Purpose This study aims to investigate the influence of board independence on agency costs in Jordan, an emerging economy, and examine whether managerial ownership moderates this relationship. Design/methodology/approach This study uses three agency cost measures, the expense ratio, asset utilization ratio and Q*free cash flow, and examines their relationship with board independence and managerial ownership using OLS regression, with two-stage least squares estimation to address potential endogeneity. Findings Contrary to expectations, board independence in Jordan is associated with significantly higher, not reduced, agency costs on some measures, suggesting it may be counterproductive, not merely ineffective. The interaction with managerial ownership is negative and significant on some measures, indicating it complements board independence in constraining agency costs. Research limitations/implications The findings suggest that agency theory’s predictions are conditional on institutional context, calling for theoretical models that integrate institutional, cultural and ownership factors shaping board effectiveness in emerging economies. Future research should examine whether compliance-driven rather than genuine monitoring independence explains the counterproductive effect observed here, using measures of substantive independence and longitudinal data. Practical implications The incongruence between board independence and agency cost control challenges the assumption that Western governance models transfer seamlessly to emerging markets, pointing to a need for stronger regulatory enforcement and minority investor protections in Jordan. Originality/value Although board independence is well-documented in developed markets, evidence from emerging economies remains limited. This study shows that independent directors in Jordan are counterproductively associated with higher agency costs, going beyond prior null or mixed MENA results. It also demonstrates that managerial ownership complements board independence in reducing these costs, and offers an institutional explanation, grounded in Jordan’s mandatory shareholder−director requirement, for why imported governance codes can raise rather than lower agency costs in relationship-based economies.
Purpose This paper aims to examine how Industry 5.0 can provide a new normative framework for rethinking the purpose, pedagogy and public role of business schools. It argues that Industry 5.0 should not be understood only as a technological or industrial shift, but as an educational opportunity to reconsider what business schools are for, what kinds of graduates they should develop and how they might contribute to more humane, inclusive and sustainable forms of organizing. Design/methodology/approach This paper develops a conceptual argument by bringing together critiques of management education with the emerging Industry 5.0 literature on human-centricity, sustainability and resilience. Findings This paper argues that some dominant features of management education remain shaped by logics of efficiency, standardization, technical competence and market responsiveness that are more compatible with Industry 4.0 than Industry 5.0. Industry 5.0 offers a different basis for legitimacy, centered on human-centricity, sustainability and resilience. On this basis, the paper conceptualizes business schools as socio-technical systems within a human–technological–educational nexus and identifies co-creation as the pedagogy most aligned with this orientation. Practical implications The argument invites business schools to redesign curricula, governance, stakeholder engagement and assessment around collaborative problem-solving, ethical reflection, technological responsibility and societal impact. Originality/value This paper contributes by moving Industry 5.0 from an industrial and technological paradigm into management education theory. It shows how Industry 5.0 can reframe business schools not as knowledge factories but as laboratories of co-creation capable of shaping more just, resilient and sustainable futures.
Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore individual workers’ interactions with culture dimensions of the society that surrounds them as they perform daily work. In many contexts, there are significant differences between the larger society and individual subcultures. For example, collectivist subcultures living within the otherwise individualistic society found in the USA create a dynamic environment ripe for emotion. The question becomes: how can workers navigate this interaction between subculture and the dominant cultural traits to ultimately find positive organizational outcomes? Design/methodology/approach This research uses a quantitative survey among 189 US-based workers claiming to be part of a collectivist subculture. A mediated model connecting collectivism, emotional intelligence (EI) and positive workplace outcomes (i.e. grit, resilience, affective commitment, sense of place commitment) is tested via the Hayes PROCESS methodology, allowing for direct and indirect effects results. Findings The results confirmed the mediated relationship between collectivism, EI and each of the positive outcomes hypothesized within the research model. The findings suggest that collectivists living within an individualistic society leverage EI as an important tool to translate their collectivist ideals into grit, resilience, organizational commitment and sense of place. Collectivist individuals can apply affective strategies for success in individualistic workplaces. Originality/value This study contributes new insights to the ongoing research on cultural identity, EI and workplace outcomes by demonstrating how collectivist subgroups within a predominantly individualistic society leverage EI to foster grit, resilience, affective organizational commitment and sense of place commitment. This research enters an unexplored line of investigation by positing that emotional abilities translate collectivist ideals into positive workplace outcomes, which has no existing theoretical underpinning to date.
Purpose Digital platforms have transformed how diasporic communities interact, enabling cultural connectivity, identity preservation and socio-political participation. This study examines the role of social media in shaping digital diasporas through a comparative analysis of four cases: the Indian diaspora in the USA, the Somali diaspora in the UK, the Filipino diaspora in the Middle East and the Chinese diaspora in Australia. This study aims to understand how digital engagement operates across diverse migration conditions and geopolitical contexts rather than assuming demographic equivalence. Design/methodology/approach This study adopts a qualitative research design based on thematic analysis of publicly available social media interactions. Case selection captures variation in population scale, digital engagement and migration histories, with population size serving as an empirical baseline rather than a comparative determinant. Data were drawn from globally dominant platforms – Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok and WeChat – focusing on cultural, political and economic forms of digital participation shaped by host-country environments and transnational practices. Findings The analysis identifies recurring patterns of cultural preservation, community support, political engagement and economic participation across the four diasporas. Social media facilitates cultural continuity and collective belonging while also enabling advocacy and transnational networking. At the same time, challenges such as algorithmic bias, misinformation and digital exclusion complicate diasporic interactions, highlighting the uneven visibility and influence of different migrant communities within digital spaces. Originality/value This study advances the concept of digital diasporic engagement by foregrounding migration condition as a key analytical variable in comparative analysis. By examining both stable and precarious migration contexts, it demonstrates how similar digital practices produce different outcomes depending on structural constraint and vulnerability. The findings offer original insights for diaspora studies and provide policy-relevant implications for inclusive digital governance and digital literacy initiatives.
