David C. Baldridge, John F. Veiga, Toward a Greater Understanding of the Willingness to Request an Accommodation: Can Requesters' Beliefs Disable the Americans with Disabilities Act?, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 85-99

In multinational organizations, local market responsiveness is critical to the development of effective strategies. This responsiveness is expected to occur in part as the result of upward influence from local subsidiary managers, who represent the local culture and shift relevant priorities accordingly. Issue-selling – defined as directing top management's attention to particular issues and helping them understand such issues – is one important way in which subsidiary managers pursue upward influence. The purpose of this paper is to help multinational organizations better facilitate and exploit potentially valuable input from local subsidiary managers. To do so, we propose an acculturated view of issue-selling. More specifically, we argue that subsidiary managers socialized by different national cultures vary: (1) in the extent to which their intention to sell issues is influenced by various contextual cues; and (2) in their choice of selling strategies. These theoretical differences suggest that local subsidiary managers from different cultures will differ in the way they approach issue-selling and, in turn, in the way they influence the strategy-making process. The discussion traces the implications of this line of reasoning for future research on the influence of local subsidiary managers and, more generally, for research on the cultural embeddedness of the strategy process.

Abstract In this paper, we propose a positive relationship between the academic quality and practical relevance of management research. The basis for this is the idea that academicians and practitioners both value research that is interesting and justified—meaning research that challenges and extends existing beliefs and research that offers compelling evidence for its conclusions. We acknowledge that there are likely to be many cases where academicians and practitioners disagree on what is interesting and justified. We argue, however, that there are also likely to be cases where the judgments of the two groups converge. Results from a stratified, random sample of 120 publications are consistent with this argument—showing a positive correlation between an objective measure of an article's academic quality and expert panel ratings of its practical relevance. The analysis also shows positive associations between panel members' global assessment of relevance and ratings of an article's interestingness and justification. These results lend support to the hypothesized overlap, but leave room for considerable difference in the way practitioners and academicians evaluate management research. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Human resource practitioners play a crucial role in promoting equitable treatment of persons with disabilities, and practitioner's decisions should be guided by solid evidence‐based research. We offer a systematic review of the empirical research on the treatment of persons with disabilities in organizations, using Stone and Colella's seminal theoretical model of the factors influencing the treatment of persons with disabilities in work organizations, to ask: What does the available research reveal about workplace treatment of persons with disabilities, and what remains understudied? Our review of 88 empirical studies from management, rehabilitation, psychology, and sociology research highlights seven gaps and limitations in extant research: (a) implicit definitions of workplace treatment; (b) neglect of national context variation; (c) missing differentiation between disability populations; (d) overreliance on available data sets; (e) predominance of single‐source, cross‐sectional data; (f) neglect of individual differences and identities in the presence of disability; and (g) lack of specificity on underlying stigma processes. To support the development of more inclusive workplaces, we recommend increased research collaborations between human resource researchers and practitioners on the study of specific disabilities and contexts, and efforts to define and expand notions of treatment to capture more nuanced outcomes.