Search results

The authors sought to examine how hegemonic masculinity and sexism functioned in a storied, historic corporation, a test of MAnne's (2017) claim that misogyny is a structural phenomenon rather than being about anger and hatred of individual men.

This study was an archaeological excavation of discourse in a well-documented employment relationship. The researchers were informed by feminist poststructuralism and drew on critical discourse analysis of labour arbitration and media from the case of a woman, twice wrongfully dismissed.

The authors concluded that the employer was the site of hegemonic masculinity, which led to a train conductor being repeatedly targeted and demeaned in a bad faith and discriminatory manner for disrupting the conductor’s employer's patriarchal strictures. The authors found that misogyny shaped the conductors’s experience as a repeated pattern of abuse, a gendered feature of a patriarchal organisation, and a coercive matter of maintaining the conductor’s subordination. The authors also found that the male arbitrator in the conductor’s second dismissal arbitration became complicit in misogyny by penalising the conductor for acts of resistance, giving the employer what the employer wanted, to purge the conductor for violating the patriarchal norms.

The authors traced how a historic corporation demonstrated vulnerability to the resistance of a lone female worker, who faced discriminatory, disturbing and bad faith managerial behaviour in the creation of the conductor’s own meaning and resistant identity. The authors concluded that evidence of the regulation of employee relations, such as the decisions of arbitrators, can reveal the processes and outcomes of work under hegemonic masculinity, sexism and misogyny.

We investigate how firing notification procedures influence wage growth. Using a sample of 33 countries over the period 2006–2015, we show that administrative requirements in cases of dismissal have a positive and significant effect on wage growth. The result is robust even after controlling for the endogeneity of the firing notification restrictions, the involvement of third parties in the wage bargaining process, the minimum wage, the firms' training policy, and the composition of employment. These findings suggest that firing notification procedures foster the growth of wages by increasing the bargaining power of incumbent workers.

Following Goldberg’s paradigm, this study aims to investigate whether women and men are at risk of differential treatment by HR professionals in recruitment and dismissal processes and focuses on the impact of exogenous factors, such as discrimination and gender norms.

A total of 155 individuals with experience as HR professionals participated in a randomised vignette study. In Task 1, they evaluated three applicants (all three either men or women) for the post of regional sales manager based on the applicant’s competences, hireability, likeability and proposed salary. In Task 2, participants were asked to select one of the six employees for dismissal and provide a rationale for their choice.

In Task 1, female applicants were offered significantly lower salaries than male applicants. In addition, average and low-performing male applicants were assessed as less likeable than identical females. In Task 2, the willingness to dismiss increased when employees with frequent absences were presented as men.

By involving a sample of HR professionals, the study contributes to the literature and practice by highlighting the differential treatment of women and men in the labour market. While women are likely to experience direct discrimination in the form of significantly lower pay offers, men may suffer a backlash due to lower educational attainment and absenteeism. The findings suggest that the labour market situation for women is complex and affected by norms and expectations requiring men to behave in a masculine and career-oriented way.

Deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) are the tool of choice for federal prosecutors when adjudicating corporate misconduct. A DPA is a negotiation that permits the allegedly guilty party from undergoing a criminal trial if they avoid committing further wrongdoing for a specified period. This paper aims to examine whether DPAs are a beneficial mechanism for the criminal justice system to use while adjudicating corporate misconduct. By conducting in-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews with 24 practitioners in the legal field and white-collar crime experts, this study identifies the shortcomings and advantages of DPAs and highlights what policy enactments might enhance their application. The study contributes to the existing literature by expanding the narratives used by judicial officials, legal practitioners and white-collar crime scholars on the role of DPAs.

