Search results

In America the non‐union employment relationship is defined by the rigid doctrine of employment‐at‐will. It is thought to have evolved from the master‐servant relationship which was a personal relationship. With the emergence of industrialisation in the nineteenth century, the personal relationship was essentially replaced by a commercial relationship. This commercial relationship needed definition commensurate with the definition of tasks and responsibilities within the factory's structured management and assembly line type processes. By 1877, employment‐at‐will became a generally accepted position in the American courts. “This doctrine embraces a rule declaring that employment for an indefinite term may be terminated at any time for any reason or for no reason by either the employee or the employer without legal liability” (Seidman, 1993:44). “Bosses could fire workers for any reason — as long as the firing is not discriminatory or retaliatory” (Iwata, 1994).

This study aims to develop and validate two scales: quiet quitting (QQ), measuring individual-level work disengagement, low organisational commitment and not going above and beyond in work, and quiet firing (QF), measuring employee perceptions of the degree to which their managers devalue them and when organisations intentionally create a situation to make them quit.

The scale development process involved item generation through literature search, review and interviews with working executives. The scales were then tested online by 264 participants from India.

In the quantitative analysis, the QQ and QF scales have good psychometric properties when tested with factor analysis, reliability analysis and Cronbach’s alpha. Furthermore, the convergent, discriminant and predictive validity of outcome constructs also showed significance.

This study found that the QQ and QF scales are highly reliable and exhibit good psychometric properties. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is one of the first studies to empirically develop and test the QQ and QF constructs and offer implications for organisations and managers.

In the last three years, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received 246,575 charges of workplace discrimination, of which 43,437 alleged sexual harassment. In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions governing how U.S. courts analyze sexual harassment cases. Since those cases, U.S. courts have been faced with a new conundrum: is a constructive discharge a “tangible employment action” that gives rise to automatic employer liability? Although the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have split on the issue, the trend appears to be in favor of imposing automatic liability, effectively denying employers a defense in cases in which the alleged victim often failed to report harassing conduct. This article argues that classifying a “constructive discharge” as a “tangible employment action” will, in most circumstances, violate the Supreme Court’s admonition that “no award against a liable employer should reward a plaintiff for what her own efforts could have avoided”.

Social enterprise organisations (SEOs) operate across the boundaries of the public, private and not‐for‐profit (NFP) sectors in delivering public services and competing for resources and legitimacy. While there is a rich literature on accountability in the private and public sectors, together with the wider NFP sector, SEOs have received comparatively little attention and remain a relatively under‐researched organisational form. Drawing on accountability, legitimacy and user‐needs theories, the purpose of this paper is to develop a practical framework which can be used to explore how accountability within SEOs is constructed and discharged.

This paper draws on user‐needs, accountability, legitimacy and impression management theories expounded in relation to the private, public and NFP sectors.

A framework to better understand how accountability can be discharged by SEOs is developed and discussed.

While a framework for better understanding SEO accountability is presented, it is not empirically tested. However, the framework has the potential to facilitate a deeper appreciation of the theory and practice of accountability within SEOs and, notwithstanding the inherent difficulties in measuring and managing accountability, could be used to stimulate practitioner involvement.

As little is known about the current extent of SEO information disclosure or accountability relationships, the framework could be used to assess the discharge of accountability by SEOs, with the findings informing future developments. This should provide useful insights into internal processes and organisational views on accountability bases and mechanisms and can then be used to inform the debate on how SEOs can best discharge their duty to account.

Understanding the nature of SEO accountability reporting has important implications for those involved in advancing the SEO agenda. At a time of public sector cutbacks, and with the government searching for new and more effective ways of delivering services, the role of SEOs in this process is likely to receive greater attention and scrutiny.

SEOs have grown extensively in size and prominence in recent years and policymakers have come to embrace the role that they play in societal development. This paper responds to a gap in the theoretical literature and contributes to the debate by developing a framework which can be empirically tested. Moreover, it can be used to prompt practitioner involvement and facilitate a better understanding of the complex issues surrounding accounting and accountability in this under‐researched area.

This paper examines recent research on prejudice in the workplace by comparing the domains of management, psychology and sociology. It seeks to make recommendations regarding future research directions in light of significant social movements that impact on prejudice and discrimination.

The design is built on an interdisciplinary literature review, drawing from research in management, psychology and sociology. In total, 450 recent articles were examined. These factors related to the individual, group and organizational/societal level of analysis to determine what we know about prejudice and discrimination in the workplace and what we do not know.

This study’s findings show that each domain of management, psychology and sociology makes distinctive contributions, thus providing scholars with a holistic understanding of prejudice and discrimination in the workplace.

The use of content analysis, using both automated and manual coding and chi-square analysis, allows for a deep understanding of the existing research in all three of the domains. This approach allows for reliability and replicability. Noted are the relative absence of intersectionality, immutability and salience.

Recommendations regarding future research directions in light of significant social movements that impact prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behaviors at all three levels are provided.

The study utilized a novel approach in examining prejudice in the workplace taking a grounded theory perspective, allowing the existing literature to shape the focus and results of the study. Using NVivo allowed for drilling down into the content of the articles to identify minor and major points of discussion relating to prejudice.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the concept of discriminatory job loss (DJL), which occurs when discrimination and job loss intersect. The paper aims to discuss the antecedents and consequences of DJL and calls for research on the topic.

