Search results

This study examines the contribution of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice in Federal budget decision-making to Federal managers' commitment to the Federal government as an employing organization. A total of 1,358 useable surveys were received from a sample of 9,643 managers. Reliability coefficients were acceptable (> .70), and intercorrelations consistent with previous studies. Hierarchical regression analysis supported only maineffect relationships between procedural justice and interactional justice and managers' organizational commitment. No support was found for a main effect relationship between distributive justice and organizational commitment -- or for any interactive effects. Contrary to models of bureaucratic behavior based on economic theory, these findings may suggest that Federal managers may be motivated primarily by psychological outcomes of budget decisions.

As has been widely recognized in the literature, the post‐war economic boom which drew to a close by the early 1970s has been followed by an intense period of industrial restructuring characterized by marked instability in all three major spheres of economic activity: production, distribution, and finance. This process has taken place both at the global level and at the level of national economies (Cardenas, 1990). It reflects a profound change in the mode of capitalist accumulation. Prior to the current round of restructuring, accumulation was taken to be principally the inward‐oriented task of each nation's own economy. Now, it seems that successful capital accumulation (i.e. development) depends most upon a nation's competitive integration into the world market for goods and services (Garrido, 1995). The present mode of accumulation implies an opening of national economies to international trade in commodities and capital, both among the advanced industrial nations and between the industrialized and the newly‐industrializing countries. This has generated a heightened degree of competition among countries and among firms, given that the easy movement of capital, goods, and services has allowed for real competition to emerge among dispersed places around the globe based upon their comparative financial and productive advantages.

Volume 13 of the Advances in Early Education and Day Care series marks twenty years that the series has attempted to provide a forum for current scholarship that might further our thinking about early childhood education and care. This, my ninth volume as series editor, is intended to serve the continuing intent of the series to provide multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary perspectives on a field that by its nature requires diverse perspectives. Early childhood practices have drawn on ideas from child development, curriculum studies, social work, nursing, sociology, anthropology, and other fields that inform us about children, their care, and the settings in which we implement our programs. Advances has always attempted to respect the necessary diversity of perspectives that can inform the field, and to support work that may not fit in a tidy disciplinary nook.

The purpose of this paper is to present a holistic interpretation of the scope of knowledge management processes whose intent is to enhance the effectiveness of new product development (NPD).

The paper reviews key concepts in NPD and knowledge management (KM), leading to propositions about the effective management of NPD‐relevant knowledge. It develops a structured, holistic model of organizational KM including practical mechanisms and processes for managing knowledge transfer.

Effective knowledge management needs to: acknowledge the multiple organizational levels at which knowledge is deployed; support the production, elicitation and exchange of tacit knowledge as well as explicit, codified information; hence accommodate and enable both informal and formal, typically IS/IT enabled knowledge processes.

KM is work‐in‐progress, not a one‐time search for an idealised state. Computer‐enabled information systems are necessary but not sufficient elements of a comprehensive approach to KM. Holistic KM should be integral to the organization, working with not against the grain of its technical, social and cultural processes. Senior managers with titles such as “chief knowledge officer” may be crucial in establishing strategic priorities and change programmes, but all NPD personnel bear responsibility for effective KM.

The paper combines propositions about the effective conduct of KM for NPD with a model of holistic KM that involves multi‐level flux and constructive knowledge transition. It identifies practical mechanisms, IS/IT enabled and otherwise, in this context. It suggests that new research to identify effective KM practices in NPD is a priority for KM researchers.