Search results

Little research is devoted to how salary allocation processes interfere with gender inequality in talent development in universities. Administrative data from a university indicated a substantial salary gap between men and women academics, which partially could be explained by the unequal distribution of men and women in the academic job levels after acquiring a PhD, from lecturer to full professor, with men being overrepresented in the higher job levels, as well as in the more senior positions within each job level. We demonstrated how a lack of transparency, consistency and accountability can disqualify apparent fair, merit-based salary decisions and result in biased gender differences in job and salary levels. This chapter reflects on how salary decisions matter for the recognition of talent and should be an integral part of talent management.

This article aims to illuminate the gendered organisational structure of higher education in Jordan by collecting and analysing a national-level snapshot of the current distribution of women and men in leadership positions and academic ranks across Jordanian universities to pinpoint inequalities in specific levels and fields.

Grounded in gendered organisational theory, this study presents a snapshot of the gender composition of 10 public and 14 private universities in Jordan. The snapshot, collected in September 2022 from these universities’ websites, examines counts of male and female administrative leaders as well as academic staff across all ranks for all faculties in both STEM and liberal arts fields.

The distribution of women and men in leadership positions in universities across Jordan is highly unequal, with men outnumbering women in the uppermost positions by nearly 10:1. This gap decreases as the rank of positions decreases, indicative of a highly gendered organisational structure, with only three to four fields approaching gender parity.

This paper offers a comprehensive and detailed quantitative foundation for researchers to investigate the underlying social, cultural, legal, political and economic factors perpetuating gender inequality in academia in Jordan and in comparative studies.

This study is relevant for targeting policies for advancing sustainable development goals, specifically 5.5, which aim at women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making.

This study provides the most detailed and extensive macro-level analysis of the gender composition of universities in Jordan.

This study aims to develop and test a model of the antecedents, mediators and consequences of the glass cliff phenomenon through public sector service organizations in Iran to explore more insights on gender inequality in managerial positions.

The current research was conducted based on a mixed-method approach, using both qualitative and quantitative research designs. First, the qualitative method includes content analysis by conducting semi-structured interviews with 20 university professors and expert managers working in public sector service organizations in Iran. The outcomes of the qualitative phase lead to designing the conceptual framework and research hypothesis. Then, through a quantitative phase, 384 female managers working in public sector service organizations in Iran are selected using stratified random sampling and fill out the research questionnaire. The exploratory factor analysis was used to verify the model. Moreover, structural equation modeling, using AMOS 24, was used to test the research hypothesis.

The findings of the qualitative phase were represented in three categories including antecedents (e.g. the characteristics of women’s leadership, the selection of women based on meritocracy criteria, women’s preferences and organizational factors), mediation effect (e.g. succession planning, personal development planning and support networks) and consequences of the glass cliff phenomenon (e.g. positive and negative consequences). The results of the exploratory factor analysis show there are ten components, explaining 88.5% of variances. Moreover, the test of the structural model supports the direct effect of antecedents on the glass cliff phenomenon. The results also show the effect of the glass cliff phenomenon on consequences through mediation effects.

There are some limitations that can be addressed by other researchers. Accordingly, the limited number of female managers in Iran prevented larger quantitative research. Moreover, the current research only found casual and mediation consequences of the glass cliff phenomenon, and potential moderators were not considered in this study.

The present study’s innovations may include using a mixed-method approach to investigate the antecedents, mediators and consequences of the glass cliff phenomenon in this study and examining the model constructs in some public sector service organizations. This research may provide a deep understanding of the antecedents, mediators and consequences of the glass cliff phenomenon by finding new factors using a mixed-method approach.

This study aims to explore the evolutionary trajectory of American corporations and their governance over the past few centuries, using a multidisciplinary investigative approach. The research focuses on the American business landscape because it has played a pivotal role in shaping the field of corporate governance theory and practice.

The author thoroughly investigates archival records, legal documents, academic publications, reputable databases and pertinent literature to unearth valuable insights into the key events that have influenced the evolutionary path of American corporations and their governance throughout history.

Delving into the evolutionary journey of American corporations and their governance reveals a multifaceted narrative, enhancing our comprehension of the impact of the external socio-economic environment, and the effectiveness and limitations of established corporate governance paradigms in addressing such transformations. This introspection establishes the groundwork for ongoing discussions concerning how corporate governance should adapt to meet the evolving needs and expectations of stakeholders and society as a whole, with a specific focus on the pivotal role that boardrooms could play in this regard.

The insights gained from this analysis offer practitioners a foundational resource to understand corporate governance in a complex business landscape. Armed with this understanding, practitioners can better align governance strategies with both historical context and contemporary requirements.

The research has significant social implications in the sense that history highlights the importance of the society in influencing corporate governance practices. It specifically emphasizes the need for the board of directors to consider both shareholder value and social responsibility, while also fostering public trust and confidence.

Many corporate governance concepts are often used with limited understanding of their initial intent, resulting in their unquestioned adoption. In this paper, the author offers a contextual exploration of historical events that have contributed to the development of these diverse corporate perspectives. To the best of the author’s knowledge, there are exceedingly few, if any, papers that present comparably insightful and multidisciplinary insights into the evolutionary path of corporations and their governance, especially within a dynamic and influential market like that of the USA.

This study aims to observe and discuss an emerging disintermediation in transportation, finance and health care, and explain how these three key areas depend on intermediary institutions that are the fruit of modern corporate governance conditions that find their roots in classical sociological theory.

The authors review and incorporate a diversity of research literature to explain the likelihood for the development and continuation of disintermediation.

