Relation between market orientation and market environment et al., in Korean firms entering to North American markets

This study was conducted to test the antecedent factors of market orientation and the relationship between market orientation and business performance of overseas subsidiaries. The author also investigates whether competitive strategy might affect the strength or weakness of the market orientation—performance relationship. The results of research show that the magnitude of the firm and market turbulence have significance as antecedent factors of market orientation, and competitive strategy can also moderate the relationship between market orientation and performance. Lastly, the results show that the relationship between market orientation and performance has a positive significance.     

Antitrust concerns in managed care provider negotiations. United States v. A. Lanoy Alston, DMD, P.C., et al

Contract negotiations between managed care organizations and providers are potential legal traps, loaded with antitrust implications. A recent court action involving dentists is instructive on the issues for all providers.     

On the fruitfulness of the concept of partial organization: A rejoinder to Apelt et al.

This short paper responds to Apelt et al.’s (2017) comments on Ahrne et al.'s (2016) proposal of extending the concept of organization to any decided social orders and thereby putting organization studies at the centre of the social sciences. We highlight some misunderstandings about the aims of this proposal and discuss Apelt et al.’s own proposal of re-focusing organization studies on formal organizations based on Niklas Luhmann's systems theory.     

Stability and Inoculation of Risk Comparisons'' Effects Under Conflict: Replicating and Extending the "Asbestos Jury" Study by Slovic et al.

Promotion or criticism of risk comparisons in risk communication has far exceeded empirical tests of their effects. Slovic et al. (1990) experimented with a hypothetical jury trial in which an asbestos-installing firm was accused of subjecting school occupants to unreasonable risk. A risk comparison sharply reduced subjects' estimates of risk and judgments that the firm was guilty, but a critique of the risk comparison had risk estimates and guilt judgments rebounding to the original (without risk comparison) level. Slovic et al. concluded that risk comparisons' effects were highly unstable, at least in conflict-ridden situations such as a jury trial. The present study replicates and extends this important study, using the same stimuli and questions. The respective effects of the risk comparison and the critique recurred, although much less sharply than in Slovic et al. Moreover, judgments of guilt, risk, and other aspects of the case seemed shaped more by demographics and beliefs about risk generically (e.g., about the likelihood of cancer after exposure to a carcinogen) than by either risk comparison or critique. A variant design, in which the defense's expert witness dismissed potential criticisms of the risk comparison, appeared to "inoculate" people against shifting their views after seeing the critique. Overall, these results show that risk comparisons might change some beliefs about risks in conflict and that "inoculation" can reduce vulnerability to criticism. However, the results also show strong limits on effects of both comparisons and their critiques: they shifted only a minority of judgments and had small effects relative to people's social locations and prior risk beliefs.