J. Ben Arbaugh, Alvin Hwang, Jeffrey J. McNally, Charles J. Fornaciari and Lisa A. Burke-Smalley
This paper aims to compare the nature of three different business and management education (BME) research streams (online/blended learning, entrepreneurship education and…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to compare the nature of three different business and management education (BME) research streams (online/blended learning, entrepreneurship education and experiential learning), along with their citation sources to draw insights on their support and legitimacy bases, with lessons on improving such support and legitimacy for the streams and the wider BME research field.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors analyze the nature of three BME research streams and their citation sources through tests of differences across streams.
Findings
The three streams differ in research foci and approaches such as the use of managerial samples in experiential learning, quantitative studies in online/blended education and literature reviews in entrepreneurship education. They also differ in sources of legitimacy recognition and avenues for mobilization of support. The underlying literature development pattern of the experiential learning stream indicates a need for BME scholars to identify and build on each other’s work.
Research limitations/implications
Identification of different research bases and key supporting literature in the different streams shows important core articles that are useful to build research in each stream.
Practical implications
Readers will understand the different research bases supporting the three research streams, along with their targeted audience and practice implications.
Social implications
The discovery of different support bases for the three different streams helps identify the network of authors and relationships that have been built in each stream.
Originality/value
According to the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to uncover differences in nature and citation sources of the three continuously growing BME research streams with recommendations on ways to improve the support of the three streams.
Details
Keywords
Lisa Heldt and Ekaterina Pikuleva
This paper aims to investigate the emergence of blockchain-enabled traceability in complex multi-tiered supply chains, focusing on the perspective of upstream suppliers…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to investigate the emergence of blockchain-enabled traceability in complex multi-tiered supply chains, focusing on the perspective of upstream suppliers. Blockchain technology receives attention for its potential to enable better traceability and thus sustainability risk management, yet there is limited empirical evidence on how actual implementation unfolds. We aim to understand how blockchain adoption unfolds in practice, particularly in critical mineral supply chains that are critical to the sustainability transition yet linked to severe environmental and human rights risks and to explore the role of traditionally non-focal firms in this process.
Design/methodology/approach
Adopting a process-based case study design, our research is grounded in data collected through participant observation (>12 months) within an upstream mining company, supplemented by interviews and document review. Our study employs the complex adaptive systems (CAS) lens and uses an abductive approach for data analysis.
Findings
In our case, blockchain-based traceability in the cobalt supply chain was co-constructed over time, fundamentally driven by a large upstream supplier but enabled through supply-chain-spanning collaboration with like-minded downstream actors and successive expansion into the opaque midstream, enabled through a stakeholder alliance forum and formalized in the blockchain. We find, however, that visibility, standards, trust and follow-up capacities need to exist in their own right, ideally prior to blockchain implementation.
Originality/value
Our paper provides empirical insights from an upstream (vs downstream) perspective and investigates blockchain’s implementation (vs potential) to complement and ground existing research. Further, we extend the CAS framework by emphasizing agency and visible horizon of traditionally non-focal firms.
Details
Keywords
S. J. Oswald A. J. Mascarenhas
Building trust and living interpersonal trust are crucial corporate executive virtues that are needed today. Once you have developed and solidified a high level of genuine…
Abstract
Executive Summary
Building trust and living interpersonal trust are crucial corporate executive virtues that are needed today. Once you have developed and solidified a high level of genuine interpersonal trust with all your stakeholders, especially customers, suppliers, and employees, then you are on the right path of managing and transforming your company. A high level of interpersonal trust between all stakeholders and corporates in a business situation will break down communication barriers, foster serious conversation and sharing of ideas, and will eliminate corporate transactional anxieties of fear, mistrust, guilt, rigidity, blame, and resentment. When stakeholders trust you and you trust them, then you speak freely, they speak freely, and your mutual sustained transparency is a gateway to survival, revival, and sustained corporate recovery and transformation, and steady growth and prosperity. Conversely, when there is low trust, high mistrust, and high distrust among stakeholders in a business situation, communications and conversations are stressed and fragmented, teamwork and team spirit are very low, and the company is heading toward its ruin and extermination. Such is the crucial role of interpersonal trust in business. This chapter explores the crucial phenomenon of corporate interpersonal trust. We review various cases, models, concepts, definitions, and theories of trust from the management literature in general, and from the marketing field in particular, to derive psychological, behavioral, ethical, and moral principles of corporate trust, trusting relations, and trusting strategies.