Search results

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the health‐promoting and stigma‐reducing effect of the German school‐based programme “Crazy? So what!”.

A quasi‐experimental longitudinal control‐study was carried out with assessments one week prior to the school programme, immediately after it and three months later. A total of 210 Year 9 and 10 students (aged 13‐18 years) were surveyed in four schools in Saxony, Germany. Data analysis was done descriptively based on frequency distributions. Random effects regression models for unbalanced panel data were used to estimate the change of the outcome variables over time.

At baseline, only 5.2 per cent of the intervention group would talk with their teacher about a mental health problem. Immediately after the programme, this number increased to 10.6 per cent and after three months to 17.9 per cent. There was also a positive, short‐term effect on students' social distance, i.e. an increase in positive attitudes towards those with a mental illness, but this was not sustained over time. By contrast, self‐efficacy proved resistant to change.

This school programme is successful in that the “experts on their own behalf” (young people, who have gone through mental illness) were able to encourage and reassure others on how to face a mental health crisis with more confidence, which also contributes to strengthening students' resilience. The results of this study indicate the importance of sensitising children and youth, but also teachers and other adults to mental health.

The purpose of this paper is to apply insights from social role theory to trust repair, highlighting the underexplored implications of gender. Trust repair may be more difficult following violations that are incongruent with the transgressor’s gender role.

This paper reviews research on trust repair, particularly Kim et al.’s (2004, 2006) discovery that apologizing with internal attributions is best for ability-related violations and denying responsibility is best for integrity-related violations. Propositions about trust repair are grounded in attribution and social role theory.

Trust violations may incur a bigger backlash when they are incongruent with gender roles, particularly for individuals in gender-incongruent professions and cultures with low gender egalitarianism. Men may find ability-related violations more difficult to repair. Women may find repairing benevolence and integrity-related violations more difficult. When apologies are offered, attributions that are consistent with gender roles (internal attributions for men, external attributions for women) may be most effective.

Gender can be a relevant factor in trust repair. Policies and training addressing conflict should consider how these differences manifest.

Gender role differences have largely been overlooked in trust repair. By integrating social role theory and exploring benevolence-based violations, this paper offers a more complete understanding of trust repair.

This paper aims to investigate the impact of the largest shareholder's voting stake on the firm's capital structure decision.

To empirically analyze the influence of the voting stake on leverage, a large sample of 814 exchange-listed firms is applied. The baseline regression analysis is complemented by several robustness tests and a difference-in-difference regression analysis to mitigate endogeneity concerns.

The authors find a negative relationship between the voting stake of the largest shareholder and leverage, consistent with the notion that large, undiversified shareholders have the incentive to reduce risk. Additionally, results reveal that family control has a positive moderating effect, indicating that the negative relationship is less pronounced for family controlled firms.

The authors contribute to the research by suggesting ownership concentration as another determinant of capital structure. Further, the authors add to the literature by showing how the association between ownership concentration and leverage is moderated by family control and that the identity of the largest shareholder is of great importance.

The paper provides important insights to the current debate on the proposal of the European Commission to reintroduce shares with multiple votes as part of the Listing Act. The authors expect the regulation to exacerbate the concentration of voting rights, which results in lower leverage and thus limits corporate growth.

The authors differentiate from previous studies by focusing the largest shareholders' voting stake, instead of using the ownership stake, to assess the impact of ownership concentration on leverage.

When a firm implements certain HR practices, different employees attribute different motives and intentions to the firm with regard to those HR practices. Research on HR attributions has made progress toward understanding the relationship between HR practices and employee outcomes from a process perspective. However, this research is still fragmented and lacks a systematic typology of the different types of HR attributions and a compelling organizing research framework. Furthermore, a number of research gaps and opportunities have emerged regarding the nomological net of employee HR attributions. To address the gaps and capitalize on the opportunities, the authors propose an overarching theory-driven multi-level framework that guides the choice of the antecedents and outcomes of employee HR attributions and explains their relationships along with both mediating and moderating mechanisms. Drawing on signaling theory embedded in the proposed framework, the authors identify and categorize various antecedents of employee HR attributions to explain their relationships. The authors also use several additional theories such as social exchange and the job demands–resources model included in their review to identify and categorize various outcomes of employee HR attributions across levels of analysis (i.e., individual, collective [team/group/unit], organization) and explain their relationships. In addition, the proposed framework explains how individual-level employee HR attributions emerge at the collective level and influence collective processes and outcomes. The authors end their review by pinpointing future research needs and discussing related future research directions.

