Search results

This chapter focuses on the physical work environment, in particular, the possibilities and limitations of biophilic design in hotel office space. Biophilic design has already gained attention in directly influencing the guest experience, but little focus has been given to workspace. Traditionally, the hospitality industry places employees' office spaces in parts of the hotel not appropriate as guest space due to lack of daylight and windows. Many studies have shown that improving the workplace with nature-based features can play a role in increasing employee well-being. Data collected from employees with both extensive managerial and back-of-house hotel experience established that employees would welcome the opportunity to work in such an environment and currently find back-of-house design basic and lacking any aesthetically pleasing elements. An understanding of the obstacles in initiating such changes was shown as well as employee initiatives to improve work spaces. This initial exploratory study concludes that the needs of employees in terms of comfort, wellbeing, motivation and work satisfaction are often overlooked when considering back-of-house spaces. There is a general understanding and expectation that management needs to develop awareness and practical initiatives to address the deficits of the physical work environment. Biophilic design can be influential in promoting a calming and restorative environment at the workplace and thus positively impacting employee motivation and performance.

A heated debate surrounds the significance of reproducibility as an indicator for research quality and reliability, with many commentators linking a “crisis of reproducibility” to the rise of fraudulent, careless, and unreliable practices of knowledge production. Through the analysis of discourse and practices across research fields, I point out that reproducibility is not only interpreted in different ways, but also serves a variety of epistemic functions depending on the research at hand. Given such variation, I argue that the uncritical pursuit of reproducibility as an overarching epistemic value is misleading and potentially damaging to scientific advancement. Requirements for reproducibility, however they are interpreted, are one of many available means to secure reliable research outcomes. Furthermore, there are cases where the focus on enhancing reproducibility turns out not to foster high-quality research. Scientific communities and Open Science advocates should learn from inferential reasoning from irreproducible data, and promote incentives for all researchers to explicitly and publicly discuss (1) their methodological commitments, (2) the ways in which they learn from mistakes and problems in everyday practice, and (3) the strategies they use to choose which research components of any project need to be preserved in the long term, and how.

The precise relationships between neoliberalization, financialization, and rising risk are still being debated in the literature. This paper examines, and challenges, the Financial Instability Hypothesis (FIH) developed by Hyman Minsky and his adherents. In this perspective, the level of financial risk builds over time as participants orient their behavior in relation to assessments of past levels of risk performance, leading them to overly optimistic valuation estimates and increasingly risky behavior with each subsequent cycle. However, there are problems with this approach, and many questions remain, including how participants modify their exposure to risk over time, how risk is scaled, and who benefits from changes in exposure to risk. This paper examines such questions and proposes an alternate perspective on financial instability and risk, in light of the history of risk management within Canada’s housing finance sector. The rise of financialization in Canada has been accompanied by shifts in the sectoral and scalar locus of risk within the housing sector, from the federal state, to lower levels of government, third-sector organizations, and finally, private households. In each case, the transfer of risk has occurred as participants in each stage sought to reduce their own risk exposure in light of realistic and even pessimistic (not optimistic) expectations deriving from past exposure, contradicting basic assumptions of Minsky’s FIH. This is the process that has driven the neoliberalization of housing finance in Canada, characterized by the socialization of lender risk while households increasingly take on the financial and social risks relating to shelter.

The Public Organisation Risk Management concept challenges managers to develop a means of systematically identifying and managing key features of the organisation’s uncertainty field (its risks, uncertainties, the unknown and emergent, and the human perception/behaviour component). This presents an immense challenge, as it seems an organisation would need – in some sense – to identify all aspects of the environment before then isolating that subset of the most important risks and uncertainties. Clearly this is impossible, but a conscious awareness of this limitation might be valuable in its own right.

Assessment and analysis refers to the systematic and ongoing process by which a public organisation identifies, analyses, and measures the key components of its uncertainty field. A foundation concept that governs assessment and analysis is the view that public organisations are, in effect, collections of contracts, obligations, commitments, and agreements between the government and resource holders. Those arrangements serve as means by which the public organisation becomes exposed to the elements of the uncertainty field. Those elements, in turn, arise from the physical, social, political, economic, legal, operational, and cognitive environments.

A more detailed exposition of assessment and analysis appears in both Chapters Six and Seven. Here, in Chapter Five the goal is to set the foundation for such an exploration. Key terms and concepts are presented, and some core issues are introduced. As with all chapters, the discussion will address what have been identified as ‘traditional’ as well as enterprise risk management influenced perspectives. This in turn will lead to some coverage of alternative thinking about the assessment and analysis process.

Past research has primarily focused on the negative impact of workplace mistreatment or aggression on the individuals involved, workgroups, and organizations. Certain circumstances, however, create paradoxical effects in which mistreatment positively relates to desirable workplace outcomes and characteristics at the individual and/or organizational level. Reviewing the theoretical and empirical evidence of beneficial outcomes provides researchers and practitioners with a more comprehensive understanding of the progression of workplace mistreatment, allowing them to target specific mechanisms to mitigate detrimental effects and potentially discover important avenues that lead to desired outcomes. A qualitative review of 13 articles demonstrated that different forms of aggression such as bullying, abusive supervision, incivility, and ostracism have positive relationships with paradoxical outcomes and characteristics such as resilience, prosocial behaviors, socially desirable behaviors, job performance, job satisfaction, and creativity. The authors caution against leveraging mistreatment as a method for producing these desired outcomes; instead, the authors encourage researchers and practitioners to utilize the information to further their understanding of the nomological network of workplace mistreatment and its underlying mechanisms, such as cognitive reappraisal and social learning.