Individuals can improve their task performance by using information and communications technology (ICT). However, individuals who use ICT may also suffer from negative…
Individuals can improve their task performance by using information and communications technology (ICT). However, individuals who use ICT may also suffer from negative outcomes, such as burnout and anxiety, which lead to poorer performance and well-being. While researchers have studied the positive outcomes of ICT use in the aggregate, the same has not been done for negative outcomes.
This study uses a meta-analysis of 52 studies to examine the relationship between ICT use and negative outcomes, and the influence of job autonomy on ICT use and the negative outcomes of ICT use. Job autonomy is relevant because a higher level of job autonomy allows individuals to decide how, how often and when they will use ICT that is causing negative outcomes for their work.
The results of the meta-analysis revealed that ICT use increased negative job outcomes and that, unexpectedly, autonomy exacerbated this effect.
The results of this study point to the prevalence of negative outcomes from ICT use among individuals. Researchers should study how users may potentially restrict the value that organizations may be able to obtain from the implementation of new systems, especially whether individual-level negative outcomes could coalesce into a collective resistance. There also needs to be further research into the motivating and inhibiting roles of autonomy in enhancing ICT use, while mitigating its negative impacts simultaneously.
The study provides an aggregate analysis of the negative impacts of ICT use among individuals and the role of autonomy in the relationship.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the existence of a diversification discount in the Australian takeover market. A sample of 446 Australian publicly‐listed firms…
The purpose of this paper is to examine the existence of a diversification discount in the Australian takeover market. A sample of 446 Australian publicly‐listed firms involved in the market for corporate control was observed between 2000 and 2007. The authors examined two pre‐announcement and four post‐announcement periods, predominantly around the immediate event date, but also examined activity out to one year following the announcement.Design/methodology/approach – An event study, in this case, is used to examine abnormal returns around the announcement of a merger or acquisition. The timeframe this study intends to focus on is the period from announcement date to a time one year down the track which, although some studies may deem it “long‐term”, is still a relatively short‐term measure of performance. While many variables in acquisitions have been looked at in depth over the years, such as outcome, nature, payment method and size of deal, one area which has had considerably less attention is the area of specialisation and diversification. That is, do focus increasing (or non‐diversification) deals have different return patterns relative to focus decreasing (or diversification) deals?
The overall findings of this paper are fairly mixed, barring a few exceptions, and there does not appear to be a great deal of variation in return patterns based purely on whether the announced acquisition is non‐diversifying or diversifying in nature.
The paper is of particular value in Australia. Most of the research of diversification to date has taken place in the USA. Australia is similar to the USA in that it has a well‐developed economy based on common law principles and an active equity market, however, the existence of institutional and regulatory differences suggests that US results may not hold in Australia.
The purpose of this study is to examine how different disciplines and sectors approach creativity, and how to improve cross-domain collaboration efficiency. Creativity is…
The purpose of this study is to examine how different disciplines and sectors approach creativity, and how to improve cross-domain collaboration efficiency. Creativity is one of the most important factors that hugely contributes to the growth of economy, and the key to the modern organisation’s survival. There are considerable differences between disciplines regarding how they approach creativity since each discipline has a methodology which is designed to develop new ideas. Specialisation of disciplines can create difficulties when they start to interact in collaborations. Differences between sectors (Industry, Academia, Arts and Public) in definition of creativity, creativity measurement, management and collaboration motivators can hinder cross-sector collaboration efficiency.
A questionnaire was distributed over the Internet, and statistical tests were performed to find differences between groups how they view various dimensions of creativity.
By analysing various disciplines, the study revealed significant differences between the reward system, the creativity measurement, the required management support and the way how various disciplines solve complex problems. Sector analysis revealed significant differences in creativity quantification, personal traits, sensitivity to idea ownership, composition and size of the ideal team, communication and incentives to increase creativity.
In this study, only Internet users were sampled, and the majority of respondent were from Europe working in academic environment.
Misalignment of forces between disciplines causes inefficient cross- and multi-disciplinary collaborations, while inter-sector misalignment results in unproductive inter-disciplinary and trans-disciplinary teamwork. Special emphasis has to be placed on external factor, creativity measurement and collaboration motivator adjustment that were the most misaligned across the analysed groups.
The study indicates that to increase collaboration, efficiency factors that were scrutinised in this project have to be aligned across disciplines and sectors.