James J. Gillespie

A Mixed-Motive Perspective on the Economics Versus Environment Debate

The debate over the relationship between economic development and environmental protection has polarized into the opposing perspectives of win-lose (distributive bargaining) or win-win (integrative bargaining) outcomes, reminiscent of the debate that occurred within the negotiations field 15 years ago. The authors argue that such polarization is unnecessary and inaccurate. Conflict between economics and the environment is neither purely win-win nor win-lose, but rather, it is a mixed-motive situation. In presenting this argument, the authors draw from the negotiations and managerial decision-making literature. Further-more, they consider some strategies for exposing mixed-motive solutions to environmental problems in the future.

Corporate Social Capital and the Cost of Financial Capital: An Embeddedness Approach

Using a structural embeddedness approach, we present argument and evidence on the ways social capital affects the operation of financial capital markets in the context of the small business loan market. We posit that the quality of a relationship between a bank and a corporate borrower, as well as the network structure of ties between the borrower and its bank(s) influences the cost of capital firms pay on their loans. Specifically we examine two dimensions of structural embeddedness at the dyad level and two at the network level. At the dyad level of analysis, we find that the duration of the relationship and relationship multiplexity are associated with a lower cost of capital (i.e., paying lower interest rates). At the network level, we find that firms that have ego-networks composed of a mix of embedded and arm’s-length ties obtain a lower cost of capital then firms with either a ego network composed of arm’s-length ties or an ego-network composed of only embedded ties. We find no effect for simple ego-network size on the cost of capital. The implications of our embeddedness perspective on corporate social capital are discussed.

A Content Analysis of the Drug Legalization Debate

We analyzed two convenience samples of opinion essays from U.S. newspapers to examine differences in the content and complexity of argumentation in the drug legalization debate. The first sample was of fifty-one New York Times essays over a twenty-year span of the 1970s and 1980s. The second sample was of 133 essays from twenty-seven newspapers across the country in 1989 and 1990. Content analyses suggest that the debate has shifted over time from decriminalization of marijuana, based on the civil rights of users, to legalization of cocaine and heroin, based on the perceived need to disrupt the connection between drugs and crime. Proponents of legalization provided significantly more complex arguments than proponents of continued prohibition.

Emolabeling Effectively Reduces the Influence of Ambiguous Labeling on Food Packages Among Grocery Store Shoppers

Despite increased regulations and policy enforcement for nutrition labeling, ambiguous labels on food items can still have deleterious effects on consumer perceptions of health. The present study used a counterbalanced within-subjects design to test if emolabeling—the use of emoticons to convey health information (happy = healthy; sad = not healthy)—will reduce the effects of ambiguous labels on consumer perceptions of the healthfulness of a food item. 85 grocery store shoppers were shown nutrition labels for a low calorie (LC) and a high calorie (HC) food with/without emolabels, and with an ambiguous label that either implied the food was healthy or unhealthy. Results showed that emolabels reduced the effectiveness of ambiguous labels: consumers rated the LC food as healthier and the HC food as less healthy when emolabels were added. The results suggest that, if implemented, this image-based emolabeling system could possibly be an effective buffer against the use of ambiguous labeling by food manufacturers.

“How” Narratology Narrows the Organizational Theory–Practice Gap

In this conceptual piece, we take a narrative approach to explicating the gap between organizational theory and practice. The narrative pentad (what, why, how, who, and when/where) represents six narrative questions metaphorically mapped to the five fingers of the hand. The narrative pentad has successfully served both narrative scholars and practitioners, and we believe that the narrative pentad holds similar promise as a theoretical framework for HRD scholars and practitioners. At the finger tips, spaces between fingers represent gaps between questions. In the organizational domain, the theory–practice gap is attributable primarily to a scholarly focus on the universal and abstract what and why questions (story in narrative terms) and a practitioner focus on the particular or embodied how question (discourse in narrative terms). Framed as similarities, we propose that all HRD questions are interrelated at the palm of the hand. In narrative terms, effective organizational theory must include both story and discourse, thereby addressing all questions. This article emphasizes the how question—important to practitioners—but often marginalized by postpositive organizational scholars. We propose the how question represents aesthetic knowledge, and this form of knowledge should be central to organizational theory. We explore related ontological and epistemological considerations. Three recognized causes of the theory–practice gap are examined in light of a narrative approach to organizational theory: (a) the knowledge divide (divergence of emphasis on forms of knowledge between scholars and practitioners); (b) the knowledge transfer problem (lack of information sharing between scholars and practitioners); (c) and the knowledge production problem (associated with an absence of collaboration between scholars and practitioners).

Bringing patient incentives into the bundled payments model: Making reimbursement more patient-centric financially

ABSTRACT In this era of patient centricity, this article makes the simple and straightforward case for including patients in bundled payment (BP) financial incentives. We begin by briefly reviewing the key frameworks and models for provider reimbursement, including activity-based costing, cost plus pricing, diagnosis-related group classification, Medicare Cost Plus, and resource-based relative value scale. Given these previous approaches, we argue that, in many ways, the BP model is an exemplar of reimbursement innovation. We then explore key elements of incorporating payoffs for patients, including care redesign, continuum of care, core competencies, cost cutting, applying metrics, and creating a collaborative BP network. The article concludes by discussing future challenges and opportunities for embedding patient financial incentives within the BP model. The high level of political and regulatory uncertainty at the state and federal levels makes this a ripe time for experimenting with financially compensating patients for their role in helping providers accomplished the key metrics required for BP compensation. Bringing patients into the fold financially holds the potential to solidify episode-based payments as a fundamental element of the alternative payment models promoted by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and private payers.

Barriers to Resolution in Ideologically Based Negotiations: The Role of Values and Institutions

While traditional behavioral decision theory as applied to negotiation sheds light on some of the barriers encountered in negotiations, it does not fully account for many of the difficulties and failures to reach settlement in ideologically-based disputes. In this paper, we identify a number of factors that differentiate ideologically-based negotiations from other types of negotiation, and advance a perspective that takes into account the value-laden and institutional contexts in which they occur. We illustrate our ideas by applying them to the organizationally relevant example of environmental disputes.