The current study is an in-depth qualitative analysis that explores judicial actors’ and white-collar crime scholars’ opinions on the adoption of DPAs to adjudicate corporate misconduct. The literature on DPAs is currently derived primarily from law and literature reviews published by legal scholars. Clandestine negotiations are not accessible to the public and are frequently kept in sealed files unless a breach of contract occurs, resulting in the case proceeding to trial. Hence, a qualitative analysis is the best approach to evaluate the effectiveness of DPAs. Further, little evidence is available that focuses on the opinions of professionals who have participated in these agreements. The interviews were conducted over Zoom and lasted an average of 43 min, with the longest interview spanning 1 h and 45 min and the shortest interview being 14 minutes. A non-probability sampling method – specifically, snowball sampling – was used to generate a total sample of 24 legal professionals and white-collar crime scholars. Initial participants were found by contacting law offices specializing in white-collar crime litigation and using current networks to attain access to a broader range of participants. Then, 19 participants provided referrals throughout the study. The final sample consisted of nine government officials, eight legal practitioners and seven white-collar crime academics experts. One of the government official interviews was excluded from the final research project due to a lack of expertise in the field of white-collar crime. The interview questions were designed to promote in-depth conversation and insight into personal opinions on the adoption of DPAs. Several inquiries highlighted whether DPAs are an appropriate response to corporate misconduct and whether they reduced recidivism through their intended deterrent effect. Furthermore, several descriptive questions sought to understand which criminal justice actors support the adoption of DPAs in white-collar crime cases and why. Coding of the data was first conducted individually by each author. The researchers then compared thematic findings that reflected consensus.

An immediate theme identifiable in the research is the intrinsic value that DPAs offer in adjudicating corporate wrongdoing. As indicated by a participant, corporate misconduct is not “black or white,” stressing the importance of prosecutors having a middle ground between criminal prosecution and the dismissal of charges. A judicial official indicated that “DPAs are another essential arrow in a prosecutor’s quiver – and something a defense attorney can bargain for” (Respondent 5). Seven government officials and legal practitioners noted that you are unable to send a corporation to jail, and you do not simply want to put them out of business; thus, a DPA is the only tool in which the government can mandate structural change in a company without dismantling the entire entity. Only three academics concurred with the government officials and legal practitioners that DPAs are beneficial and offer prosecutors a vital middle ground. One academic, for example, stated that “DPAs have given U.S Attorney offices that ability to be involved for a considerable amount of time in a company's business, while simultaneously promoting change within the entity” (Respondent 14). Additionally, DPAs ensure that corporations are held criminally liable without triggering an endless cycle of collateral consequences for innocent third parties. One legal practitioner, for example, stated: “Just look at the Enron case; they charged Arthur Andersen with obstruction of justice and dismantled the entire entity they made it where the business was never going to come back. A small subset of individuals, in this case, should have been held responsible but instead, hundreds and if not thousands of people were harmed. With this in mind, DPAs are extremely important, in that it limits collateral consequences because DPAs take a more holistic view that criminal prosecution does not consider” (Respondent 21). Another respondent highlighted that “DPAs are the only tool available that can be employed to change an entire organization structurally” (Respondent 20). Ultimately, the findings suggest that there is a consensus among respondents that DPAs are an appropriate response to corporate misconduct, particularly when the agreement stipulates that a company must hire an external compliance monitor and update their current compliance system. Overall, participants emphasized that these stipulations promote a sense of corporate accountability, provide for the dismissal of guilty employees and mandate structural change. The majority of the respondents (n = 20) insisted that DPAs are advantageous, yet a subset of participants were skeptical of their use in white-collar crime prosecutions. One legal practitioner, for example, noted that “DPAs are political creatures that are awarded as political favors to the largest of corporations that our economy relies upon” (Respondent 17). Another government official confirmed this statement, indicating that “DPAs are a mere slap on the wrist for large corporations – they simply see it as doing business” (Respondent 6). Four academic participants emphasized that DPAs are typically negotiated with multi-level corporations and are not extended to the small businesses that suffer the dire consequences of criminal prosecution. One academic, for instance, stressed that “the question becomes is it fairly applied and being implemented properly. Larger companies are more likely to receive and benefit from a DPA, thus, raising the question of fairness” (Respondent 12). Another academic who was previously a government official stated: “DPAs risk abuse – there have been several instances where prosecutors have forced companies to donate money to favored charities and overstepped their powers. Sometimes DPAs also come with monitors. For example, banks typically have to pay for the auditor, and it becomes extremely intrusive, and it it not clear that they are efficient.”

