Abstract
In 2013, the Social Issues in Management (SIM) Division of the Academy of Management awarded the best dissertation in the field of SIM research at the AOM’s annual conference in Orlando, Florida. This essay, written by the best dissertation committee chair, describes the procedures behind the dissertation award and the criteria used to identify the winner. Furthermore, it reflects on the finalists’ unique contributions and the takeaways for future best dissertation awards.
The Committee
In 2013, I had the pleasure to serve once more on the Social Issues in Management’s (SIM) dissertation committee. From my impressions of the 2012 award (Muethel, 2013), I knew that the SIM best dissertation award offers a unique opportunity to learn about the upcoming generation of SIM researchers’ insights. I thus felt honored that I was again given the chance to chair the SIM dissertation committee.
Virginia Gerde and Adele Santana, two additional members, joined the team and the three of us formed the SIM dissertation award 2013 committee. Virginia Gerde was also the SIM division chair in 2013 and thus served a double role, supporting the committee in whatever role she was needed. During our work, we profited greatly from previous SIM dissertation chairs, who had developed a set of guidelines and forms (Mattingly, 2011; Parboteeah, 2012). These guidelines and forms facilitated our work significantly.
The Submissions
In April 2013, Virginia Gerde posted an invitation to participate in SIM’s annual doctoral dissertation award competition via the SIM list serve. The deadline for submissions was May 15, 2013. Following the procedures of the previous years’ SIM dissertation awards, potential candidates were asked to submit an abstract of no more than 10 double-spaced pages. The following requirements were also set: (a) The participants should have successfully defended their dissertation between May 1, 2011 and April 30, 2013; (b) The theses should be in English; (c) The theses had to focus on some aspect of the relationship between business and society; (d) The theses should not have been submitted to any other Academy division in the same year. However, dissertations were eligible for an award up to 2 years after their completion. Then, participants could therefore submit their dissertation to SIM in two consecutive years, or submit to it to SIM in 1 year and to a different division another year (Muethel, 2013; Parboteeah, 2012).
In total, the committee received 23 submissions, 22 of which met the eligibility requirements. While 45% came from the United States and Canada, 55% were non-North American submissions (according to the doctoral student’s affiliation). This proportion constituted a small increase in non-North American submissions compared with the previous year when 53% of the submissions were non-North American. The general trend of the SIM dissertation award’s globalization thus continued. Of the non-North American submissions, 75% came from Europe, 8% from Central America, 8% from Australia, and 8% from Africa. Unfortunately, Asia was not yet represented, but Africa was represented for the first time. Generally, demographics show that there is still scope for globalization of the SIM dissertation award above and beyond Europe. With regard to gender, the SIM dissertation award is still male-dominated with 68% male applicants.
Of the submissions, 31% were related to corporate social responsibility and stakeholder management. Corporate social responsibility (CSR)-related topics were again the majority of those submitted; 22% of the topics were related to business ethics. Furthermore, aspects of social- and micro-entrepreneurship were covered, as well as work dealing with the bottom of the pyramid. Generally, the topics submitted were more diverse than those of the previous year, including, for example, public–private partnerships. As in the previous year, most of the participants focused on corporate-level investigations and only a minority considered lower levels of analysis, such as leader–follower dyads.
Methodology-wise, the submissions covered a broad range of methods: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods approaches. Of the submissions, 41% applied quantitative methods, including experiments, survey, and secondary data. Thirty-six percent applied qualitative approaches, such as interviews and case studies; 18% relied on both qualitative and quantitative data, using mixed-methods approaches. Interestingly, the approaches that included qualitative data (i.e., qualitative and mixed methods) went beyond purely quantitative approaches. The empirical context chosen included not only business-related industries, such as the service and the construction industries, but also non-business contexts, such as artists, theaters, and hospitals.
The Selection Process
After checking eligibility requirements, the committee evaluated the abstracts. To do so, I sent the SIM mission statement and a set of predefined criteria to support the evaluation process. I included the SIM mission statement in the evaluation package to support the evaluation of the submission’s general fit with the SIM division. As in previous years, some of the applications were not related to the field of SIM and were thus excluded during the evaluation process. The SIM mission statement helped clarifying a submission’s fit with the main contents of the SIM field of research. The criteria used to evaluate the abstracts were adopted from the previous years (Mattingly, 2011; Muethel, 2013; Parboteeah, 2012).