In this paper, the authors describe the step-by-step approach used to develop a trust-repair construct and a valid measurement scale for assessing employee perceptions of the most effective employee trust-repair practices.

The initial employee trust-repair scale (ETRS) was completed by 282 employees of a non-profit organization and validated by 101 employees of the administrative unit of the Finnish Army.

The 14-item seven-factor model was found to be reliable, valid and stable across the samples.

This study contributes to the current literature on trust repair by presenting the first validated measure for employee trust repair.

The findings provide a valuable instrument for practitioners to assess the state of employee trust-repair practices.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study in an organizational context demonstrating an operationally valid and comprehensive measure for employee trust-repair practices.

The Institute of Medicine's seminal report, To err is human: Building a safer health system, established the national patient safety framework and initiated interest in changing the traditionally punitive healthcare culture. This paper reviews a multidisciplinary literature and offers an attribution framework to explicate the organizational processes that contribute to an industry-wide culture where clinicians are routinely blamed for adverse patient events. Attribution theory is concerned with the manner in which people explain the behaviors of others or themselves by assigning causality for events. To date, attribution theory, though well established in the management literature, has yet to be translated to healthcare. In this paper, we first describe the historical evolution of attribution theory in relation to human behavior in clinical practice and healthcare management and then discuss the work environments in contemporary healthcare organizations. Next, we demonstrate the applicability of attribution theory to healthcare by providing two adverse event exemplar cases. Then, the Healthcare Attribution Error Model is offered to demonstrate how concepts from attribution theory serve as antecedents to the employee cynicism, learned helplessness, organizational inertia, and the emerging Just Culture perspective. We conclude by suggesting attribution theory offers an important theoretical framework that warrants further conceptual development and empirical research. In the quest to produce exceptional healthcare environments where safety and quality are fundamental employee concerns, healthcare managers and clinical professionals need theoretically supported knowledge and evidence-based insights.

To extend family business research, this article proposes and tests a curvilinear relationship between social ties and family firm innovation, with the firm's market orientation and transgenerational intent as moderators.

Representatives from a sample of 150 family firms in the United Arab Emirates completed self-administered questionnaires. Regression analyses on the collected data test the conceptual model and proposed hypotheses.

The empirical study reveals an inverted U-shaped relationship, such that a high market orientation mitigates the diminishing returns of social ties on enhancing family firm innovation. Similarly, at high levels of transgenerational intent, family firm innovation increases due to social ties, instead of exhibiting diminishing returns.

These results help explain contradictory outcomes previously attributed to social ties and offer clear guidelines for how family firms can leverage these ties more effectively to enhance their own innovation.

Research on the effects of feedback frequency has reported mixed findings. To tackle this problem, the current study focuses on specific feedback signs (i.e. negative feedback). By integrating the face management theory and attribution theory, this study examined the mediating effect of trust in supervisors and the moderating effect of employee-attributed performance promotion motives for negative feedback.

A field study with 176 participants and two supplemental experiments with 143 and 100 participants, respectively, were conducted to test the theoretical model.

Results revealed that the frequency of supervisory negative feedback negatively influenced employees’ trust in supervisors, which in turn influenced employees’ perceptions of feedback utility and learning performance. These indirect effects can be alleviated when employees have high degrees of performance promotion attribution for supervisor motives.

This research extends feedback research by integrating feedback frequency with a specific sign of feedback and revealing a moderated mediation effect of the negative feedback frequency.

Since its inception in the 1970s, procedural justice has taken center stage in research on the outcomes of alternative dispute resolution. Such perceptions of procedural fairness, while important, are fairly transient whereas relationships between disputants endure. In the following chapter I argue that more research should explore the relational outcomes of dispute resolution, highlighting relevant insight from social exchange and organizational behavior on affect, attribution, and conflict. In discussing how each can add to the study of alternative dispute resolution, a paradox emerges – arbitration may be better for ongoing relationships than mediation, although the latter is considered more procedurally just.