Diversity and careers research from management, psychology, economics, and sociology literatures on discrimination, job loss, and unemployment are examined.

Discriminatory job loss involves discriminatory termination, discriminatory layoff, retaliatory termination, and constructive discharge and exacerbates negative outcomes of discrimination or job loss alone. Antecedents to DJL are the external and internal environments. DJL affects unemployment duration and reemployment quality and targets self‐esteem, self‐efficacy, and perceived control.

When large numbers of people experience DJL and long unemployment durations and lower re‐employment quality, this affects the individuals as well as society. In times of high employment, when jobs are scarce, individuals have fewer employment options and employers have more freedom to engage in discrimination. Having large groups of people know that their ability to maintain employment is negatively affected by their demographic group membership while others know that their demographic membership provides employment privileges can result in long‐term negative individual, organizational, and societal consequences.

This paper brings attention to, and calls for research on, DJL and its negative consequences.

During the past few years a movement has begun in the USA towards passing laws that would require the discharge of employees only for just cause. Erosion of the employment‐at‐will doctrine has begun. This will continue, given social and judicial trends. This has significant implications for managers. Managers can influence this trend by adopting formal policies on employee discipline and discharge. They must be familiar with the employment‐at‐will issue and organisational procedures for preventing its growth. A management development programme is discussed that covers employee discipline. It has been implemented and used successfully by many organisations. A key to its success lies in the variety of topics covered, its appropriateness to all managers and the efficiency with which the material can be covered. Its aim is to prevent future employee charges of unjust discipline and discharge, while fostering an organisational environment based on high employee morale and productivity. The concept of employment‐at‐will and its impact on managers is reviewed.

The purpose of this paper is to inform managers about the recent increase in wrongful termination suits and the high price employers can be forced to pay if their company is found guilty of wrongful termination. Although the focus is on common termination errors made in the 1980s and 1990s, some steps are suggested to help prevent and defend against wrongful termination suits. Finally, a new method being considered to deal with wrongful termination is presented, The Model Employment Termination Act. Businesses are now more likely than ever to be sued for wrongful discharge. The increase in wrongful discharge cases is a result of recent changes in employment law, court interpretations of employment law, and the highly litigious climate which now exists. Today, the deck seems to be stacked in favor of the terminated employee. In fact, a recent survey in California revealed that plaintiffs who get jury trials win about 75% of the time, the average award being approximately $300,000. In addition, legal expenses to defend wrongful discharge cases averaged $80,000. If that is not bad enough, the situation is expected to get worse before the pendulum begins to swing back towards the employers. The purpose of this paper is not to go over all the employment laws nor is it to analyze all possible situations. The objective is to highlight common errors committed by managers, recent developments in wrongful termination, and point out steps to reduce the chance of losing a wrongful discharge suit. Most wrongful termination cases involve one or more of the following categories: breach of contract, breach of common law duty by the employer, discrimination, fraud, infliction of emotional distress, defamation, violation of public policy, or violation of personnel policy. They all carry unlimited compensatory and punitive damages. Moreover, because charges can be brought against both company and individuals, managers have their own assets at stake. According to Phillip Perry, employers commonly commit seven errors. (1) Use of implied promises in employee handbooks. (2) Making oral promises. (3) Terminating an employee just before the employee is to be vested. (4) Discharging an employee for failing to take a polygraph test. (5) Creating intolerable working conditions to force an employee to resign. (6) Discharging an employee for refusing to violate public policy. (7) Failure to evaluate employees honestly and put the evaluations in writing.

The doctrine of employment‐at‐will has been the rule of law for over 100 years in the United States. Under it an employee can be terminated for a good reason, a bad reason, or for no reason at all. Because of real abuses when firing employees, generally called wrongful termination, all but five U.S. states have now carved out at least one of three exceptions to the rule. They are implied contract, public policy tort, and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Although created with good intentions, all three exceptions have spawned a legal environment of judicial inconsistency and unpredictability and a climate of expensive litigation and monetary judgments. The Model Employment Termination Act, if adopted by all the states, would establish a uniform legal system for managing employee terminations. The Act's major provisions require that an employee can be terminated only for “good cause,” and, in the “preferred version” that arbitration be used in settling disputes. However, an employee's remedies are limited and can include reinstatement, back pay, lump‐sum severance payments, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, but no compensatory or punitive damages.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how HRM practices enhance and/or impede the employment, participation, and well-being of workers with intellectual disabilities in three hotels located in Australia.

The research employs a case study methodology, including interviews with three HR managers, three department managers, 17 workers with intellectual disabilities, and focus groups of 16 supervisors and 24 work colleagues.

The research found that the opportunities to participate in work are driven primarily by developing a social climate that enables social cohesion through the altruistic motives of managers/supervisors and reciprocal relationships.

The findings lend support for the importance of both formal and informal HR practices, such as inclusive recruitment and selection, mentoring, and training and development, as well as individualised day-to-day support provided by supervisors and colleagues, to improve the participation and well-being of workers with an intellectual disability.