Search results

The present study investigates whether companies that exhibit high performance characteristics in the pre-financial crisis period can maintain their high performance in the financial crisis period of 2007–2009 and, in particular, the post-financial crisis period of 2010–2011.

The current study of 1,473 companies in 25 countries and 66 industries (MSCI index) (1) extends the empirical research of prior studies through the year 2011; (2) identifies the operating characteristics (performance drivers and performance measures) and associated risk factors which were most critical with regard to sustaining, exiting, and entering HPC companies during the five 10-year periods since 1998–2007, and (3) summarizes conclusions about HPC results from the 13 ten-year periods (1989–1998 to 2002–2011) in this stream of research.

(1) Companies that sustain high performance over periods of financial stress clearly excel in asset turnover performance driver and on the performance measures of growth in revenues, profit margin, return on equity and return on assets. Sustaining HPC had less debt than other companies and consistent cash flow yields. Operating turnover ratios became less important in recent years as an indicator of high performance. (2) Although exiting companies maintained profitability, financial risk and liquidity, the key factor in their dropping out of HPC status is their failure to grow revenues. (3) Entering companies did not exhibit the superior performance in all categories.

The results provide strategic direction for management of companies that aspire to HPC status and to maintain HPC status once gained, particularly in times of global financial stress.

In this chapter, the authors build on the voluntary turnover model posited by Allen, Bryant, and Vardaman (2010) with reference to turnover and retention within the United Kingdom. After providing important contextual material about the United Kingdom, the authors explore turnover drivers such as work precarity, as well as the effect of Brexit, which compounds the political and economic uncertainty engendered by the pandemic. Reflecting on the role of external shocks in precipitating withdrawal processes, the authors go on to examine the extent to which job embeddedness impacts on employee turnover, and how alternative opportunities in a UK context may shape the decisions people make to stay with or leave their organizations. Central to our argument is that human resource (HR) practices as perceived by employees play a critical role in shaping attitudes such that people wish to stay in the organization. Cultural values posited by Hofstede and others are likely to significantly impact the way in which employees respond to the HR practices they perceive. Hence, leaders and HR specialists in the United Kingdom need to deploy HR practices which speak to cultural values that stand out in that context, considering that the United Kingdom is characterized by relatively low levels of power distance, low uncertainty avoidance, high individualism and higher than average indulgence.

Taken together, the model provides an overview of key internal and external factors that influence employees’ attitudes at work, their withdrawal behaviors and the ensuing turnover at the organizational-level. The authors conclude by highlighting key research questions raised by the analysis of the model within a UK context, considering where empirical research will add to understanding about turnover and retention in the United Kingdom.

The flow of human capital into and out of organizations is a crucial aspect of organizational functioning, yet the bulk of the theory and research adopts a US-centric perspective. The purpose of this edited volume is for scholars embedded in contexts around the world to describe the relevance and implications (or lack thereof) of turnover theories in their particular context. We take a broad view of talent, focusing on the departure of human capital in general without necessarily restricting the analysis to those who disproportionately contribute to organizational success, and the authors focus on institutional contexts and culture because of their role in shaping employee norms and behaviors. We partnered with author teams embedded in countries and regions with a focus on capturing variance in contexts across the GLOBE clusters: Anglo (England), Confucian Asian (China; South Korea), Eastern European (Bulgaria), Germanic European (Germany), Latin American (Mexico), Latin European (Spain), Middle Eastern (Turkey), Nordic European (Denmark), Southern Asian (India), and Sub-Saharan African (South Africa). We provided each author team discretion to express their own voice, while also providing a common set of goals across chapters for consistency of contribution: a description of the institutional, legal, and cultural context as it relates to employee mobility, a review of context-specific research literature leading to a description of how the mechanisms and processes in prominent turnover theories may operate differently in a particular context, and implications for research and practice related to talent turnover and retention. Considering the contributions as a set, we identify important themes and overarching recommendations for scholars interested in studying employee retention and turnover around the globe.

Purpose – This study investigates the links between strategy, execution, and financial performance with particular attention to the underlying performance drivers that describe how a company executes strategy to create financial value.

Methodology – This study empirically investigates companies in the United States and 22 other countries over a 20-year period (11 successive 10n-year periods: 1988–2007): (1) to compare financial performance characteristics of HPC versus non-HPC; (2) to study the sustainability of performance in HPC; and (3) to identify the companies that exit or enter the HPC classification and the performance drivers and performance measures that characterized the change in HPC classification.

Findings – The 20-year longitudinal results confirm the results of prior studies as to the long-term superior performance of HPC over other companies (Objective 1). For sustaining HPC, results were consistent as to total asset management, profitability, financial risk, and liquidity (Objective 2). Declining HPC companies fail at total asset management, profitability, and operating asset management and significantly increase their financial risk. Emerging HPC companies improve liquidity through improved operating asset management and cash flows (Objective 3).

Practical implications – To become a HPC management must generate increased cash flows from income, manage receivables and inventory vigorously, and reduce its debt in relation to equity. Thereafter, management must concentrate on maintaining its asset turnover and growth in revenues while maintaining its profit margin and not increasing its debt to equity.

Value of the paper – The results provide direction for management of companies that aspire to HPC status and to maintain HPC status.

Prior research shows that companies that achieve high performance excel at certain financial objectives. This chapter addresses the question: Do companies that excel at these financial performance objectives also excel in integrated reporting and sustainability reporting?

We compare a sample of high performance companies (HPC) with a sample of companies that purport to support integrated reporting, and a sample that purport to support sustainability reporting. Our hypotheses are that HPC will equal or exceed the integrated reporting and sustainability reporting practices shown by International Integrated Reporting Committee (IIRC) and Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) companies and US companies will be less at these practices than non-US companies.

Our findings indicate that IIRC companies and GRI companies generally do not meet the high financial performance measures of the HPC. Based on an integrated reporting and sustainability reporting matrix, we show that HPC exhibit equal performance on the practices of sustainability and integrated reporting compared to GRI companies, but both HPC and GRI are lower on these practices than IIRC companies. Also, US companies disclose less information in sustainability reports and integrated reports as compared to non-US companies. Overall, all three groups fall short of full compliance with standards of integrated reporting and sustainability reporting.

This chapter provides evidence as to the financial performance and the current state of integrated reporting and sustainability reporting among HPC, GRI, and IIRC companies. This chapter highlights the global need for a generally accepted set of standards for sustainability and integrated reporting practices.

The “war for talent” is not limited to developed economies but has become a common feature in emerging economies such as India. From the sociocultural perspective, India represents one of the oldest cultural heritages with distinct cultural values. The cultural difference may contribute to explain organizational practices toward talent retention. In the present chapter, the authors focus on the institutional, legal, and cultural context and highlight their uniqueness with respect to the Indian context. Within the institutional context, the authors found that prior to liberalization (which happened in 1990s), the Indian business scene was dominated by public firms or a small enclave of private firms. For both types of organization, turnover hardly mattered, and turnover was indeed negligible. Employees saw firms as “employers for life”: in such a context, voluntary turnover was extremely rare. Further, in the early legal context, it was hard for any private firm to “fire” an employee. Therefore, involuntary turnover was close to nil as well. Things began to change post-liberalization when the Indian scene was dominated by an influx of private players. The Indian mind too accepted turnover to be a part of the corporate life. In the present chapter, the authors provide a snapshot of what, why, and how of employee turnover in the Indian context. The authors specifically focus on what motivates employees to remain with the organization or why do they leave the organization. The authors close the chapter with insights relevant to both academicians and practitioners.