Branding/Logomark minus Citation Combined Shape Icon/Bookmark-empty Icon/Copy Icon/Collection Icon/Close Copy 7 no author result Created with Sketch. Icon/Back Created with Sketch. Match!
James G. Combs
Florida State University
49Publications
28H-index
4,909Citations
Publications 49
Newest
Published on Jul 18, 2019in Family Business Review 6.19
James G. Combs28
Estimated H-index: 28
,
Kristen K. Shanine2
Estimated H-index: 2
+ 2 AuthorsTroy W. Pounds
Researchers recently pointed to family science as one avenue for better understanding business families. We submit, however, that leveraging family science will require building on what researchers...
Published on Mar 1, 2018in Human Resource Management Review 3.63
James G. Combs28
Estimated H-index: 28
(College of Business Administration),
Peter Jaskiewicz15
Estimated H-index: 15
(U of O: University of Ottawa)
+ 1 AuthorsDavid B. Balkin32
Estimated H-index: 32
(CU: University of Colorado Boulder)
Abstract Family business researchers have felt increasing distress with the lack of understanding about how families – i.e., their structure, relationships, emotions, and goals – shape how families manage family firms, leading to calls to more fully incorporate “family science” theories about the nature of family into research about family firms. It seems likely that families' first impact in family firms will be on how employees are treated and managed. Thus, this special issue brings together ...
Published on Mar 1, 2018in Human Resource Management Review 3.63
Gary N. Powell44
Estimated H-index: 44
(UConn: University of Connecticut),
Jeffrey H. Greenhaus49
Estimated H-index: 49
(Drexel University)
+ 3 AuthorsKristen K. Shanine2
Estimated H-index: 2
(MT: Middle Tennessee State University)
Published on Dec 1, 2017in Strategic Management Journal 5.57
Michelle L. Zorn3
Estimated H-index: 3
(AU: Auburn University),
Christine Shropshire7
Estimated H-index: 7
(ASU: Arizona State University)
+ 2 AuthorsDavid J. Ketchen54
Estimated H-index: 54
(AU: Auburn University)
Research summary: Corporate scandals of the previous decade have heightened attention on board independence. Indeed, boards at many large firms are now so independent that the CEO is “home alone” as the lone inside member. We build upon “pro-insider” research within agency theory to explain how the growing trend toward lone-insider boards affects key outcomes and how external governance forces constrain their impact. We find evidence among S&P 1500 firms that having a lone-insider board is assoc...
Published on Nov 30, 2017in Academy of Management Journal 7.19
R. Duane Ireland60
Estimated H-index: 60
,
Peter A. Bamberger33
Estimated H-index: 33
+ 9 AuthorsWenpin Tsai
Published on May 1, 2017in Journal of Management 9.06
Peter Jaskiewicz15
Estimated H-index: 15
(Concordia University),
Joern H. Block29
Estimated H-index: 29
(University of Trier)
+ 1 AuthorsJames G. Combs11
Estimated H-index: 11
(UA: University of Alabama)
Emerging evidence suggests that pay dispersion among non-CEO top management team (TMT) members harms firm performance, which raises questions about why firms’ owners tolerate or even support it. Prior research shows that the key distinction between founder and family owners is that in addition to firm performance and growth goals, family owners pursue socioemotional goals. On the basis of this distinction, we develop and test theory linking founders’ and families’ ownership to TMT pay dispersion...
Published on Apr 27, 2017
David J. Ketchen17
Estimated H-index: 17
(AU: Auburn University),
T. Russell Crook20
Estimated H-index: 20
(College of Business Administration)
+ 2 AuthorsDavid J. Woehr27
Estimated H-index: 27
(UNCC: University of North Carolina at Charlotte)
Published on Jan 1, 2017in Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 6.19
Peter Jaskiewicz15
Estimated H-index: 15
(CUW: Concordia University Wisconsin),
Joern H. Block29
Estimated H-index: 29
(TUM: Technische Universität München)
+ 1 AuthorsDanny Miller95
Estimated H-index: 95
(HEC Montréal)
Although large owners monitor managers effectively, they differ in important ways. Whereas founder owners focus on firm performance, family owners also pursue socioemotional goals. We leverage this distinction to theorize that family owners offer hired CEOs more incentive pay—to attract nonfamily CEOs, signal good governance, and achieve better firm performance. Without socioemotional wealth distractions, founder owners do not need high incentives and overusing them is counterproductive. Bayesia...
Vera L. Hoover4
Estimated H-index: 4
,
David J. Ketchen54
Estimated H-index: 54
,
James G. Combs28
Estimated H-index: 28
12345678