Search results

The “war for talent” is not limited to developed economies but has become a common feature in emerging economies such as India. From the sociocultural perspective, India represents one of the oldest cultural heritages with distinct cultural values. The cultural difference may contribute to explain organizational practices toward talent retention. In the present chapter, the authors focus on the institutional, legal, and cultural context and highlight their uniqueness with respect to the Indian context. Within the institutional context, the authors found that prior to liberalization (which happened in 1990s), the Indian business scene was dominated by public firms or a small enclave of private firms. For both types of organization, turnover hardly mattered, and turnover was indeed negligible. Employees saw firms as “employers for life”: in such a context, voluntary turnover was extremely rare. Further, in the early legal context, it was hard for any private firm to “fire” an employee. Therefore, involuntary turnover was close to nil as well. Things began to change post-liberalization when the Indian scene was dominated by an influx of private players. The Indian mind too accepted turnover to be a part of the corporate life. In the present chapter, the authors provide a snapshot of what, why, and how of employee turnover in the Indian context. The authors specifically focus on what motivates employees to remain with the organization or why do they leave the organization. The authors close the chapter with insights relevant to both academicians and practitioners.

This paper explores how resilience may mitigate the impacts of a crisis and at the same time foster business excellence. Additionally, it seeks to analyze the role of HR department (HRD) in cultivating resilience and crisis awareness.

In order for the authors to assess their hypotheses, a research model was conceptualized and tested by conducting an empirical study in Greek organizations that enlist the largest number of employees in Greece, belonging to various corporate sectors. Following the review of the relevant literature on resilience, business excellence and crisis management (CM), the research model and research hypotheses are presented.

The empirical section illustrates the statistical analysis of the collected data and the test of the research hypotheses. The authors managed to validate their research hypotheses through the research. The research demonstrated that promoting resilience and crisis awareness in a business excellence environment can reinforce the role of HRD aiming to overcome crises.

Following the research findings, the implications for managers and organizations are presented alongside with the research limitations. Managers and HRDs can review their mindset towards resilience. Thus, they may reevaluate their CM plans and processes according to the research findings.

The extended literature review proved that limited studies deal with the contribution of resilience regarding CM and business excellence. The originality of the present is to promote the cultivation of resilience in line with a high level of acquaintance with CM procedures to the dynamic role of HRD in terms of CM.

Research evidence developed over more than five decades of research on human responses to disasters shows that those responses are overwhelmingly adaptive and positive. However, despite what is known, myths about disaster behavior persist. These include the assumption that the public will panic during large-scale emergencies and the idea that disasters are best managed through hierarchies of command and control. Following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, these myths are again gaining wide currency even though actual individual, group, and organizational behavior in the World Trade Center disaster directly contradict those assumptions. This is no accident. Beliefs concerning the fragility of the public in the face of emerging homeland security threats are consistent with the perspectives and objectives of organizations that seek to expand their influence in the domestic crisis management arena. These organizational actors, which include the information technology industry, the intelligence and defense establishment, and security think tanks, are generally not familiar with empirical social science research on behavior during disasters and see little value in public participation in the management of newly-recognized threats. Recycled disaster myths support a case for “expertise-based” crisis planning that excludes the public from those activities.