In addition to these criteria, the committee decided to include a new criterion to the list: the innovativeness of the research idea. This addition was done as, particularly in the previous year, the quality of the research ideas per se (regardless of the quality of the methods applied) showed very high levels of variety. Whereas some research ideas targeted relevant, necessary, but inherently incremental contributions to the field, others challenged the state of the art of the literature and the basic assumptions made in the field. These challenges had the potential to change the current understanding of a specific phenomenon and, thus, to impact future research significantly. This criterion was added to the previous set of criteria to account for the innovativeness of the research idea.
In the committee’s evaluation, these criteria have been found to be very useful. The criteria applied included:
Domain relevance. The research topic is applicable to the domain statement of the SIM division of the Academy of Management. The motivation for the research problem is clearly established.
Innovativeness of research idea. The research questions are unique and novel. They address issues that are thought-provoking, that is, they are counter-intuitive, they take new theoretical perspectives or they challenge existing research findings.
Presentation style. The writing is clear, reasoning is sound, each part clearly contributes toward a coherent thesis, and passive language is avoided. The manuscript’s length is commensurate with the scope of the project.
Literature review. The literature reviewed provides an appropriate and thorough context for understanding current knowledge surrounding the research problem. The length of the literature review is appropriately matched to the methodological strategy employed.
Conceptual development. The constructs being examined are clearly identified and defined, and relationships among them are clearly and thoroughly explained. Potentially confounding constructs are not ignored, but are clearly identified and their potential effects are adequately considered. Hypotheses deduced, or propositions induced, are clearly and thoroughly established from the literature or research results presented, respectively.
Methodological appropriateness. The methodological tradition followed is well-matched to the research problem and the scholarly context established in the literature review. The procedures followed to collect and analyze data are rigorous, appropriately balancing validity and reliability.
Significance of contribution. Conclusions are interesting, important, and timely, producing a significant contribution to the study and practice of management. Conclusions logically follow from the research question, arguments developed, and the data presented.
Following the previous year’s procedures (Muethel, 2013), a questionnaire was used to support the evaluation. The questionnaire included the seven items and asked each committee to rate each item, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Each abstract could therefore achieve a maximum of 35. Besides calculating the final score of each submission, I asked the committee members to indicate their subjective ranking of the submissions.
The individual committee members’ evaluations showed very high levels of convergence. We discussed our top candidates openly and easily agreed on the three finalists. I then contacted the three finalists and asked them to submit their full dissertation thesis. Furthermore, I informed the non-selected candidates on the status of the dissertation award.
In the final step of the SIM dissertation award, all the committee members evaluated the full dissertation theses. In this phase, our committee realized that one of the dissertation theses submitted did not meet the eligibility criteria and had to be excluded from the process. Within the committee, we then discussed our suggestions for a new third finalist and easily agreed on a suitable candidate.
Generally, during this phase, the committee realized that the requirements for dissertation theses vary significantly across countries and institutions. After discussing the eligibility of the dissertation theses, we agreed that the approving institution’s acceptance of the thesis should be the relevant selection criteria. However, the committee suggested that the upcoming SIM dissertation award should take differences in rigor already at earlier stages of the evaluation process into account.
The Finalists’ Contributions
The three finalists presented their dissertations at the “SIM Best Dissertation Finalists Session” on August 11, 2013. Each of the finalists, chose a different empirical approach, thus presenting the audience with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods approaches to SIM. Not only were different topics related to SIM presented but also specific contributions, all of which were due to different methodological approaches utilized. The dissertations are summarized below in alphabetical order of author.
Maryam Kouchaki: A Quantitative Approach to SIM Research
Maryam Kouchaki’s dissertation is titled, “Professionalism and Moral Behavior: Does a Professional Self-Conception Make One More Unethical?” In her dissertation, she addresses the question of why professional associations and individual professional efforts do not per se help employees demonstrate ethical behavior. In particular, she investigates the causal link between professional self-conceptions and employees’ unethical behavior. Based on her conceptual analysis, Maryam Kouchaki hypothesizes that, contrary to the predominant assumptions, professional self-conception increases the likelihood of individuals engaging in unethical behavior. Furthermore, she argues that membership in occupations traditionally associated with professions leads to a stronger professional self-conception, which in turn increases the likelihood of individuals engaging in unethical behavior. Maryam Kouchaki uses three experiments and one field study to investigate the proposed relationships.
