Search results

Work organizations and the employees within these organizations face considerable environmental pressures requiring adaptive change. Several forces have contributed to this need for great adaptation. These are described in many excellent sources (e.g., Cascio, 2003; Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999); here we briefly review their implications for individual adaptability.

Data from samples of managers from eight countries, Thailand, Nigeria, Philippines, Peru, Uruguay, Argentina, Spain, and the United States, are used to explore cross-national differences in how individuals make judgments about an individual's pay. A policy-capturing instrument is used to elicit judgments about the ways that variations in individual employee job performance, business unit performance, seniority, schooling, and need affect judgments about pay fairness. Significant between-country differences are found in the sensitivities of pay fairness judgments. However, these differences are not well explained by differences in individualism/collectivism reflected either by a priori categorizations of national culture or direct measures of horizontal/vertical collectivism. Implications for the explanation of cross-national differences are explored.

This article presents a comprehensive and qualitative review of how levels of analysis issues have been addressed in the diversity and demography literature. More than 180 conceptual and empirical publications (i.e. book chapters and journal articles) in this field are reviewed and coded regarding the specific incorporation of levels of analysis in theory and hypothesis formulation, representation of levels of analysis in measurement of constructs and variables, appropriateness of data-analytic techniques given the explicit or implied levels of analysis, and alignment between levels of analysis in theory and data in regard to drawing inferences and conclusions. Although the body of diversity and demography literature continues to grow, levels of analysis issues are rarely considered. Only a few reviewed studies address levels of analysis issues in theory development, and no reviewed studies employ appropriate multi-level data analytic techniques. Implications for future research are discussed, and recommendations for incorporating levels of analysis into diversity and demography research are provided.

It is generally recognized that multinational enterprises must take into account country differences in deciding the degree to which it makes sense to localize their human resource management (HRM) strategies and organization cultures to fit with the host country or rather standardize HRM strategies and organization cultures across countries. However, an important vein of academic work assumes that country differences, especially in national culture, are so important that management is “culturally dependent” (Hofstede, 1983) and that “national culture constrains variation in organization cultures” (Johns, 2006). I critically evaluate the logical and empirical evidence (including methodological issues regarding effect size) used to support such constraint arguments and conclude that the evidence is much weaker than widely believed. One implication then is that organizations may be less constrained by national culture differences in managing workforces in different countries than is often claimed. A second implication is that researchers may wish to re-think how they study such issues. I provide suggestions for future research.

Does staffing contribute to organizational effectiveness and sustained competitive advantage, or are many of staffing’s implications merely cross-level fallacies? This article provides a critical examination of staffing research and practice, and proposes a multilevel model of staffing that ties together micro (e.g. personnel selection), meso (e.g. team staffing), and macro (e.g. organizational strategy, Human Resources practices) theory, research, and practice. The model is both integrative and prescriptive, providing a basic organizing structure for examining staffing research within and across levels. The article begins with a review of multilevel theory, followed by a review and critique of the dominant staffing paradigms from a multilevel perspective. It is shown these single level paradigms cannot answer many of the primary questions of interest to staffing specialists. In contrast, the multilevel staffing model not only addresses these limitations, but also prompts a variety of new predictions that oftentimes run counter to prevailing wisdom. Staffing specialists are challenged to show how our science and practice contribute to better functioning organizations.

Given the increasing global focus of many aspects of our society, researchers have taken significant steps in understanding the impact of culture on various psychological states. This review focuses on the stressor–strain relationships within the context of cross-cultural and cross-national studies. Using research findings from the United States as a baseline, we identify common and unique themes concerning the stressor–strain relationships between different countries, and clarify the differences between cross-national and cross-cultural studies. Furthermore, we consider cross-cultural and cross-national occupational stress research from an individual differences perspective. We encourage future studies to adopt this perspective and carefully consider the implications of cultural values on occupational stress research at the individual, group, and country levels.

This chapter honors the opportunity I have had to learn with David Maines over the past 35 years. I connect my research on communication and disability, specifically among individuals who are blind and visually impaired, to Maines' discussion of narratives incorporating Rawlins' exploration of similarity and difference. I discuss narratives of disability as difference using three examples: A short story written by H. G. Wells; the American with Disabilities Act; and interviews conducted with elite blind goalball athletes. I conclude with 10 lessons learned about disability and difference including that the goal of my research is to help us all perceive disability as a difference that matters, but not as a difference that disables.

The goal of this chapter is to both provide a sociological explanation for gender differences in risk-taking behavior and to explain how such gender differences in behavior may contribute to women’s underrepresentation at the top of hierarchies.

I synthesize relevant research findings from the fields of social psychology, economics, psychology, decisions science, and sociology.

I argue that risk-taking is a gendered action due to both prescriptive and descriptive gender stereotypes. The fact that risk-taking is a gendered action offers sociological insights as to why women take fewer risks than men. First, women may rationally choose to take fewer risks, given that risk-taking is less rewarding for them. Second, the aforementioned gender stereotypes may cause institutional gatekeepers to give women fewer opportunities to take risks.

Sociologists should care about this phenomenon because large rewards are attached to successful risk-taking behavior. Thus, if men as a group take more successful risks than women as a group – simply because they take more risks, and thus by chance experience more successful risks – then more men than women will experience upward mobility caused by risk-taking.

Gender differences in risk-taking behavior likely depress the upward mobility of women and are a contributing factor to the dearth of women in top positions. In this era of falling formal barriers and women’s educational gains, gender differences in risk-taking behavior are likely of increasing importance for understanding the inequalities in hierarchies in U.S. society.