Several limitations exist in this research. First, it is not a comprehensive study that is representative of the larger population, which limits generalizability. Given the contention of research on DPAs, this qualitative research contributes to the literature, and its findings are likely transferable to multiple settings in which DPAs are used. Second, DPAs are processed and drafted differently across jurisdictions; thus, comparing DPAs across state levels and among departments in the federal government would be equivalent to comparing apples to oranges. This comparison is yet another limitation to the study because criminal justice practitioners operate in both the state and federal jurisdictions. Another challenge in the current study and something that likely will be a problem for future researchers is the difficulty of gaining access to experts in an exclusive field of criminal justice, such as federal prosecutors, Department of Justice officials, federal judges and elite corporate defense attorneys. Ultimately, several obstacles arose during the study, particularly when recruiting participants to gain a large enough sample size to conduct meaningful analysis. This resulted in smaller sample size but rich, in-depth data that achieved saturation among participants.

Several policy implications are identifiable. First, it appears that DPAs are a mainstay of white-collar crime prosecution. No participants advocate for their complete removal from the prosecution process. Participants highlight that DPAs occupy an essential middle-ground between dismissal and criminal charges. Without this mechanism, prosecution would be impeded, and holding corporate criminal actors liable would increasingly become formidable. Although it appears that the system cannot function without DPAs, several respondents emphasize that we must begin to hold individuals accountable alongside corporations. Another policy implication that a minority of participants mentioned within the study involves ensuring that our compliance monitoring system operates appropriately. A majority of participants note that the overarching stipulation that promotes structural change within an organization is adopting a functioning compliance monitoring system, thus, emphasizing the importance of this process operating smoothly and ethically. The selection of an independent compliance monitor may be problematic. For example, a former government compliance monitor notes that not all monitors are experts in the field they are overseeing. A pharmaceutical expert, for example, may be attempting to regulate an automotive organization, which may present unique challenges. An agency of federal professionals dedicated to supervising specific industries such as automotive, pharmaceutical and financial would ensure that organizations are actually implementing the terms of the DPA.

Ultimately, the current research highlights the necessity of empirically studying the benefits and drawbacks of such agreements. Future research on the topic remains onerous due to the scarcity of a centralized database that contains extensive details of DPAs. The present study suggests that the verdict on DPAs is undecided, with more than half of the study's criminal justice professionals advocating for their continued and even increased use. However, about half of the participants, particularly academics, called attention to the agreements’ potential bias. The disagreement among participants is most contentious in the consideration of a DPA centralized database which would immensely aid future research and policy advancements.

This study aims to examine the effects of firm performance on chief executive officer (CEO) turnover and the moderating role of CEO attributes on the firm performance–CEO turnover relationship.

Probit regressions were used to examine the relationship between various CEO attributes and CEO turnover and the moderation effect of firm performance on the CEO attributes–CEO turnover relationship. The sample comprises firms from the FTSE 350 Index covering the period 1999–2018.

The results indicate that firm performance negatively and significantly impacts CEO turnover. Further analysis reveals that selected CEO attributes, namely, CEO internal experience, CEO network size and CEO age, moderate the relationship between firm performance and CEO turnover. Specifically, CEO internal experience and performance combine to reduce the likelihood of CEO turnover. However, CEO network size and age when combined with firm performance increase the likelihood of CEO turnover.

The results imply that boards should pay more attention to CEO attributes in their decisions to hire and fire executive managers as these factors may affect a wide variety of firm outcomes.

This paper makes key contributions to the CEO turnover and corporate governance literature by providing evidence of key factors other than performance that can affect the CEO dismissal decision. Specifically, this study shows that CEO attributes such as CEO internal experience, CEO networks and CEO age far outweigh the importance of performance as a factor influencing CEO turnover decisions.

Professional sports teams employ highly paid managers and coaches to train players and make tactical and strategic team decisions. A large literature analyzes the impact of manager decisions on team outcomes. Empirical analysis of manager decisions requires a quantifiable proxy variable for manager decisions. Previous research focused on manager dismissals, tenure on teams, the number of substitutions made in games or the number of healthy players on rosters held out of games for rest, generally finding small positive impacts of manager decisions on team success.

