Suchergebnisse

PurposeThe paper aims to argue that the social responsibility of international business (IB) scholars is to seek truth, disseminate learning, and make a difference on issues crucial to the global economy.Design/methodology/approachInstead of making philosophical and abstract arguments on the importance of the social responsibility of IB scholars, this article focuses on a leading debate of the times: how to view the rise of China's outward foreign direct investment (OFDI)? The article argues that the so‐called "China threat" brought by such OFDI, as it is often portrayed by the (Western) media, is a myth that cannot be substantiated by evidence‐based scholarly analysis.FindingsAt present, China's OFDI stock represents a mere 1.21 percent of global OFDI stock. It would be absurd to believe that such a tiny sum can "buy up the world". Based on findings, three hypotheses on what is behind the myth about China's OFDI are offered.Practical implicationsAlthough some IB (and management) scholarships have been criticized for their alleged lack of relevance to practitioners and policymakers, this paper disagrees. IB scholars need to engage with issues of grave importance not only to the IB field but also to the wider world, such as China's OFDI.Social implicationsThe article ends with a series of suggestions on how IB scholars, driven by social responsibility, can shed light on, clear the air, and steer the course of public perception, by drawing on time‐honored, evidence‐based scholarly tradition.Originality/valueTo the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first article in the literature on IB scholars' social responsibility.

We review 11 years (2001-2011) of management research using count-based dependent variables in 10 leading management journals. We find that approximately one out of four papers use the most basic Poisson regression model in their studies. However, due to potential concerns of overdispersion, alternative regression models may have been more appropriate. Furthermore, in many of these papers the overdispersion may have been caused by excess zeros in the data, suggesting that an alternative zero-inflated model may have been a better fit for the data. To illustrate the potential differences among the model specifications, we provide a comparison of the different models using previously published data. Additionally, we simulate data using different parameters. Finally, we offer a simplified decision tree guideline to improve future count-based research.

Our paper studies how gender and organizational status affect a university president's compensation. Similar to previous findings, we hypothesize that women will receive less pay than men. However, we go beyond a dyadic view of individual differences to examine gender's impact on compensation, and we explicate the importance of institutional forces in understanding the gender pay gap. In doing so, we rely on organizational status and hypothesize that the gender pay gap will be less pronounced as a university's status rises. Although we find that the gender pay gap persists within the university president context, we also find that as a university's status rises, the pay gap declines. Moreover, our findings show that the gender pay gap disappears at higher-status universities. Hence, accounting for where the glass ceiling is broken is an important consideration in understanding the gender pay gap. In sum, by integrating a broader institutional perspective to explain gender differences in pay levels, our paper demonstrates the importance of contextualizing gender to better understand its effects on compensation. The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1266 .