Search results

In this chapter, we explore gender equity issues in relation to the governance of sport in Wales. Our focus is primarily on Sport Wales (SW), the national agency responsible for developing and promoting sport and physical activity in Wales and for distributing National Lottery and Welsh Government funding. As a public authority, SW has a statutory responsibility to promote equality and eliminate direct and indirect discrimination. Their recent policy commitments express a desire to advance equality and promote inclusion and diversity within sports organisations in Wales. They also set the agenda for National Governing Bodies (NGBs) in Wales, in terms of providing a policy framework for understanding and pursuing gender equity in sport and sport governance. In this chapter, we present a snapshot of the governance and leadership policy landscape for Welsh sport, with a specific focus on gender equity. We present data collected from publicly available online policy documents relating to SW, and their NGB partners, relevant to gender equity provision. Based on the data, we suggest that there is evidence of progress in terms of the numbers of women on boards in Wales as well as the creation of gender equity policies within NGBs in Wales. We argue, however, that progress is inconsistent across the different NGBs in Wales, and it is less clear whether sport governing bodies can implement policies to effectively challenge organisational culture and ethos. We concluded by suggesting future Wales specific research priorities on this topic.

Efficiency, equity, equality and parity all have shortcomings in both procedural and substantive values. The primary readjustment required is to re‐stress political analysis, even though it may deal with fluid concepts such as power and values. Secondly, there is a need to reverse the apparent tendency among policy analysts to reduce real political and social conflicts to the level of technological problems which only need more resources or technological innovations in order to be “solved”. The fluidity of values such as equity, equality and parity means that they are malleable and can be changed over time via education; social policies can thus be re‐shaped.

This chapter considers the commitment of gender equality at universities and how it is expressed and measured via a gender equality scorecard. The Gender Equality Scorecard is seen as an accountability measure that seeks to build awareness of the magnitude of the problem (if it exists), interpret the meaning of the (in)equities, and move to action. It is regarded as a supportive mechanism to the development and implementation of a Gender Policy as articulated in The UWI Strategic Plan, 2012–2017. The development of a Scorecard is also seen as an example of collaborative governance in action that fosters engagement, commitment, and action across an institution. The proposed model draws upon the experiences of the Gender Equity Scorecards used by international development agencies and other higher educational institutions. The chapter proposes a framework and methodology using staff and student data from The University of the West Indies for the period 1990–1991 to 2011–2012 to build a Gender Scorecard. Finally, the Scorecard is seen as a tool to track performance related to the creation and enhancement of relevant structures and processes to institutionalize gender equality into the functions, operations, and governance of institutions.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the connections between state education finance distribution models and student achievement. To date, lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of state finance systems have been heard in 45 states; the judicial interpretation of the requirement to provide equality of educational opportunity has led to changes in finance distribution models as well as the implementation of accountability policy.

The study included district level finance and achievement data from five states. Researchers reviewed the relevant judicial interpretation of the finance system, the accountability policy, and the finance distribution system. Next, researchers calculated the equity of both the finance distribution model and measures of student achievement. Finally, an equity ratio was developed and calculated to discern the degree to which state distribution models resulted in equitable measures of student achievement.

Findings reveal that no state has both an equitable system of finance and equitable measures of student achievement. The way that states define proficiency significantly impacts the percentage of students that reach proficiency. This impacts the provision of equality of opportunity.

Traditionally, the measurement of equity has only been applied to finance distribution systems. The authors of this paper have applied these concepts to measures of student achievement and aligned the two concepts with the equity ratio. Since states are charged with providing sufficient resources to enable students to reach proficiency, an understanding of the interaction between resources and achievement is a critical tool in analyzing the provision of equal opportunity.

The purpose of this study is to examine justice perceptions using potential employee conflict over provision of a work‐life benefit, and to link the findings to existing theory and research in organizational justice.

A total of 208 undergraduates at a liberal arts college responded to a version of the scenario. There were six versions, representing varied organizational conditions, with hypotheses based on both theory and previous empirical work.

Students were asked whether they preferred equity (contribution), equality or need as the allocation norm to be used in the scenario. Under all organizational conditions, equity is favored over the other two norms, but some differences emerge. Organizational conditions that are less empowering and more stressful lead to higher preference for equality and need than when organizations are seen as treating employees well. In contrast with some earlier findings, women are more likely than men to prefer equity as the basis for the decision; but women's choices differ significantly between the long hours and family‐friendly scenarios, with a pronounced shift to need as the allocation norm in the long hours condition.

