The mediating effect of innovation on the relationship between corporate reputation and performance in U.S. firms

In recent years, corporate reputation has gained the attention of many scholars in the strategic management and related fields. There is a general consensus that higher corporate reputation is positively related to firm success or performance. However, the link is not always straightforward; as a result, it calls for researchers to dedicate their efforts to investigate the causes and effects of firm reputation and how it is related to performance. In this doctoral dissertation, innovation is suggested as a mediating variable in this relationship. Innovation is a critical factor for firm success and survival. Highly reputed firms are in a more advantageous position to attract critical resources for innovation such as human and financial capital. These firms face constant pressure from external stakeholders, e.g. the general public, or customers, to achieve and remain at high levels of innovativeness. As a result, firms are in constant search, internally or externally, for new technologies expanding their knowledge base. Consequently, these firms engage in firms acquisitions. In the dissertation, the author assesses the effects of domestic versus international acquisitions as well as related versus unrelated acquisitions on the level of innovativeness and performance. Building upon an established measure of firm-level degree of internationalization (DOI), the dissertation proposes a more detailed and enhanced measure for the firm's DOI. It is modeled as an interaction effect between corporate reputation and resources for innovation. More specifically, firms with higher levels of internationalization will have access to resources for innovation, i.e. human and financial capital, at a global scale. Additionally, the distance between firms and higher education institutions, i.e. universities, is considered as another interaction effect for the human capital attraction. The dissertation is built on two theoretical frameworks, the resource-based view of the firm and institutional theory. It studies 211 U.S. firms using a longitudinal panel data structure from 2006 to 2012. It utilizes a linear dynamic panel data estimation methodology for its hypotheses analyses. Results confirm the hypotheses proposed in the study.

Evaluating and improving the opposing expert safeguard against junk science

In Daubert, the Supreme Court opined that opposing expert testimony is an effective safeguard against junk science in the courtroom. Although jurors maybe unable to identify flaws in scientific research without some assistance, social psychological research suggests that people can be trained to make more sophisticated judgments about scientific quality. Further, previous research demonstrated that an opposing expert who addresses the methodology of proffered expert testimony may not enable jurors to evaluate scientific validity. In three studies, I tested why this safeguard was ineffective using a variety of stimulus materials. In the first study, I examined the mediating effect of attitudes on juror decisions within the context of a sexual harassment trial. In the second study, I examined the moderating effect of the presentation of expert credentials on participant decisions regarding child suggestibility literature. In the third study, I tested several improvements to the safeguard using improvements designed to correct for the effects of attitudes and credential presentation on juror decisions within the context of a first-degree murder trial. I found that while opposing expert testimony may have potential as a safeguard, in its current form it is ineffective. That is, a traditional opposing expert caused jurors to be skeptical of all expert testimony rather than sensitizing them to the validity of the research presented at trial. Further, while the improvements tested in this study may have potential to assist jurors in making scientifically sound decisions, more research is needed to further test and refine these improvements. ^

Personality and performance: Assessing the mediating role of mental model formation in the personality-performance relationship

Personality has long been linked to performance. Evolutions in this relationship have brought forward new questions regarding the true nature of how personality impacts performance. Both direct and indirect relationships have been proven significant. This study further investigated potential indirect relationships by including a mediating variable, mental model formation, in the personality-performance relationship. Undergraduate students were assessed in a 6-week period, Time 1 - Time 2 experiment. Conceptualizations of personality included measures of the Big 5 model and Self-efficacy, with performance measured by content quiz and overall course scores. Findings showed that the Big 5 personality traits, extraversion and agreeableness, positively and significantly impacted commonality with the instructor's mental model. However, commonality with the instructor's mental model did not impact performance. In comparison, commonality with an expert mental model positively and significantly impacted performance for both the content quiz and overall course score. Furthermore, similarity with an expert mental model positively and significantly impacted overall course performance. Hypothesized full mediation of mental model formation for the personality-performance relationship was not supported due to a lack of direct effect relationships required for mediation. However, a revised conceptualization of results emerged. Findings from the current study point to the novel and unique role mental models play in the personality-performance relationship. While personality traits do impact mental model formation, accuracy in the mental models formed is critical to performance.

Workplace Discrimination Climate and Team Effectiveness: The Mediating Role of Collective Value Congruence, Team Cohesion, and Collective Affective Commitment

This study explored the relationship between workplace discrimination climate on team effectiveness through three serial mediators: collective value congruence, team cohesion, and collective affective commitment. As more individuals of marginalized groups diversify the workforce and as more organizations move toward team-based work (Cannon-Bowers & Bowers, 2010), it is imperative to understand how employees perceive their organization’s discriminatory climate as well as its effect on teams. An archival dataset consisting of 6,824 respondents was used, resulting in 332 work teams with five or more members in each. The data were collected as part of an employee climate survey administered in 2011 throughout the United States’ Department of Defense. The results revealed that the indirect effect through M1 (collective value congruence) and M2 (team cohesion) best accounted for the relationship between workplace discrimination climate (X) and team effectiveness (Y). Meaning, on average, teams that reported a greater climate for workplace discrimination also reported less collective value congruence with their organization (a1 = -1.07, p < .001). With less shared perceptions of value congruence, there is less team cohesion (d21 = .45, p < .001), and with less team cohesion there is less team effectiveness (b2 = .57, p < .001). In addition, because of theoretical overlap, this study makes the case for studying workplace discrimination under the broader construct of workplace aggression within the I/O psychology literature. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis found that workplace discrimination based on five types of marginalized groups: race/ethnicity, gender, religion, age, and disability was best explained by a three-factor model, including: career obstruction based on age and disability bias (CO), verbal aggression based on multiple types of bias (VA), and differential treatment based on racial/ethnic bias (DT). There was initial support to claim that workplace discrimination items covary not only based on type, but also based on form (i.e., nonviolent aggressive behaviors). Therefore, the form of workplace discrimination is just as important as the type when studying climate perceptions and team-level effects. Theoretical and organizational implications are also discussed.

Personality and Performance: Assessing the Mediating Role of Mental Model Formation in the Personality-Performance Relationship

Personality has long been linked to performance. Evolutions in this relationship have brought forward new questions regarding the true nature of how personality impacts performance. Both direct and indirect relationships have been proven significant. This study further investigated potential indirect relationships by including a mediating variable, mental model formation, in the personality-performance relationship. Undergraduate students were assessed in a 6-week period, Time 1 - Time 2 experiment. Conceptualizations of personality included measures of the Big 5 model and Self-efficacy, with performance measured by content quiz and overall course scores. Findings showed that the Big 5 personality traits, extraversion and agreeableness, positively and significantly impacted commonality with the instructor’s mental model. However, commonality with the instructor’s mental model did not impact performance. In comparison, commonality with an expert mental model positively and significantly impacted performance for both the content quiz and overall course score. Furthermore, similarity with an expert mental model positively and significantly impacted overall course performance. Hypothesized full mediation of mental model formation for the personality-performance relationship was not supported due to a lack of direct effect relationships required for mediation. However, a revised conceptualization of results emerged. Findings from the current study point to the novel and unique role mental models play in the personality-performance relationship. While personality traits do impact mental model formation, accuracy in the mental models formed is critical to performance.