Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: (to be uploaded)

Publication Type: Proceeding
Abstract: When the U.S. engages in large-scale military operations and faces loss or defeat, it is often loathed to negotiate or make concessions, due to fears about reputational costs, as well as a number of cultural and psychological factors including overconfidence, moralism, and the “lessons” of the 1930s. A multilateral setting for the use of force can help to correct the U.S. bias against compromise through a number of pathways. First, allies can directly pressure Washington to moderate its policy. Second, dovish elements in the U.S. administration can utilize the multilateral setting to outmaneuver hardliners. Third, allies and organizations can provide political cover for U.S. compromise by sharing responsibility for concessions. Multilateral uses of force produce inefficiencies and constraints, but these costs represent a premium that is paid when operations are successful, so that the U.S. has an insurance policy that minimizes loss in times of failure.

When the U.S. fought in Korea, Truman had - unknowingly - taken out an insurance policy by fighting multilaterally. The presence of allies and organizations promoted a policy of American restraint that ultimately served U.S. interests. In contrast, the essentially unilateral nature of the war in Vietnam was a major reason why the U.S. was unable to negotiate or withdraw, and instead engaged in disastrous escalation. In Iraq today, President Bush’s decision to fight with a “coalition of the willing” dominated by the U.S., rather than with a broad alliance under U.N. authorization, means that Washington is fighting a war without insurance. As a result, if the U.S. should fail, it will find it more difficult to withdraw.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: A majority of Americans view news organizations as politically biased, creating a strong incentive for firms to try to present themselves as impartial. This paper argues that the desire to appear unbiased leads to information loss. In the formal model, firms withhold information in an effort to appear neutral. It is shown that information loss is exacerbated by competition, policies that regulate content are welfare reducing, and that regulating the size of the market can increase the amount of information revealed. Finally, the introduction of imperfectly informed sources of news, such as blogs, can decrease the incentives for traditional news outlets to provide information, yet they may also enhance welfare when information is being suppressed.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper applies concepts from the emerging organizational deviance literature to rampage school shootings in American public schools. Based on qualitative case studies of two school shootings, we argue that the information loss associated with structural secrecy helps to explain why school staff often do not recognize that school shooters are emotionally or behaviorally troubled prior to their acts of violence, despite ample information suggesting otherwise. Two processes occurring within schools, institutional memory loss and task segregation, lead to structural secrecy and the fragmentation of information both across individuals within schools and across schools within school systems. These processes reflect the institutional and cultural environment of public schools, which stresses both student privacy and the second chance or “clean slate” approach to information use. These virtuous reasons for structural secrecy provide another illustration of the way in which the bright side of organizations can also lead to the dark side.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Downsizing is probably one of the more difficult decisions facing organizations at times of recession, crisis or other problems. Yet, downsizing is not an isolated issue. It cannot and should not be made hastily. The decision to layoff people should be an integral part of the organization’s business strategy. It should be a result of continuous control and monitoring of the organization as well as the market it is in. The management is supposed to make an effort to reduce costs and compete while being aware of changes that occur in its environment. At times, events and changes surprise the organization and coerce it to downsize its human resources.

This paper suggests that the process should however be proactive. As the process of
downsizing may cause shock and upheavals, various available alternatives should be considered before making the final decision.
This paper is based on a variety of approaches. An integrative eclectic model has been established and tried in a Hi-Tech organization. The organization fired 60 per cent of its workers. The model has been examined and implemented successfully. Lessons have been learned from the process and were incorporated in the final model.