalist and substantive approaches to economic analysis, the notion of an economistic fallacy, the most important limitations of the conventional formalist economics approach, and the nature and import of the new departure that Polanyi envisioned.

To reexamine the Weber Thesis pertaining to the relationship between ascetic Protestantism – especially Calvinism – and modern capitalism, as between an economic “spirit” and an economic “structure,” in which the first is assumed to be the explanatory factor and the second the dependent variable.

The chapter provides an attempt to combine theoretical-empirical and comparative-historical approaches to integrate theory with evidence supplied by societal comparisons and historically specific cases.

The chapter identifies the general sociological core of the Weber Thesis as a classic endeavor in economic sociology (and thus substantive sociological theory) and separates it from its particular historical dimension in the form of an empirical generalization from history. I argue that such a distinction helps to better understand the puzzling double “fate” of the Weber Thesis in social science, its status of a model in economic sociology and substantive sociological theory, on the one hand, and its frequent rejection in history and historical economics, on the other. The sociological core of the Thesis, postulating that religion, ideology, and culture generally deeply impact economy, has proved to be more valid, enduring, and even paradigmatic, as in economic sociology, than its historical component establishing a special causal linkage between Calvinism and other types of ascetic Protestantism and the “spirit” and “structure” of modern capitalism in Western society at a specific point in history.

In addition to the two cases deviating from the Weber Thesis considered here, it is necessary to investigate and identify the validity of the Thesis with regard to concrete historical and empirical instances.

The chapter provides the first effort to systematically analyze and distinguish between the sociological core and the historical components of the Weber Thesis as distinct yet intertwined components.

Purpose – Inspired by “old” institutional arguments, this chapter presents the ideas of both the “old” and “new” institutional perspective as their arguments appear in the economic anthropology literature following the substantivist–formalist debate of the 1960s.

Design/methodology/approach – During the 1960s the substantivist–formalist debate, otherwise known as the “Great Debate,” thrust institutional thought to the forefront of economic anthropology. By the close of the 1960s, the substantivist–formalist debate passed unresolved. Institutional economic anthropology reached a crossroad – it could continue the legacy of the substantivism as represented by “old” institutionalism or follow the path of “new” institutional economics. Against the long shadow of the “Great Debate,” this chapter identifies key epistemological ideas that are present within the recent history of the institutional economic anthropology literature.

Findings – On the basis of epistemological arguments, the chapter suggests that if the substantivist–formalist debate, often times referred to as the “Great Debate,” is ever to achieve closure, then practitioners of institutional economic anthropology would benefit by moving beyond “new” institutional thought.

Originality/value – This chapter provides a unique evaluation of the institutional perspective within the history of economic anthropology. Residing within this history are clear and poignant distinctions between the “old” and “new” institutional perspectives. As a result, this chapter seeks to bring to social scientists interested in institutional economists, important insights from economic anthropology that may have otherwise gone unnoticed.