Search results

Using data from a top-five global executive placement firm, the authors explore how an organization's financial misconduct may affect pay for former employees not implicated in wrongdoing. Drawing on stigma theory, they hypothesize that although such alumni did not participate in the financial misconduct and they had left the organization years before the misconduct, these alumni experience a compensation penalty. The stigma effect increases in relation to the job function proximity to the misconduct, recency of the misconduct, and an employee's seniority. Collectively, results suggest that the stigma of financial misconduct could reach alumni employees and need not be confined to executives and directors that oversaw the organization during the misconduct.

Research on employee mobility has proliferated in the past four decades across four research traditions: Economics, sociology, management, and organizational behavior/human resource management. Despite significant overlap in interest and focus, these four streams of research have evolved independent from each other, resulting in a structural divide. We provide a detailed account of the research on employee mobility and the structural divide across disciplines. We document that the payoff from this profusion of research and increasing interest has been disappointing, as reflected in the limited number of cross-disciplinary citations, even among common topics of interest. However, our analysis also provides some encouraging signs in the form of specific journals and individuals who provide a bridge for cross-disciplinary fertilization.

Conducting relevant research is a cornerstone of good academic practice. However, considering academics and practitioners’ divergent paradigms and social systems, it is challenging to undertake impactful research. Indeed, the research–practice gap remains an essential issue in human resource management research. There have been several calls for translating research for dissemination, making it more societally relevant, and beginning conversations and activities that move beyond the confines of the academic context. In fact, research on talent management (TM) has been accused of lagging in offering organizations vision and direction. Understanding the perceived causes and potential solutions for relevant problems is a real need to successfully narrow the TM research–practice gap. Thus, the purpose of this chapter is to offer an in-depth discussion on the research–practice gap in TM. To do so, we first identify the critical dimensions of research relevance that will help us to ground our discussion regarding the applicability of current academic TM research. By doing this, we seek to understand better what is happening with TM research, which should then help provide insights into how its practical impact can be improved.

There is little doubt that both leaders and leadership matters. Individual leaders shape strategy, execute decision, manage talent, develop future talent, and act with personal proficiency. Being a successful leader requires knowing what is expected and doing it. But, organizational leadership matters more. Leadership occurs when the organization builds a cadre of future leaders who have the capacity to shape an organization's culture and create patterns of success. In this chapter, we answer the question “what is leadership” by focusing on an outside/in view of leadership that draws on business values more than psychological principles. We identify four key principles and questions that shape the definition of effective leadership.1.Clarify why leadership matters: What are the outcomes of good leadership?2.Nail the basics: What must every leader know, do, and be?3.Create leadership brand: How do we develop leadership (not just leaders) from the outside/in?4.Ensure leadership sustainability: How do leaders make long-term change really happen?

By mastering these four principles, leaders can build leadership that lasts over time.

This chapter examines collaboration among highly autonomous, powerful, professional peers to explain why the benefits of teamwork that scholars typically find in traditional teams may not apply. The chapter analyzes the perspectives of individual professionals to show that, in this setting, collaboration is often seen as more costly than rewarding for the individuals involved. It presents a conceptual framework exploring this paradox and suggests directions for future research to elaborate an underlying theory.

The chapter draws on extensive qualitative data from surveys and interviews in three professional service firms, including a top 100 global law firm, a boutique executive search firm, and a large, US-based commercial advisory firm. Findings are married integrated with organizational theory to develop testable propositions for future research.

Because senior professionals collaborate with peers who have the autonomy to choose to work collectively or independently, power and authority are not means to create a team or make it effective. Findings show how professionals interpret the relative costs and benefits of collaboration, and suggest that in most cases, senior professionals will not attempt it or give it up before collaborations can reap important benefits. Thus, short-term costs prevent opportunities to experience longer term benefits for many professionals. Yet, some professionals have figured out how to use “instrumental collaboration” to shift the balance in their favor. The chapter’s conceptual framework uses a longitudinal perspective to resolve this seeming paradox.

The chapter presents a nascent theory of instrumental collaboration, including five testable hypotheses, an emergent conceptual framework, and suggestions for specific future research directions.