The authors map two sociological perspectives (Emile Durkheim’s theory of interdependence and Herbert Spencer’s theory of contracts) to two modern corporate governance theories (resource dependence theory and agency theory). The authors then discuss the challenging social situation resulting from modern corporate governance and show how these conditions create the potential for a continuum of disintermediation across the specific and crucial economic sectors of transportation, finance and health care.

The implications of this theoretical integration can help organizational leaders navigate complex social and strategic issues and prepare for the consequences that may result from the emerging disintermediation.

There remains a critical issue in sport management scholarship in that the field lacks a well-defined framework for delineating practical implications in research. This research aims to answer the following research questions: (1) What types of practical implications can be identified in sport management research? (2) How can sport management research frame the practical implications of the study in a way that is both theoretically sound and useful for practitioners?

Through a scoping review and within the lens of Jaworski (2011)'s framework for managerial relevance, the study examined 427 articles from European Sport Management Quarterly, Journal of Sport Management and Sport Management Review published between 2000 and 2020.

This study presents a five-pronged framework that identifies target managers, organizational tasks, time horizons, philosophical impact and desired outcomes. Furthermore, the current research offers suggestions for how to present managerial implications in sport management research.

The findings shed light on the managerial relevance of the recent sport management body of work, developing an important framework for practical implications for the field to reflect and incorporate into future studies. With a theoretical understanding of how to frame the practical implications of sport management research, the gap between academia and industry can continue to narrow, and the relevance to the industry may be more pertinent than ever before.

The data for this case were obtained primarily through a series of in-person interviews in Penang between the authors and Pete Browning (a pseudonym) from 2017 to early 2019. The authors also consulted secondary data sources, including publicly available material on BMax and “Company B”.

This case examines a key decision, or set of decisions, in the life of a small- to medium-sized management consultancy group, namely, whether they might expand their operations in Southeast Asia, and if so, where. These key decisions came in the wake of their having already established a very modest scale presence there, with an operating base on the island of Penang just off the north western coast of Peninsular Malaysia. The initial establishment of a Southeast Asian branch had been somewhat spontaneous in nature – a former colleague of one of the two managing partners in the USA was on the ground in Malaysia and available: he became the local partner in the firm. But the firm had now been eyeing expansion within the region, with three markets under particular consideration (Singapore, Indonesia and Thailand) and a further two (Vietnam and China) also seen as possible targets, though at a more peripheral level. The questions facing the decision makers were “was it time they expand beyond Malaysia?” and “if so, where?”

This case could be used effectively in undergraduate courses in international business. The key concepts on which the case focuses are the factors affecting market entry, particularly the choice of market and the assessment of potential attractiveness such markets offer.

The lack of progress toward equity in the U.S. is evident across many spheres of society, academia notwithstanding. Women academicians, in particular, face many barriers that prevent them from advancing–including a continued unsupportive climate, competing work and family demands, and interpersonal discrimination. This paper reflects on a collaborative research effort in the United States to enhance allyship for women in academia.

The authors partnered with a major university to hold ally training for department chairs during a university-wide department chair meeting. The authors developed a methodology for creating and implementing training content using a focus-group-based training needs analysis and a diversity science grounded approach to allyship training. The authors followed this up with surveys to assess impact.

Participants indicated that they learned from the training, but participation in follow-up data collection was limited, hampering the ability to conduct rigorous quantitative analyses around intervention impact.

Although the sample size may have been too limited to detect effects, the current study provides an approach that furthers the way in which researchers and practitioners can better assess the impact of allyship to women academicians.

Published research on allies is very limited. The current research examines allies in the context of helping women in academia.

Despite widespread recognition of the importance of first-line supervisors in support of diversity, limited intervention designs are available. The authors add to the extant literature on diversity interventions, while highlighting barriers to rigorous intervention evaluation.

In Denmark, there has been, over decades, an intensified political focus on how humanities research and doctoral education contribute to society. In this vein, the notion of impact has become a central part of the academic language, often associated with terms like use, effects and outputs, stemming from neoliberal ideologies. The purpose of this paper is to explore how humanities academics are living with the impact agenda, as both experienced researchers and as doctoral supervisors educating the next generation of researchers in this post-pandemic era. Specifically, the authors are interested in the supervisor-researcher relationship, that is, the relationship between how the supervisors navigate the impact agenda as researchers and then the way they tell their doctoral students to do likewise.

The authors have studied how the impact agenda is accommodated by humanities academics through a series of qualitative interviews with humanities researchers and humanities PhD supervisors, encompassing questions of how they are living with the expectation of impact and how it is embedded in their university and departmental context.

The study shows that there is no link between how the supervisors navigate the impact agenda in relation to their own research work and then the way they tell their doctoral students to approach it. Within the space of their own research, the supervisors engage in resistance practices towards the impact agenda in terms of minimal compliance, rejection or resignation, whereas in the space of supervision, the impact agenda is re-inscribed to embody other understandings. The supervisors want to protect their students from this agenda, especially in the knowledge that many of them are not going to stay in academia due to limited researcher career possibilities. Furthermore, the paper reveals a new understanding of the impact agenda as having a relational quality, and in two ways. One is through a positional struggle, the reshaping of power relations, between universities (or academics) and society (or the state and the market); the other is as a phenomenon very much lived among academics themselves, including between supervisors and their doctoral students within the institutional context.

This study opens up the impact agenda, showing what it means to be a humanities academic living with the effects of the impact agenda and trying to navigate this. The study is mapping and tracking out the many different meanings and variations of impact in all its volatility for academics concerned about it. In current, post-pandemic times, when manifold expectations are directed towards research and doctoral education, it is important to know more about how these expectations affect and are dealt with by those who are expected to commit to them.