Search results

The authors argue that two of the significant legal issues that must be solved if cross‐border payment versus payment, netting and collateral arrangements are to achieve their full potential involve choice of law and finality. First, the parties must be able to determine, in advance, what law will govern and, second, each payment, netting event or security interest must achieve a sufficient degree of finality under applicable law.

The purpose of this paper is to reconceptualize the notion of relations underlying performance measurement models (PMMs) and explicate the ample exciting research opportunities that this reconceptualized viewpoint offers.

This is a conceptual paper, which primarily builds on and extends the contemporary research that challenges the traditional viewpoint that cause-and-effect relations are a necessary element of every PMM.

The reconceptualized viewpoint suggests that a PMM can be built on any combination of cause-and-effect, finality and logical relations, as opposed to only cause-and-effect relations. This paper presents several exciting research opportunities that the reconceptualized perspective offers.

The different types of relations underlying PMMs and their appropriate validation techniques are a relatively novel concept and also, a complex phenomenon which has received very limited attention in the accounting literature. This paper extends this nascent literature by outlining the research implications of this novel concept.

The research aims at addressing the way in which linkages based on qualitative causality could be preferred in designing a balanced scorecard (BSC), by applying a cost-benefit judgment with respect to the complexity of defining strong, statistically reliable cause-and-effect relations among performance measures.

The authors review the way in which cause-and-effect relations across the BSC have been developed based on a case study of BSC implemented in an Italian bank collecting data by in-depth interviews and company’s internal archives.

The research reveals how the ambiguity, or “blurred nature”, of strategic linkages is recognized in the empirical setting of an bank, facing a highly uncertain and complex environment and how the orthodox tools of strategy maps and explicit cause-and-effect linkages prescribed by the theoretical literature are avoided by the human actors. Despite these omissions, the BSC is nevertheless effective. As the case shows, it generated a “democracy” where individuals and departments communicate, commit and collaborate in an effort to implement strategy. The research also shows the role of the BSC in heightening the importance and awareness of performance evaluation among the actors.

The research provides practitioners with insights into how to design and manage cause-and-effect relationships in BSC. In particular, evidence is provided that finality linkages in BSC may be successful in use and predictive capabilities, according with expectations and purposes of the organization’s “climate of control”, in a context in which the cost-benefit philosophy in implementing BSC is followed.

The paper addresses an issue of practical relevance in the implementation of BSC showing a discrepancy between theoretical and practical meaning of causality. Besides the research highlights, the extent to which linkages across the BSC perspectives (and related measures and variables) can only be based on individual assumptions about the means to an end and based on qualitative assertions (finality).

This paper develops and tests a new integrative theoretical framework for the study of workplace conflict that links the literatures of such disciplines as organization behavior, industrial relations, management, psychology, sociology, and social movement. It provides testable hypotheses where conflict is structurally blocked by laws, organizational rules, or social norms. It is hypothesized that a blockage of one expression will cause conflict to take on more covert forms of that same expression and to shift to other permitted forms.

In a test of the theory in municipal collective bargaining, the paper found that conflict that was structurally blocked in the form of strikes was redirected to both covert collective actions (sick-outs, slowdowns, etc.), other permitted collective actions (e.g., unfair labor practices) and such individual expressions as grievances.

There would appear to be a promising agenda for future research into the other cases described in the framework. For example, from the nonunion employer where collective actions are prohibited but individual grievances allowed it is hypothesized that such covert conflict as absenteeism, theft, or sabotage will be reduced. On the other hand, these same nonunion firms are predicted to have higher levels of individual conflict than unionized firms where both strikes and grievances are permitted.

Future research that evaluates workplace conflict resolution ought to take into account the complex relationships between conflict expressions suggested in the new framework. The temptation of researchers to study one expression at a time should be resisted.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the characteristics of actors that allow them to relate to others actors in the system through shared intentionality (orientation) and the nature of the A4A relationship and the results that such interactions bring to the emergent system based on this shared purpose (finality).

