Search results

This study explores the role of procedural and distributive justice in influencing supervisory trust, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Past work in U.S. settings has shown the differential effects of procedural and distributive justice on job attitudes while other work supports the relationship between both procedural and distributive justice with trust. This study attempts to replicate the US findings and extend them to samples from India, Germany, and China (Hong Kong). A theoretical model was tested via structural equation analysis. Organizational justice was found to be an important predictor of trust in all the samples, indicating the importance of these concepts in organizational life in different cultures. The implications of these results for future research are discussed.

Outlines new database products appearing in the Gale Directory of Databases, a two‐volume work published twice a year. Provides figures for the distribution and percentage of new and newly implemented social science, humanities, and news and general databases, together with a list of the databases including name, vendor and medium. Briefly discusses these by each medium.

Pro-poor innovations are innovations targeted at economically poor consumers. These innovations have the potential to improve consumer wellbeing. However, while take up of some such innovations has been rapid (e.g., mobile phones) take up of others has been slower (e.g., fuel efficient stoves). What explains why some pro-poor innovations fail and some succeed? While the literature on consumer innovation adoption in economically wealthy countries is vast, there is very little literature in the context of the “bottom-of-the-pyramid” (BoP) and subsistence marketplaces. This chapter aims to begin answering this question through a review of the extant literature in the area of consumer innovation adoption, which is integrated with literature in the area of consumption within subsistence marketplaces and the BoP. A conceptual model is proposed which outlines key parameters for marketers and managers. The chapter closes by outlining implications and a future research agenda.

This issue is a selected bibliography covering the subject of leadership.

Self-report questionnaires are the predominant method used in human resource management (HRM) research to assess employees’ work-related psychological constructs (e.g., processes, states, and attributes). However, this method is associated with significant shortcomings, including the introduction of self-serving bias and common method variance when used exclusively. In this chapter, the authors challenge the assumption that individuals themselves are the only accurate source of the self-focused information collected in HRM research. Instead, the authors propose that other-ratings – ratings of a target individual that are provided by a workplace observer, such as a coworker, supervisor, or subordinate – can accurately assess commonly measured work-related psychological constructs. The authors begin by explaining the advantages of other-ratings for HRM research and practice, reviewing the history of other-ratings and how they emerged in the personality and person-perception literature, and outlining how they have been used in HRM research to date. Then, the authors build upon Funder’s (1995) realistic accuracy model to develop a theoretical argument detailing why workplace others should be able to accurately judge how another employee thinks and feels about work. Next, the authors highlight existing evidence in the literature on the accuracy of other-ratings and present the results of a preliminary meta-analysis on the ability of other-ratings to predict self-ratings of work-related psychological constructs. Finally, the authors discuss potential moderators of other-rating accuracy and reflect on a number of practical considerations for researchers looking to use other-ratings in their own work. The authors intend for this chapter to meaningfully contribute to the larger conversation on HRM research methods. Other-ratings are a simple, yet powerful, addition to the methodological toolkit of HRM researchers that can increase flexibility in research design and improve the overall quality of research.

The overall goal of science is to build a valid and reliable body of knowledge about the functioning of the world and how applying that knowledge can change it. As personnel and human resources management researchers, we aim to contribute to the respective bodies of knowledge to provide both employers and employees with a workable foundation to help with those problems they are confronted with. However, what research on research has consistently demonstrated is that the scientific endeavor possesses existential issues including a substantial lack of (a) solid theory, (b) replicability, (c) reproducibility, (d) proper and generalizable samples, (e) sufficient quality control (i.e., peer review), (f) robust and trustworthy statistical results, (g) availability of research, and (h) sufficient practical implications. In this chapter, we first sing a song of sorrow regarding the current state of the social sciences in general and personnel and human resources management specifically. Then, we investigate potential grievances that might have led to it (i.e., questionable research practices, misplaced incentives), only to end with a verse of hope by outlining an avenue for betterment (i.e., open science and policy changes at multiple levels).

This is the second in a continuing series of articles summarizing and commenting on new database products and the first one covering the topics of social sciences, humanities, general, multidisciplinary and news. Companion articles covering science, technology and medicine (which appeared in the previous issue of Online & CDROM Review) and covering business and law (to appear in the next issue) complement this article. The articles are based on the newly‐appearing database products in the Gale Directory of Databases (GDD). This was created by merging Computer‐Readable Databases: A Directory and Data Sourcebook (CRD) together with the Directory of Online Databases (DOD) and the Directory of Portable Databases (DPD). The first of GDD was published in January 1993.

THE PRESIDENT of the Library Association for 1929–30 will be Lord Balneil, the son of the Earl of Crawford, and it is difficult to think of a better choice. Lord Balneil has an admirable bibliographical ancestry—if we may so put it—seeing that his grandfather, the 26th Earl of Crawford, was President in 1898; and the Haigh Hall Library at the family seat is one of the noble private libraries of England. Lord Balneil is the Chairman of the Appeal Committee for the endowment of the School of Librarianship and so has already identified himself in a practical manner with the cause of libraries.