Suchergebnisse

Over the past 30 years, several management educators have urged faculty to reexamine their relationships with students. To do this, many have proposed novel metaphors to reconceptualize the faculty-to-student relationship. These include embracing students not as pupils to be taught but rather as clients, consumers, and even employees. At the heart of these metaphors, though, is a subtle and not-so-subtle pressure to build more intimate, personal, and close relationships with students. As more and more stories surface in the scholarly and practitioner press about "close relationships" that have devolved into sad and disappointing outcomes for students, faculty, and universities, it is necessary to revisit the core assumption that closer is better. In this essay, we describe the forces driving more personal relationships between faculty and students. Next, we question the assumptions along with the unintended consequences of adopting more intimate relationships with students. Finally, we conclude by challenging management educators to rethink the notion of professional calling along with the notion of pedagogical caring. To be sure, we offer some prescriptions and principles to help management educators navigate the student–faculty relationship—a relationship, we believe, more in flux now than in any other time in the history of higher education.

PurposeTo provide insight, explanation, and empirical evidence into how and why CEOs get paid the amounts that they do.Design/methodology/approachThis paper blends several methodologies. Using qualitative interviews with several high level managers, it develops a coding listing to capture how pharmaceutical firms compete within their industry. The paper then uses a structured content analysis approach to capture the specific and observable competitive moves that pharmaceutical firms launch.FindingsBase pay and bonus of the CEO are greater for firms that launch higher volumes of competitive actions. Furthermore, the variety of competitive moves appears to influence a CEO's base salary.Research limitations/implicationsThis study has limited external validity since the firms in this sample are all large US pharmaceutical firms. The research implication is that, to date, firm size and past performance were identified as the single greatest predictors of CEO pay. Findings from this study suggest that how a firm behaves in a competitive context is as important as static characteristics of the firm (e.g. size) in predicting CEO pay levels.Practical implicationsFindings of this study begin to inform how directors may arrive at compensation decisions for CEOs. Since governance and CEO pay is becoming a more salient topic, this study suggests that directors can be trained or counseled on how to make more appropriate and refined decisions regarding CEO pay.Originality/valueThis paper employs a unique methodology to arrive at a question that is important, but under‐researched. Namely, we inform audiences who are concerned with how and why CEO's get paid what they do. Because CEO paychecks are a significant organizational expense, more research into how and why CEOs get paid a certain level is important theoretically and practically.

The authors investigate how pay differences between the CEO and the rest of the members of the top management team influence a firm's competitive behavior as reflected in the observable and purposeful competitive moves launched by the firm. Using data from the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, the authors found a positive relationship between the CEO pay gap and the volume and complexity dimensions of firm competitive behavior. The authors discuss both theoretical and managerial implications of these findings as they relate to important topics such as competitive strategy, corporate governance, and executive compensation.

After a spate of business ethics crises over the past two decades, management educators were put on notice: considerably more was needed to improve the ethical grounding of our graduating students. Taking stock of our progress, we contend that management education remains well short of achieving this charge and cannot be content with the state of its ethics development. In this essay, grounded on a 2-year research platform, we turn to a unique institute of higher education to comment on the pedagogical assumptions and practices they enact to enhance the ethical behavior of their students. Specifically, this essay will comment on some of the more novel and paradoxical principles and approaches employed by the U.S. Military Academy at West Point to support the positive ethical behaviors of its students. We offer meaningful prescriptions touching on core planks of behavioral ethics: moral awareness, moral decision making, and moral motivation. Given the questionable efficacy of some previous approaches at improving ethical behavior, turning our attention to this unique institution may offer some compelling insights that may be employed in management education.

Ethical codes and the systems in which they are situated are complex and intricate, making them difficult for both academicians and practitioners to research and understand. Through a qualitative research lens we examine the honor and ethics system at the United States Military Academy at West Point. Our findings suggest that the complexity of ethical systems can be better understood by examining the competing tensions that simultaneously work for and against ethical systems. We find that organizational members at West Point engage in counterintuitive thinking along with reframing and repositioning to negotiate some of these tensions. This approach provides feedback loops that steer the organization away from future ethical failures and long-term ethical declines. Our findings build on and extend several organizational and ethical theories to include environmental scanning, moral awareness, peer justice, the stages of moral development, and hyper-resiliency. We discuss implications for both theory and practice.