In the first study, by means of a scenario, she experimentally manipulates the accessibility of professional self-concepts and relates these to unethical behavior. Unethical behavior is measured as a conflict of interest. The data originate from 58 MBA students of a U.S. university. Her findings support her theorization. In the second study, Maryam Kouchaki explores the relationship between self-concept and unethical behavior further, investigating the activation of a professional self-concept as compared to the accessibility of a professional self-concept. To achieve this aim, she uses a perspective-taking manipulation with unethical behavior related to cheating. The data originate from 101 undergraduate students of a U.S. university. The results show that the activation of a self-concept does have stronger effects on unethical behavior than the accessibility of a self-concept. Study 3 focuses on the role of professional self-concepts compared with that of other self-concepts. Professional self-concepts are therefore considered to mediate the relationship between assuming the role of a professional (compared with that of an average employee) and unethical behavior. Study 3 uses a 2 by 2 design, considering the role of the actor (professional employee vs. employee) and the opportunity to act unethically (present vs. absent). The participants were randomly assigned to the different conditions. A previous scenario is adopted to manipulate the accessibility of the self-concept. Unethical behavior is measured via cheating. Furthermore, the perceived professional status is measured by a five-item measure. The data originate from 163 U.S. adults and was collected via Amazon’s mechanical Turk web site. The results again support her theorization. After the three experimental studies, Study 4 investigates professional self-concepts in a natural setting. In particular, occupational membership is taken into account, which the previous studies do not. The participants are asked to indicate their level of professional self-conception, as well as their occupational membership. Unethical behavior is measured via an estimation task, using data from 276 working adults. The results confirm the previous findings. In addition, the results reveal that members of a profession are more likely to engage in unethical behavior than those who do not identify themselves as members of a profession.
In sum, Maryam Kouchaki’s series of studies points to the counter-intuitive relationship between professionalism and ethical behavior. She thus provides new and relevant insights into the mechanisms of professional self-conceptualization, pointing to the downsides of professional self-conceptualization, which have been neglected to date. Maryam Kouchaki presents an innovative research idea, which she subsequently investigates through a well-orchestrated set of studies. In particular, she contributes to SIM research by showing that the predominantly positively connotation of professionalism also has a dark side. This dark side is an important managerial blind spot that management should address.
Rieneke Slager: A Mixed-Methods Approach to SIM Research
Rieneke Slager’s dissertation is titled “SRI Indices and Responsible Corporate Behavior: A Study of the FTSE4Good Index.” In her dissertation, Rieneke Slager investigates the development of the FTSE4Good Index, a Social Responsible Investment (SRI) index that the Financial Times Stock Exchange FTSE Group launched in 2001, and its effects on corporate social responsibility. In particular, she explores the underlying aim of the FTSE4Good Index by investigating the development of the Index and its impact on corporate responsible behavior. She consequently applies a multi-method research design, relying on qualitative and quantitative data, such as interviews, archival data, documents, and questionnaires.
In the first part of her thesis, Rieneke Slager explores the creation and maintenance of the FTSE4Good Index based on open-ended interviews with key actors at the FTSE and with relevant third parties (e.g., CSR consultants, corporate managers, and FTSE Responsible Investment (RI) team members), as well as on archival data such as minutes of meetings and FTSE reports. Based on her empirical analyses, Rieneke Slager points to three relevant types of institutional work that form the Index’s reactivity. These include calculative framing (defining and calculating the rules of participation), engaging (creating expertise needed to legitimate the Index and monitor corporate behavior), and valorizing (creating symbols such as the index logo and certificates). In the second part of her thesis, Rieneke Slager investigates the corporate reactions of the companies included in the Index. Based on data from interviews, archival data (i.e., correspondence), documents (e.g., CSR reports), and secondary data (i.e., the EIRIS database), she shows that corporate reactivity takes place at the performative and at the ostensive level. Performative reactivity refers to the creation, or adjustment, of CSR policies, management systems, or reporting practices, whereas ostensive reactivity refers to the shared understanding and meaning of these practices. Furthermore, she investigates the relationship between the engagement with the FTSE RI team and symbolic work, on one hand, and both types of reactivity, on the other hand, pointing to different types of firm reactivity, which includes, for example, integrative, ceremonial, or indifferent reactions. In the third part, Rieneke Slager further investigates previous data, applying a fuzzy-set qualitative case analysis (QCA). The results show the different configurations of causal conditions that lead to the absence and presence of reactivity, with engagement and communication being particularly important for corporate reactivity. In the final part of her thesis, she further explores the relationship between the variables derived from her qualitative work (e.g., engagement, symbolic work) and corporate responsible behavior. Investigating 254 firms operating in high corruption risk environments and based on data from EIRIS, FTSE, corporate documentation (e.g., communication on inclusion), and the GRI Database, Rieneke Slager shows that engagement, symbolic work, and calculative routines foster corporate responsible behavior (measured as high quality corporate practices regarding countering bribery and corruption). Furthermore, she points to an optimal level of engagement of 7 to 15 months, after which continued dialogue might become ineffective.
