Search results

To review the literature and identify research gaps in the role and influence boards of directors of companies have in occupational health and safety (OHS).

This was done in a scoping review built on a structured search in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, CCInfoWeb, EconLit, Web of Science, CINAHL and gray literature. Citations and reference lists were tracked. Inclusion criteria were publication in English. Exclusion criteria were studies covering companies using subcontractors to arrange OHS, or with <250 employees.

Forty-nine studies were included. The majority contained empirical data (n = 28; 57%), some were entirely normative (n = 16; 33%), and a few contained normative claims far beyond empirical data (n = 5; 10%). Empirical studies gave no insight into the scope of impact of board activities on OHS, and no studies assess the causal mechanisms by which board activities influence OHS outcomes. Most studies focused on both health and safety (n = 20; 41%) or only safety (n = 15; 31%). Context might explain the focus on safety rather than health, but is not clearly elucidated by the studies. Several studies are describing leadership behavior, although not framed as such. A narrative summary is presented to facilitate future research.

Future research should include: (1) which board activities influence OHS, (2) how board activities influence OHS, (3) the influence of context and (4) the leadership role of boards of directors.

This study identifies a total lack of research on the basic mechanics of the relationship between boards and OHS.

The purpose of this paper is to present a strategic management framework for a successful digital transformation (DT) roll-out aimed at enabling organisational resilience. The study aims to identify the critical areas of consideration for management to strategically approach DT in order to build resilience.

The research study is based on the 3Ps framework: (1) people (culture, capabilities, engagement and well-being), (2) processes (systems) and (3) plant (technological infrastructure and tools). The research methodology is a qualitative study comprising semi-structured in-depth interviews, conducted with industry experts in different sectors undergoing major digital disruptions such as financial services, mining, oil and gas, energy and retail.

The research findings show that the successful roll-out of an organisation’s DT is largely driven by the people elements incorporating organisational culture, workforce skills and training and employee well-being. It also highlights that it is critical for organisations to invest in technological infrastructure, once the people elements have been addressed, as they are the drivers of technology implementation.

A bigger and broader sample size can validate the elements and structure of the DT framework in South Africa.

The study’s discussion unlocks understanding about: (1) what are the key enablers for successful DT; (2) what hinders organisations from realising the value of digital investments and (3) a strategic framework for the digital roll-out.

Technology is impacting employees at both a personal and professional levels. Ensuring that DT rollouts are strategical implemented lowers the impact on technostress and strengthens resilience.

The value and practical implication of this study is that the developed strategic framework can be used by managements to enable the smooth adoption of DT toward building organisational resilience in developing countries such as South Africa with low digital maturity.

In his 1943 paper “A Theory of Human Motivation”, Maslow suggested the “Hierarchy of Needs” as a classification system that described the stimuli for human behaviour. Presently, project behaviour research, which inspired this work, encourages undertaking research on behavioural aspects within and across organisational and project settings. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to analyse project-based organisations’ (PBOs) seemingly reluctance in engaging in organisational learning from past project failures by drawing upon both institutional theory (since it focuses on how firms interact) and Maslow’s model within a project behaviour piece of research.

Interviews were held with purposively selected construction professionals from the UK construction industry, and data were analysed using thematic analysis.

Besides the need to learn from failures, PBOs’ main competing needs revolve around their “competitiveness”; “profitability and productivity”; “repeat business” and “reputation and partnering”. Mirroring these needs against Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, “competitiveness” and “profitability” are analogous to foundational “physiological” and “safety” needs. The need for “repeat business” and “reputation” is approximated with Maslow’s “affiliation” and “self-esteem” needs, and organisational learning is associated with “self-actualisation”. From an institutional theory perspective, such response to failure is influenced by the need to show legitimacy and conformity imposed by institutional factors.

Instead of taking a simplified approach to learning from failure such as the use of technological tools, PBOs and the sector at large should consider more robust approaches, by appreciating the influence of institutional factors and the external environment on their efforts to learn from failure.

Unlike past studies that present organisational learning within PBOs as a straightforward process, this study instead highlights the need of understanding various competing needs within a PBO and the external pressure.