Search results

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the importance of effective, knowledgeable and accountable management and board structures in business organisations. Using the case of Swissair, the paper aims to demonstrate the importance of competent industry knowledgeable executive boards, with regard not only to company profits and sustainability but also to stability and socially responsible decision making.

An explanatory and descriptive case study approach was undertaken utilising historical data and literature‐based information and research on Swissair. The analysis of the case is guided by the use of the Resource Dependence and Group Conformity theories.

The findings suggest that the alliance and acquisition strategy pursued by Swissair's management and the lack of leadership and accountability by the CEO and Chairman of the board were the main contributing factors to the company's collapse.

The implications include impacts on the way in which European organisations are governed and the composition of the management teams and Board of Directors. Additional implications include changes to the legislation in Europe, more specifically Switzerland and the European Free Trade Alliance, aimed at the prevention of similar future collapses.

The paper's originality stems from the application of decision making and group theory, coupled with corporate governance ideas applied in a practical sense to the contemporary case of Swissair in a manner previously not considered, to demonstrate the importance of effective, knowledgeable and accountable management and board structures in organisations. Value is demonstrated with the recent issues experienced by Austrian Airlines and its subsequent acquisition by Lufthansa, indicating a need to address the corporate governance requirements in the European airline industry.

There is a growing interest in investigating craft beer tourism and consumption experiences as different destinations seek to position unique attributes and cultures in their culinary offerings. Yet, in this space, factors that have triggered the creation, management and marketing of craft beer tourism remain implicit. The purpose of this paper is therefore to present a systematic literature review of craft beer tourism, apply a conceptual model of craft beer gastronomy tourism and, in turn, provide strategic imperatives for the sector moving forward.

A comprehensive search for craft beer tourism in hospitality and tourism literature was undertaken using a combination of Google Scholar search terms as well as institutional library databases. Then, following the steps proposed by Xiao and Watson (2019), articles were sorted into themes before determining their appropriateness to be included in a systematic literature review.

Based on prior research, a Craft beer gastronomy tourism model is proposed. This model was found to provide a macro perspective of the craft beer tourism literature and was applied using the systematic literature review. It was found that not many of the papers fit the three-step process, and a fragmented relationship between craft breweries and tourism was observed. On reviewing the theories and frameworks used, it was found that there was not much consistency with the majority using frameworks and concepts. Furthermore, most studies were undertaken from the perspective of a single region or homogenous samples, with few offering cross-sectional comparisons. The most common methods of the papers were surveys and interviews, with a majority being cross-sectional.

The systematic literature review has led to the development of a novel conceptual model that highlights the current focal areas but also gaps that inform future studies and managerial implications.

This chapter aims to encourage and guide smart industry HRM-related research by addressing upcoming challenges developed using a job design lens.

The challenges are constructed based on a developed overview of the existing body of work related to job design and a description of smart industry.

The challenges are meant as an indication of the issues that arise within job design due to smart industry and, in so doing, suggest directions for future research in this specific field. Additionally, through laying out challenges for this particular example, the chapter encourages scholars to consider the possible impact of smart industry within other HRM areas.

Purpose: Risk is a multifaceted concept, and its identification requires complex approaches that are often misunderstood. The consequence is that decisions are based on limited perception rather than the full value and meaning of what risk is, as a result, the way it is being tackled is incorrect. The individuals are often limited in their perceptions and ideas and do not embrace the full multifaceted nature of risk. Regulators and individuals want to follow norms and checklists or overuse models, simulations, and templates, thereby reducing responsibility for decision-making. At the same time, the wider use of technology and rules reduces the critical thinking of individuals. We advance the automation process by building robots that follow protocols and forget about the part of risk assessment that cannot be programed. Therefore, with this study, the objective of this study was to discover how people define risk, the influencing factors of risk perception and how they behave toward this perception. The authors also determine how the perception differed with age, gender, marital status, education level and region. The novelty of the research is related to individual risk perception during COVID-19, as this is a new and unknown phenomenon. Methodology: The research is based on the analysis of the self-administered purposely designed questionnaires we distributed across different social media platforms between February and June 2020 in Europe and in some cases was carried out as a interview over communication platforms such as “Skype,” “Zoom” and “Microsoft Teams.” The questionnaire was divided into four parts: Section 1 was designed to collect demographic information from the participants; Section 2 included risk definition statements obtained from literature and a preliminary discussion with peers; Section 3 included risk behavior statements; and Section 4 included statements on risk perception experiences. A five-point Likert Scale was provided, and participants were required to answer along a scale of “1” for “Strongly Agree” to “5” for “Strongly Disagree.” Participants also had the option to elaborate further and provide additional comments in an open-ended box provided at the end of the section. 466 valid responses were received. Thematic analysis was carried out to analyze the interviews and the open-ended questions, while the questionnaire responses were analyzed using various quantitative methods on IBM SPSS (version 23). Findings: The results of the analysis indicate that individuals evaluate the risk before making a decision and view risk as both a loss and opportunity. The study identifies nine factors influencing risk perception. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that we can continue to develop models and rules, but as long as the risk is not understood, we will never achieve anything.

THIS DOES NOT PURPORT TO BE an apologia for the old guard‐book style name‐catalogue, but, forgetting mere canons of stream‐lined efficiency, let us admit that there is some character, some romantic appeal about it that a card catalogue cannot rival. Cards just haven't got personality or colour: they are unitary and strictly functional, a jumble of unconnected parts without a common link to make them a homogeneous entity. The guard‐book catalogue, for all its problems of maintenance and often cumbersome inefficiency, does, I contend, make life more interesting for the cataloguer—and the imaginative user.

This chapter discusses the “seigniorage argument” in favor of public money issuance, according to which public finances could be improved if the state more fully exercised the privilege of money creation, which is, today, largely shared with private banks. This point was made in the 1930s by several proponents of the “100% money” reform scheme, such as Henry Simons of the University of Chicago, Lauchlin Currie of Harvard and Irving Fisher of Yale, who called for a full-reserve requirement in lawful money behind checking deposits. One of their claims was that, by returning all seigniorage profit to the state, such reform would allow a significant reduction of the national debt. In academic debates, however, following a criticism first made by Albert G. Hart of the University of Chicago in 1935, this argument has generally been discarded as wholly illusory. Hart argued that, because the state, under a 100% system, would be likely to pay the banks a subsidy for managing checking accounts, no substantial debt reduction could possibly be expected to follow. The 100% money proponents never answered Hart’s criticism, whose conclusion has often been considered as definitive in the literature. However, a detailed study of the subject reveals that Hart’s analysis itself appears to be questionable on at least two grounds: the first pertains to the sources of the seigniorage benefit, the other to its distribution. This chapter concludes that the “seigniorage argument” of the 100% money authors may not have been entirely unfounded.