Search results

This study examines innovation configurations (i.e. sets of product/service, social and business model innovations) and configuration linkages (i.e. factors that help to combine innovations) across six organizations as contingent upon organizational structure.

Using semi-structured interviews and available public information, qualitative data were collected and examined using content analysis to characterize innovation configurations and linkages in three local/private organizations and three foreign-led/public-private partnerships in Repiblik Ayiti (Haiti).

Organizations tend to combine product/service, social, and business model innovations simultaneously in locally founded private organizations and sequentially in foreign-based public-private partnerships. Linkages for simultaneous combination include limited external support, determined autonomy and shifting from a “beneficiary mindset,” and financial need identification. Sequential combination linkages include social need identification, community connections and flexibility.

The generalizability of our findings for this qualitative study is subject to additional quantitative studies to empirically test the suggested factors and to examine other health care organizations and countries.

Locally led private organizations in low- and middle-income settings may benefit from considering how their innovations are in service to one another as they may have limited resources. Foreign based public-private partnerships may benefit from pacing their efforts alongside a broader set of stakeholders and ecosystem partners.

This study is the first, to our knowledge, to examine how organizations combine sets of innovations, i.e. innovation configurations, in a healthcare setting and the first of any setting to examine innovation configuration linkages.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical perspective on how the COVID-19 crisis shaped inclusive leadership behaviors of global business leaders.

Using quantitative and qualitative methods, the authors analyzed 240 CEO statements in 120 multinational enterprises from six countries (France, India, Japan, South Korea, UK, USA), pre- and mid-COVID-19.

Results show that CEO emphasis on inclusive leadership increased during the pandemic. More substantively, the authors identify three key behaviors of inclusive leadership – fidelity, calmness and collective resilience.

The authors provide empirical evidence of inclusive leadership behaviors by global business leaders. In doing so, the authors integrate inclusive leadership into societally engaged international business research.

The purpose of this study is to explore advisor–advisee relationships from the perspective of doctoral students with learning disabilities (LD) and/or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). While some research exists on the importance of doctoral advisor/advisee relationships generally, few studies have focused on advisor support for doctoral students with LD and/or ADHD.

In total, 20 doctoral students from various US institutions with an average age of 28 years old participated in this study. In all, 2 participants had a dual diagnosis of LD and ADHD, 3 were diagnosed solely with LD and 15 solely with ADHD; 15 of the participants with ADHD indicated that they take medication. Each graduate student participated in an hour-long semi-structured Zoom interview inquiring about their disability and their relationship with their advisor. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed inductively.

The relationship between the participant and their advisor was the key theory. In total, 6 participants disclosed their disability status to their advisor with positive results, 2 had negative outcomes and 12 did not disclose for various reasons. The overarching theme of the study is that advisors are supportive of doctoral students with LD and/or ADHD whether or not they know about the student’s disability. Support was seen in offering flexible and strict deadlines, advocating on the student’s behalf and/or forming personal relationships with students.

One of the biggest challenges of this study was recruiting participants. Graduate students with LD and ADHD are justifiably afraid of facing discrimination; therefore, it was difficult to identify participants despite having IRB approval and placing a very high value on confidentiality. The sample was consequently limited in size as well as in terms of race and gender diversity and was not representative of students with LD and/or ADHD in higher education. Qualitative research is typically not generalizable and the same was true for this study. This study gives a broader glimpse into the experiences of doctoral students with ADHD than those with LD. Additionally, when one of the researchers began each interview, she revealed that she also has a learning disability. While this may have helped participants feel more comfortable, it also could have influenced their responses.

This study undertakes a more detailed investigation than previous research on the experiences of individuals with LD and/or ADHD in doctoral programs in the US. The findings provide current data on perceptions of advisor–advisee relationships in the students’ own voices.

Given the emphasis on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in US higher education, students with LD and/or ADHD need to be actively engaged in these conversations. With increasing numbers of students with LD and ADHD entering higher education and pursuing graduate degrees, faculty must be prepared to support all their students. By assessing strategies for positive mentor–mentee relationships among doctoral students with LD and/or ADHD, institutions can continue to foster increased diversity, creating doctoral programs and developing future faculty who more accurately represent the world in which we live.

The population studied doctoral students with LD and/or ADHD in the USA adds to the literature. The findings in terms of disclosure as it relates to advisors also adds to the literature. Doctoral students in the USA are dropping out at high rates making this an area that needs exploration.

Today, the transition of retailers from multi-channel and cross-channel to omni-channel has become a necessity. Customers’ perceived shopping value is also one of the most important factors for retailers’ success. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to develop and validate the omni-channel shopping value scale.

Based on 40 interviews (X = 18, Y = 22) and a literature review, items were generated for shopping value dimensions (utilitarian, hedonic and social) at four touchpoints. Then exploratory factor analysis was performed for scale purification (n = 562). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed (n = 528) for initial scale validation. A second CFA was conducted to validate the final scale (n = 302). To check the nomological validity of the scale, the effect of omni-channel shopping value on customer engagement (n = 455) was investigated in both generations.

According to the results of the qualitative study, 73 items were identified. Based on the results of exploratory and CFA, nine components (50 items) were extracted and confirmed: utilitarian, hedonic and social shopping values for offline touchpoint and utilitarian and hedonic shopping values for online, application and social networks touchpoints. The results of nomological validity of the scale confirmed the effect of omni-channel shopping value on customer engagement in both generations.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first attempt to develop and validate an omni-channel shopping value scale based on customers’ shopping experiences with omni-channel brands. Therefore, this study provides a useful tool for researchers and marketing managers to measure omni-channel shopping value.