Search results

This paper aims to analyze the direct and indirect effects of investor protection on forced CEO turnover.

The authors investigate 5,175 firm-year observations from 16 European countries over 2012–2018, collect data on four national investor protection indicators, identify 196 forced CEO turnovers and use multiple logistic regression models.

The results show that a reduction in the degree of investor protection significantly increases the probability of a forced change of the company’s CEO. Furthermore, when the degree of investor protection increases, directors are attributed a lower degree of responsibility in the event of a decline in earnings performance. Therefore, the relation between a decrease in profitability and a forced change of CEO is reduced.

The research is focused on countries belonging to the European Economic Area and most of the investor protection indicators are derived from surveys. Concerning policy implications, the findings suggest that regulators should focus on the effective enforcement of investor protection mechanisms.

The results confirm that characteristics at the country level have an impact on corporate decisions, highlighting the importance of increasing the degree of investor protection as a means of mitigating agency conflicts and improving stewardship.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study explores a relatively underinvestigated topic as it uses investor protection indicators to jointly evaluate both direct and indirect effects on forced changes of CEO through cross-national research.

Governments faced formidable challenges in coordinating public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to enhance the understanding of effective organizational leadership during crises by investigating the factors influencing the turnover of health leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil.

Using primary data encompassing all appointments and dismissals of federal and state health secretaries, this paper conducted a quantitative analysis of the relational and reputational factors that contributed to leader turnover during the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper also examined whether leaders’ management and public health experience increase the duration of tenure.

States encountered significant challenges in retaining experienced and effective leadership during the health emergency, primarily due to political conflicts in policymaking and, to a lesser extent, allegations of corruption. Furthermore, leaders with expertise in public health were found to be less likely to be removed from office. However, managerial experience did not prolong the tenure of state health secretaries during the emergency.

Since most health leaders have public health and management experience, the contributions of each factor to the duration of a secretary’s tenure are difficult to separate and analyze separately.

This study provides empirical insights into what factors drive health leader turnover during major health emergencies.

During major health emergencies, health leaders often strongly disagree with elected officials on the response. This paper test how crisis leadership theories help explain state health leaders’ duration in one of the world’s largest public health systems during the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper find that policy disagreements contributed to significant turnover.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first that are aware of that uses novel primary data on public health executive leader characteristics and turnover causes in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. It provides empirical evidence contributing to the crisis leadership literature by examining health leader turnover in one of the world’s largest public health systems.

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.

The efficient functioning of the labour market is an important factor that affects long-term economic growth. The interaction of supply and demand on the labour market is influenced by institutions which change the motivations and behaviour of economic actors and, ultimately, the flexibility of the labour market. There is no consensus in the literature on the effect these institutions have on labour market outcomes. This chapter focuses on a set of selective labour market institutions (employment protection legislation, minimum wages, unemployment benefits, labour taxation, trade unions and active labour market policies), compares their relevance to other European Union (EU) countries and through the lens of the Beveridge curve it tries to evaluate their impact on effectiveness of the Czech labour market. The international comparison shows that most of the considered institutions/regulations do not reach such importance (except employment protection legislation) and that they have a significant negative effect on labour market outcomes. Even the model of the Beveridge curve does not indicate that the Czech labour market is characterised by rigidities that would impair the effectiveness of a matching process at the aggregate level.

For almost half a century, society has been aware of the existence of a glass ceiling, a term that describes the invisible barriers that hinder women’s access to power positions despite having equal or greater qualifications, skills and merits than their male counterparts. Nowadays, although there are signs of slow progress, women are still underrepresented in the upper echelons of large corporations and the risk of reversing the progress made in gender parity has increased because of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper contributes to previous literature by analysing the impact that the uncertainty and cognitive effects associated with COVID-19 in 2020 had on the presence of women on the board of directors and whether this impact has been moderated by the regulatory and policy system on gender quotas in place at the time.

To test the authors' research hypotheses, the authors selected the major global companies worldwide with economic-financial and non-financial information available in the Thomson Reuters EIKON database over the 2015–2020 period. As a result, the authors' final sample is made up of 1,761 companies from 52 countries with different institutional settings that constitute an unbalanced data panel of 8,963 observations. The nature of the dependent variables requires the use of logistic regressions. The models incorporate the terms to control for any unobservable heterogeneity and the error term. Any endogeneity issues were addressed by considering the explanatory variables with a time lag.

The authors find that almost 30% of the companies downsized their boards in 2020. This decision resulted in more female than male directors being made redundant, causing a reversal in the fulfilment of gender quotas focussed on ensuring balanced boards with a female presence of 40% or more. This effect was enhanced in countries with hard-law regulation because the penalty for non-compliance with gender quotas had led to a significant increase in the size of these bodies in previous years through the inclusion of the required number of female directors. In contrast, the reduction in board size in soft-law countries does not differ from that in laissez-faire countries, lacking any moderating effect or impact on the number of female board members dismissed as a result of the pandemic.

This paper aims to contribute to current knowledge by analysing the impact that the countries' regulatory and normative systems on gender parity on boards of directors have had on the decisions made in relation to leadership positions, moderating the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on gender equality at a global level.

This paper analyzes the ways in which accounting enables operations managers to enter and perform multiple roles in their interplay with organizational groups on the shop floor and in management, and the associated negotiations that operations managers have with “the self.”

Using field-based studies in a mining organization, the study draws on Goffman’s backstage–frontstage metaphor to analyze how operations managers enter and perform several roles with the aid of accounting.

The findings show that accounting legitimizes operations managers when they cross organizational boundaries, as accounting gives them an “entry ticket” that legitimizes their presence with the group. Accounting further allows operations managers to embrace more than one role by “putting on a mask” to become an outsider or insider in relation to a group. In performing their roles, operations managers exhibit varying attributes and knowledge. Accounting can thereby be withheld from, or shared with, organizational groups. The illusion of accounting as deterministic presented frontstage is not necessarily negotiated that way backstage. Rather, alternatives discussed backstage often become silenced in the frontstage performance. The study concludes that operations managers cross boundaries, embrace roles and exert agency as they navigate with accounting, enrolling it into their performance simultaneously as they backstage reflect upon accounting and its role for their everyday work.

This study relies on the frontstage/backstage metaphor to visualize the discrepancies in how accounting is enrolled into role performances and how seemingly categorical fronts do not necessarily share that dominant position backstage.

This chapter discusses how the real options theory can be useful for understanding the adoption of human resources management (HRM) practices. The authors review how the real options theory has provided insights into the processes through which firms manage uncertainties involved in the adoption of HRM practices. The authors offer propositions for future HRM research from the real options perspective. The authors contend that analyzing HRM practice adoptions through the lens of real options theory can enhance our understanding of the mechanisms through which firms choose which HRM practices to adopt and how they adjust the timing, scale, and methods of investment in these practices. Specifically, the authors suggest that differences in information relevant to valuation of HRM options are the source of distinct choices of HRM options across firms. Finally, the authors propose advancing knowledge on HRM practice adoptions by using a portfolio of options approach, as well as considering factors like competitors, path dependence, and switching options.