Search results

Reality breakdowns generate reflexivity and awareness of the constructed nature of social reality. These pivotal moments can motivate institutional inhabitants to either modify their social worlds or reaffirm the status quo. Thus, reality breakdowns are the initial points at which actors can conceive of new possibilities for institutional arrangements and initiate change processes to realize them. Studying reality breakdowns enables scholars to understand not just how institutional change occurs, but also why it does or does not do so. In this paper, we investigate how institutional inhabitants responded to a reality breakdown that occurred during our ethnography of collegial governance in a large North American university that was undergoing a strategic change initiative. Our findings suggest that there is a consequential process following reality breakdowns whereby institutional inhabitants construct the severity of these events. In our context, institutional inhabitants first attempted to restore order to their social world by reaffirming the status quo; when their efforts failed, they began to formulate alternative possibilities. Simultaneously, they engaged in a distributed sensemaking process whereby they diminished and reoriented necessary changes, ultimately inhibiting the formulation of these new possibilities. Our findings confirm reality breakdowns and institutional awareness as potential drivers of institutional change and complicate our understanding of antecedent microprocesses that may forestall the initiation of change efforts.

Constructive deviance has received increasing attention across the last 20 years. However, because the distinction between constructive and traditional forms of deviance (i.e., destructive) is based on the intent behind the behaviors, it can be difficult to determine which acts are constructive. As an umbrella construct consisting of several forms of deviant acts (e.g., whistle-blowing, employee voice, necessary evils), research into constructive deviance has largely remained focused on the individual behaviors to date. While advancements have been made, this focus has limited the consideration of an overarching understanding of constructive deviance in the workplace. Further, constructs like constructive deviance that straddle the bounds between beneficial and detrimental necessitate the exploration into their antecedents as determined by the employees (i.e., apples), their environments (e.g., barrels), or some combination of the two. The author seeks to advance the research in constructive deviance by proposing a testable model. In which, the author develops an interactionist perspective of the antecedents to reposition constructive deviance as the acts of good employees in restrictive or negative environments. In doing so, the author considers how various aspects of individuals, their organizational environments, and the influence of their leaders interact. The author then develops a multi-stakeholder approach to the outcomes of constructive deviance to consider how the various parties (i.e., organization, coworkers, customers) are expected to respond and how these responses impact the more distal outcomes as well as the likelihood of engaging in future constructive deviance.

Purpose: Previous research identified a measurement gap in the individual assessment of social misconduct in the workplace related to gender. This gap implies that women respond to comparable self-reported acts of bullying or sexual discrimination slightly more often than men with the self-labeling as “bullied” or “sexually discriminated and/or harassed.” This study tests this hypothesis for women and men in the scientific workplace and explores patterns of gender-related differences in self-reporting behavior.

Basic design: The hypotheses on the connection between gender and the threshold for self-labeling as having been bullied or sexually discriminated against were tested based on a sample from a large German research organization. The sample includes 5,831 responses on bullying and 6,987 on sexual discrimination (coverage of 24.5 resp. 29.4 percentage of all employees). Due to a large number of cases and the associated high statistical power, this sample for the first time allows a detailed analysis of the “gender-related measurement gap.” The research questions formulated in this study were addressed using two hierarchical regression models to predict the mean values of persons who self-labeled as having been bullied or sexually discriminated against. The status of the respondents as scientific or non-scientific employees was included as a control variable.

Results: According to a self-labeling approach, women reported both bullying and sexual discrimination more frequently. This difference between women and men disappeared for sexual discrimination when, in addition to the gender of a person, self-reported behavioral items were considered in the prediction of self-labeling. For bullying, the difference between the two genders remained even in this extended prediction. No statistically significant relationship was found between the frequency of self-reported items and the effect size of their interaction with gender for either bullying or sexual discrimination. When comparing bullying and sexual discrimination, it should be emphasized that, on average, women report experiencing a larger number of different behavioral items than men.

