PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between underwriter reputation and initial public offerings (IPOs) initial returns over a 24‐year period, from 1980 to 2003.Design/methodology/approachTwo‐stage least‐squares regression analysis on data from IPOs offered from 1980 to 2003 is used to determine how the choice of IPO underwriter is related to initial returns when considering reputation as an endogenous variable.FindingsThis study shows, consistent with prior literature, that underwriter reputation is statistically significantly negatively related to initial returns from 1980 to 1991 and statistically significantly positively related to initial returns from 1992 to 2003, when reputation is taken as an exogenous variable. When considering the choice of the reputation of underwriter as endogenous to characteristics of the firm, the reputation of an underwriter is significantly positively related to IPO initial returns for 1980 to 2003 and 1992 to 2003 and insignificantly related, for 1980 to 1991.Originality/valueThis study adds value to finance literature in that it extends the research on the relationship between IPO initial returns and underwriter reputation. It also furthers the existing research on IPO anomalies and notes characteristics in this field of financial markets that may be important to both issuers and investment banks.

This study examines the temporal structure of projected futures. The sociology of time is an established line of inquiry, but the existing literature lacks empirically grounded description of the cultural and cognitive dimensions of projected futures. When individuals imagine their futures, what is the qualitative nature and temporal structure of their projected futures? In order to address these questions, we used a mixed-methods strategy of interviews and surveys with 126 persons from a small college in North Carolina. We asked the participants to tell us about their futures. The resulting descriptions form a strongly chronological pattern. When asked about the immediate future (i.e., tomorrow or next week), they tersely describe the tasks that must be completed. In their descriptions of the near future (i.e., next month or next year), they begin to anticipate enjoyable experiences. When they describe the intermediate future (i.e., five to ten years from now), their responses are characterized by detailed and optimistic enthusiasm for the possibilities they envision. They pay little or no attention to the distant future.

No abstract

The most prominent theory in leadership studies is transformational leadership. Ironically, however, scholars who subscribe to transformational leadership have left the concept of transformation itself, unexamined and lying dormant in the background. In response to this neglect, I propose a Meadian framework of leadership that is centered on the nature of transformation in both leaders and leadership transactions. I present a framework that is Meadian, and not exclusively from Mead, by integrating contemporary scholarship from a range of disciplines that corroborate and complement Mead's work and provides transformational leadership scholars a new way forward. I use Mead's I/Me distinction to answer who transformational leaders are in their embodied social selves and Mead's role-taking notion in the social act to answer what transformational leaders do in relation with followers. In doing so, I provide leadership scholars a "third way" between dichotomous conceptions of singularly influential leaders on the one hand and leaderless leadership processes on the other.

No abstract