Search results

In this paper, I demonstrate an alternative explanation to the development of the American electricity industry. I propose a social embeddedness approach (Granovetter, 1985, 1992) to interpret why the American electricity industry appears the way it does today, and start by addressing the following questions: Why is the generating dynamo located in well‐connected central stations rather than in isolated stations? Why does not every manufacturing firm, hospital, school, or even household operate its own generating equipment? Why do we use incandescent lamps rather than arc lamps or gas lamps for lighting? At the end of the nineteenth century, the first era of the electricity industry, all these technical as well as organizational forms were indeed possible alternatives. The centralized systems we see today comprise integrated, urban, central station firms which produce and sell electricity to users within a monopolized territory. Yet there were visions of a more decentralized electricity industry. For instance, a geographically decentralized system might have dispersed small systems based around an isolated or neighborhood generating dynamo; or a functionally decentralized system which included firms solely generating and transmitting the power, and selling the power to locally‐owned distribution firms (McGuire, Granovetter, and Schwartz, forthcoming). Similarly, the incandescent lamp was not the only illuminating device available at that time. The arc lamp was more suitable for large‐space lighting than incandescent lamps; and the second‐generation gas lamp ‐ Welsbach mantle lamp ‐ was much cheaper than the incandescent electric light and nearly as good in quality (Passer, 1953:196–197).

This paper aims to review the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoint practical implications from cutting‐edge research and case studies.

This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context.

The king is dead. Long live the king. That is the way succession planning has worked for monarchies through history. If it were only so simple in business.

The paper provides strategic insights and practical thinking that have influenced some of the world's leading organizations.

The briefing saves busy executives and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy‐to digest format.

In the past several years, economic sociology has grown into a new speciality within sociology. Numerous edited volumes, survey articles and handbooks herald its arrival and mark out its place in the sociological firmament (see, e.g. Granovetter and Swedberg, 1992; Swedberg, 1991; Smelser and Swedberg, 1994). Although classic social theorists like Karl Marx, Max Weber, Emile Durkheim and Georg Simmel frequently pondered the structure and conditions of industrial society and the problems its emergence generated, it was not until neoclassical economists recently began to study nonmarket social phenomena that sociologists reacted by taking up the market as an object of study.

According to human capital theory, companies derive economic value from the knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) of their employees. Research conducted by strategic human resource management has focused on how investment in human capital can create a competitive advantage for an organization. The purpose of the paper is, therefore, to investigate how the choice of different human capital acquisition strategies – “make or buy” – can influence employee attitudes and behavior.

This study explores the relationship between internal and external human capital strategies and employee’s attitudes and behavior in Taiwan's IC (integrated circuit) design industry. The cross-sectional dataset derives from a sample of 49 human resource departments and 497 employees from 25 different IC design companies.

The findings indicate that the decisions made on human capital strategies have an important influence on employee’s attitude and behavior. The results also show that a climate of trust and perceived organizational support is a cross-level mechanism for both human capital strategy and employees' attitudes and behavior.

There has been little research on the cross-level analysis of human capital acquisition strategies that can influence employee’s attitudes and behavior. This study verified that internal and external human capital strategies do affect employees' individual perceptions of organizational support via the organizational-level climate of trust, which in turn influences employees' attitudes and behavior. This cross-level mechanism indeed will facilitate new insights into the nature of strategic human resource management.