Interpretation and relevance: The results of the study support the current state of research. However, they also show how volatile the measurement instruments for bullying and sexual discrimination are. For example, the gender-related measurement gap is considerably influenced by single items in the Negative Acts Questionnaire and Sexual Experience Questionnaire. The results suggest that women are generally more likely than men to report having experienced bullying and sexual discrimination. While an unexplained “gender gap” in the understanding of bullying was found for bullying, this was not the case for sexual discrimination.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the Company Dynamic Response Map (CDRM) risk management model that uses the dynamic capabilities concept. The study examines risks associated with strategic decision-making in construction projects and evaluates proposed methods that connect the dynamic capabilities of project-based organisations with risk management.

This preliminary study examines risks associated with strategic decision-making in construction projects and evaluates a proposed model that connects the dynamic capabilities of project-based organisations with risk management. Specifically, the CDRM model is evaluated, a risk management model developed by Arena et al. (2013) to better respond to risks and opportunities based on the concept of dynamic capabilities.

We argue that although the CDRM presents a promising development in that it uses dynamic capabilities prospectively in a risk management model to produce tangible results, there are, nonetheless, impediments to the CDRM being used by construction clients. The primary impediment relates to the issue of categorisation, the difficulty in assigning a specific identified risk to a particular category of dynamic capabilities.

A conceptual argument is made and not an empirical one.

The CDRM model was developed to be used in practice and this paper evaluates that model.

Contributes to both the dynamic capabilities literature as well as risk management literature. The paper ends with a discussion on the possible merits of the CDRM, and an evaluation on potential impediments to its use by construction clients.

Identifying the qualities of primary care that have the potential to produce optimal health outcomes is only half the story. The Models of Child Health Appraised (MOCHA) project has not only explored how to transfer these to other national contexts, but also which successful components should be transferred. It is important to assess the population criteria of the identified sociodemographic, cultural and social characteristics and the population perspectives on a care system’s components. The project analysed public experiences and perceptions of the quality of primary care for children from a representative sample of the general public in five European Union member states. The public perception of children’s primary care services, in particular the perceived quality of care and expectations with regard to care for children, is important to understand before MOCHA lessons can be effectively adopted in a country. We found that the socio-cultural characteristics of a country inform the population perceptions and preferences with regard to the care system. In the five countries surveyed, there was agreement about aspects of quality of care – such as accessible opening hours, confidential consultations for children and timeliness of consultation for an illness, but there was a difference in opinion about giving priority to items such as making an appointment without a referral, or a child’s right to a confidential consultation. The cultural context of transferability and the means of addressing this such as defining the target audience and the different means of disseminating important messages to the wider community to address contextual factors can act as barriers or facilitators to the introduction of new components of primary care models.

Equity is an issue that pervades all aspects of primary care provision for children and as such is a recurring theme in the Models of Child Health Appraised project. All European Union member states agree to address inequalities in health outcomes and include policies to address the gradient of health across society and target particularly vulnerable population groups. The project sought to understand the contribution of primary care services to reducing inequity in health outcomes for children. We focused on some key features of inequity as they affect children, such as the importance of good health services in early childhood, and the effects of inequity on children, such as the higher health needs of underprivileged groups, but their generally lower access to health services. This indicates that health services have an important role in buffering the effects of social determinants of health by providing effective treatment that can improve the health and quality of life for children with chronic disorders. We identified common risk factors for inequity, such as gender, family situation, socio-economic status (SES), migrant or minority status and regional differences in healthcare provision, and attempted to measure inequity of service provision. We did this by analysing routine data of universal primary care procedures, such as vaccination, age at diagnosis of autism or emergency hospital admission for conditions that can be generally treated in primary care, against variables of inequity, such as indicators of SES, migrant/ethnicity or urban/rural residency. In addition, we focused on the experiences of child population groups particularly at risk of inequity of primary care provision: migrant children and children in the state care system.

Sex and gender are regarded as critical structural determinants of mental health and mental illness. Mental illness is a complex phenomenon, and risky behaviour and substance use commonly occur simultaneously or subsequent to one another. A gendered vulnerability in biological, environmental, and behavioural risk factors has been registered in the development and escalation of mental illness. Studies have found that women who use drugs experience greater physical and mental health repercussions than men. Women who use drugs present higher rates of depression and anxiety, suicidal tendencies, isolation and general psychological distress. This chapter addresses the most common mental illnesses associated with women who use drugs: depression, anxiety, trauma-related disorders, and eating disorders.