Applying a mixed-methods design, Rieneke Slager provides insights into the FTSE4Good Index from multiple perspectives. On one hand, she describes the institutional procedures of the FTSE4Good, while, on the other hand, offering a profound analysis of corporate reactivity to the FTSE4Good Index inclusion. Furthermore, she addresses the FTSE4Good team engagement in her analysis of corporate reactivity, pointing to the relevance of third-party engagement for corporate reactivity. In this vein, she contributes particularly to SIM research by outlining the development, maintenance, and professional tasks of the FTSE4Good Index. Thereby, she shows that the mere installation of a metric is in no way sufficient to actually change corporate behavior. While this finding is certainly not new, Rieneke Slager develops concrete measures that need to be taken to successfully implement the FSTE4Good Index.
Lea Stadtler: A Qualitative Approach to SIM Research
Lea Stadtler’s dissertation is titled “Designing Public-Private Partnerships for Development.” In her dissertation, she investigates the design and implementation of public–private partnerships (PPP) focused on interest alignment.
In the first section of her thesis, Lea Stadtler develops a conceptual framework for sustainable interest alignment, investigating how companies can best align economic and social interest. Thereby, she points to different types of economic interests, such as stability, efficiency, and growth, as well as their varying relations to social goals. Furthermore, she elaborates on the managerial implications of the sustainable alignment of economic interests at the company and partnership levels. In the second part of her thesis, she develops a conceptual framework for the management of public–private partnership-specific design challenges. In particular, Lea Stadtler investigates the predictors of effectiveness (such as trust density, goal consensus, and the need for partnership-level competencies) and the design challenges (e.g., inclusive decision-making vs. efficiency, internal vs. external legitimacy, flexibility vs. stability) along three structural forms. These three forms include the lead organization structure, the shared governance structure, and the administrative organization structure. Case examples nurture the development of specific managerial implications. Furthermore, she shows that there is no best way to structure a private–public partnership. In the third section of her dissertation, Lea Stadtler focuses on the role of boundary management in achieving collaborative advantage in PPPs for development. Based on a multiple case-study approach and using an extreme sampling strategy, she identifies three types of boundaries and elaborates on effective boundary management for each type. The three types include boundaries with the wider environment, boundaries with the beneficiaries, and boundaries with the partner organizations. Each has a specific boundary management target, that is, managing the resource portfolio, managing the identity boundaries, and managing the power boundaries. Furthermore, Lea Stadtler points to the conflicting demands of boundary management and develops strategies for coping with boundary tensions. In the fourth section of her thesis, she investigates how broker organizations can facilitate public–private partnership. Based on data from two brokered partnerships, desk research on 29 broker organizations, interviews with 19 broker organizations, and control interviews with public–private partnership partners at 18 broker organizations, she reveals three different broker organization roles: convener, mediator, and learning catalyst. She then discusses each role’s potential contribution to the problem-setting, direct-setting, the implementation, and the reviewing of the public–private partnership.
In sum, Lea Stadtler provides an in-depth overview of public–private partnerships, offering new and important insights into how PPP’s conflicting goals can be successfully addressed without providing oversimplified answers. Moreover, she investigates how third parties, such as broker organizations, can support PPPs. Given the social importance of PPPs to foster social goal achievement, Lea Stadtler offers valuable insights for SIM research.
Conclusion
Each dissertation provided unique insights into SIM research on one hand, and on the use of different methods relevant to SIM research, on the other hand. While each dissertation was very impressive and revealed the innovativeness and the rigor that the upcoming SIM researcher generation, the committee finally decided to present the award to Lea Stadtler. Her dissertation focused on private–public partnerships, which are very relevant to address societal challenges. She provided an in-depth analysis of the ambiguous targets that public–private partnerships have to achieve. Furthermore, her conceptualization of the design challenges, on one hand, and of the role of brokers, on the other hand, combined with the real case examples, provides clear managerial takeaways. Lea Stadtler thus impressively combines rigor and relevance, demonstrating high levels of rigor, and providing clear-cut managerial implications. Her work is thus highly insightful for SIM researchers, as well as for managers and politicians.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank all contributors to the SIM best dissertation award 2013. I would also like to thank the members of the committee: Virginia Gerde and Adele Santana. Furthermore, I thank all the participants for offering me the chance to learn and for the inspiration provided. It is a great honor for me to have the opportunity to discover what is “hot” in SIM research. Finally, I would particularly like to encourage SIM researchers from emerging countries to submit their dissertation to the 2014 SIM best dissertation award. Please support us to make this award even more global!
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The article was accepted during the editorship of Duane Windsor.