Although some researchers have examined organizational justice norms in relation to work‐life benefits, little attention has been shown to the mechanisms involved in creating perceptions of unfairness relative to these benefits. The study demonstrates the importance of organizational context in determining when these benefits may be perceived as being fair, thereby averting the potential for conflict between employees.

Involves a role‐play in which Chinese and US managers allocate a hypothetical bonus to a work group. Indicates that Chinese managers employed three distributive rules (i.e. equity, equality and need) placing greatest emphasis on equality. In contrast, US managers employed two distributive rules, equity and equality, placing the greatest emphasis on equity. Chinese managers placed significantly greater emphasis on the need rule than did US managers, although very small amounts were allocated on the basis of need. Discusses implications for appropriate pay design.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of two key team‐based pay characteristics – namely reward allocation procedures (i.e. reward based on norms of equity, equality or some combination of the two) and incentive intensity – on both the amount and type of help given to one another among members of outcome‐interdependent teams.

A total of 180 undergraduate students participate in a laboratory simulation with a 2 × 3 experimental design. Servicing virtual “clients,” participants receive pre‐scripted requests for assistance from anonymous teammates. ANOVA and hierarchical regression analyses are used to test the hypotheses.

Relative to equity‐oriented group‐based pay structures, equality‐oriented pay structures are found to be associated with both significantly more help giving in general and more of the type of help likely to enhance group‐level competencies (i.e. autonomous help). Incentive intensity strengthens the effects of reward allocation on the amount (but not the type) of help giving.

While the short time frame of the simulation poses a significant threat to external validity, the findings suggest that team‐based compensation practices may provide organizational leaders with an important tool by which to shape critical, helping‐related team processes, with potentially important implications for both team learning and performance.

Managers interested in promoting capacity‐building and helping among team members should avoid allocating team rewards strictly on the basis of the individual contribution.

This paper provides the first empirical findings regarding how alternative modes of team‐based reward distribution may influence key group processes among members of outcome interdependent teams.

This chapter undertakes a comparative analysis of discourses on equity found in OECD and Norwegian policy documents. This is an interesting area to study as the OECD is found to be an important agenda setter for many countries' educational policies. A comparative analysis of OECD and Norwegian educational policies is especially interesting because the OECD is often found to be pressing for a neo-liberal agenda, while Norway has a socialist-alliance government. Combining Basil Bernstein's theoretical framework with key principles from Critical Discourse Analysis, the author investigates power relations within OECD and Norwegian educational policy documents. Two equity models serve as analytical tools: equity through equality and equity through diversity, which can be described along the three dimensions: de-/centralization, de-/standardization and de-/specialization. Using the analysis of two key documents on equity in education from the OECD and Norway, the author points out the similarities and differences in two documents. Both the OECD and Norwegian approaches to equity in education can be related to a centralized decentralization or a conservative modernization of education. However, there are also important differences between the two documents. For example, the Norwegian ministry has more emphasis on equity through equality and is less influenced by neo-liberalism and authoritarian populism than the OECD. In conclusion, the author argues that neither of the two described approaches appears to improve the inequities in education. A different way of targeting these inequities could be based on critical theory and research.

This review article focuses on the factors that affect the selection and implementation of three principles of distributive justice (i.e., equity, equality, and need) to reward systems in group and organizational settings. After presenting an overview of the assumptions, goals, and possible consequences associated with each of the three perspectives, the article then describes the moderating factors influencing distribution rule preferences across four levels of analysis: (1) the interorganizational, (2) the intraorganizational, (3) the work group, and (4) the individual. Some of the variables discussed include cross‐cultural differences, reward system implementation, task interdependency, work group climate, and individual characteristics. This material is then summarized through the use of a new conceptual model for describing allocation rule preferences. The article concludes with suggestions for future research.

Introducing the concepts of equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI), the chapter provides an overview of frameworks and approaches used to manage workforce diversity. First, the authors introduce the notion of the old deal based on the uneven relationship between human diversity, nature, and technological innovation. The chapter then explores the new deal between humans, nature, and technology. The authors are providing cases from the EU, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Iceland to show the emergence of the new deal in managing diversity.