The authors quantify manager decisions by developing a novel measure of game-specific coaching decisions: the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (HHI) of playing-time across players on a team roster over the course of a season.

Evidence from two-way fixed effects regression models explaining observed variation in National Basketball Association team winning percentage over the 1999–2000 to 2018–2019 seasons show a significant association between managers’ allocation of playing time and team success. A one standard deviation change in playing-time HHI that reflects a flattened distribution of player talent is associated with between one and two additional wins per season, holding the talent of players on the team roster constant. Heterogeneity exists in the impact across teams with different player talent.

This is one of the first papers to examine playing-time concentration in the NBA. The results are important for understanding how managerial decisions about resource allocation lead to sustained competitive advantage. Linking coaching decisions to wins can help teams to better promote this core product.

This study aims to adopt the microfoundation perspective to investigate undesirable knowledge rejection by individuals in organizations in the context of counterproductive knowledge behavior (CKB). The paper advances a conceptual framework of the conditions of knowledge rejection by individuals and their respective knowledge rejection behavior types.

This study reviews the limited literature on knowledge rejection and outline a set of antecedents leading to rejecting knowledge as well as a set of different types of knowledge rejection behaviors. This study reviews and synthesizes articles on knowledge rejection from a microfoundation perspective.

The proposed conceptual framework specifies four particular conditions for knowledge rejection and outlines four respective knowledge rejection behavior types resulting from these conditions. Recipients’ lack of capacity leads to ineptitude, lack of motivation leads to dismissal of knowledge, lack of alignment with the source leads to disruption and doubts about the validity of external knowledge lead to resistance. The authors treat these behaviors as variants of CKB, as they can hinder the productive use of knowledge resources in the organization.

Further investigation of both knowledge rejection causes and the resulting knowledge rejection behaviors will ensure a more thorough grasp of the relationships between them, both in terms of the inherent nature of these relationships and their dynamics that would likely be context-sensitive. Although this study focuses only on the individual level, future studies can conduct multi-level analyses of undesirable knowledge rejection, including team and organizational levels.

Practitioners can use the framework to identify, diagnose and manage knowledge rejection more meaningfully, accurately and purposefully in their organizations. This study offers valuable insights for managers facing undesirable knowledge rejection, and provides recommendations on how to address this behavior, improves the constructive use of knowledge resources and the effectiveness of knowledge processes in their organizations. Managers should be aware of undesirable knowledge rejection, its potential cost or concealed cost to their organizations and develop strategies to reduce or prevent it.

The paper contributes toward understanding the relatively neglected topic of knowledge rejection in the knowledge management field and offers a new way of conceptualizing the phenomenon. It proposes that there are two types of knowledge rejection – undesirable and desirable – and advances a more precise and up-to-date definition of undesirable knowledge rejection. Responding to calls for more research on CKBs, the study examines a hitherto unresearched behavior of knowledge rejection and provides a foundation for further study in this area.

As one of the most influential theories in strategic management, Hambrick and Mason’s Upper Echelons Theory has yielded significant conceptual and empirical advancements linking executive characteristics and perceptions to decision-making. Specifically, work on this theory consistently shows that CEOs’ decisions are biased by personal characteristics to the benefit and detriment of firms. While this stream of research links executive decision processes to outcomes such as executive dismissals, analyst evaluations, and press coverage, surprisingly little is understood about if and whether the information CEOs convey is subject to the same filtering process by a firm’s key evaluators. Thus, in this chapter, we aim to extend Upper Echelons Theory by positing that a double filtering process occurs whereby the cognitive aids CEOs use can be informed by not only their cognitive base and values but also the characteristics and priorities of those who evaluate the nonverbal and verbal signals they send. To do so, we build on recent conceptual and empirical advancements to make a case for the decision-making biases and tendencies that influence signal interpretation by three key evaluator groups internal and external to the firm: boards of directors, financial analysts, and the media. We conclude by considering the implications of evaluators’ information filtering and how this more holistic view of Upper Echelons decision-making can enable executive teams to be strategic with the cognitive aids they use to influence evaluations.