The topic is approached by theoretical analysis and conceptual development of three integrative frameworks: the sociological perspective, service-dominant logic and a particular perspective of system thinking: the viable system approach (vSa).

The A4A relationships involve value co-creation based on actors integrating their resources and acting with intentionality to obtain value by providing benefits to other parties and by belonging to the emergent viable system; actor acts for other actors directly involved in the relationship generating positive effects for the whole system in which it is contextualized.

Future empirical research might better support findings.

Many social implications deriving from an augmented role of actors engaged within social relationships in co-creation exchanges. From the title of the paper A4A over on the manuscript describes numerous social inferences of actors in co-creation.

A4A is a relationship formed by actors that interact for the benefit of the whole system in which are involved. They find own benefit from the benefit created for the system in which they live and act. In A4A relationships the value of the single actor comes from the participation to the viability of the whole system.

February 19, 1974 National Insurance — Industrial injuries benefit — Disablement benefit — “Finality” of medical decisions — Workman injuring knee — Successive assessments by medical boards and medical appeal tribunals relating to specific periods — Third medical board awarding 50 per cent benefit for life — Third medical appeal tribunal accepting surgeon's report suggesting malingering and discharging assessment — Whether medical decisions final when made for specific periods — Whether proceedings contrary to natural justice or made without due inquiry — National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1965 (c.52) s.50(l) — National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Determination of Claims and Questions) No. 2 Regulations, 1967 (S.I. 1967 No. 1571), regs. 12,19(2).

In the context of the present, most organizations are developing towards a so‐called efficacy proposed by a world of economic and scientific predominance. As a consequence, organizations have become the target of insignificant actions by human beings, reducing the individuals to automatons. It is necessary to rescue the real nature of organizations and to make changes inside them, in order to attend to the individual diversity and the needs of the community. Thus, only a reflexive and critical look at the articulation of tangible things may help us. Certainly, those are the intentions of our paper, when we propose actions to reach a relation between the individuals and the organizations, using elements extracted from theoretical currents whose authors analyze those subjects as recurrent ones (structuralism, critical theory and post‐modernism). Initially, the paper makes a reflection on the nature of current organizational reality and the theoretical basis often present nowadays. Hereby, we present some propositions and put in question our responsibility as students, professors, researchers and managers, for having in our hands the power to decide if we want continuity or change. Finally, we propose some methodological guidelines for research oriented to elucidate the reality of the reflections afore mentioned. Hence, we argue the need to conduct critical‐action research, by illustrating and questioning the social responsibility of one type of Latin‐American company, petroleum companies, for which we show the social‐environmental impacts of their strategic decisions. Our critical reflections and propositions come from two sources: one is our biographical experience from almost twelve years in Latin‐American countries, either as managers or professors, and the second one is some results of our current research interest regarding social responsibility in the themes of equity and organizational objectives.

Why do organizations exist? Which is their true nature? Why are the majority of our actual organizations exclusively aiming at financial growth and disregarding the needs of social and human nature? How and why are most of the management practices answering to this financial expectation? Why do we as members of a society that conceives organizations to answer our collective needs, allow some of its members to not answer the prerogatives invested in them? How do we as members of the collective, as well as members of organizations, consider these issues within our knowledge of organizational and management practices and theory? Are we objectives in our own right or just a means of financial productivity?

The purpose of this paper is to propose to move from the organization as an association of individuals to communities of persons.

This is primarily a conceptual paper. However, it nevertheless underlies very practical aspects.

An organization should recognize each person within it as a human whom we must take the time to know, and with whom we must interact sincerely. One that only focuses on performance-related goals would not perform well. Indeed, it would increase situations that would generate significant stress and therefore significant costs. To conceive of the generalized complexity of persons makes it possible to manage with the paradoxes and the uncertainties related to the human species, in all conscience. Thus, it is possible to move from diversity management to a management for diversity, where we recognize the contribution of the differences of each person to the organization and where everyone can influence the other.

This paper emphasizes theories and practices that seem non-efficient whereas it is the contrary.