Search results

Extant research on job insecurity has traditionally investigated this construct as a hindrance stressor, based on theoretical developments and meta-analytical results that have shown consistent negative relationships between job insecurity and a host of organizational outcomes. In this chapter, the authors take a person-centered perspective based on the transactional theory of stress and argue that employees can and do appraise job insecurity in different ways which is manifested by qualitatively distinct latent profiles. The authors also argue that certain positive psychological variables (i.e., hope, optimism, self-efficacy, and grit) might influence one’s odds to belong to specific appraisal latent classes. Using a cross-lagged dataset of 322 US-based employees, the authors found evidence of five qualitatively different latent profiles (i.e., employees who viewed job insecurity as: (1) irrelevant, (2) simultaneously moderately challenging and hindering, (3) primarily hindering, (4) both highly challenging and highly hindering, or (5) primarily challenging). Further, the results showed that higher grit was associated with higher odds of belonging to any of the appraisal profiles compared to the high challenge/high hindrance group whereas higher self-efficacy was associated with higher odds of belonging to the irrelevant group compared to any of the appraisal profiles. Hope and optimism, however, did not influence latent class membership. The authors discuss the implications for theory and practice considering seemingly paradoxical findings demonstrating sometimes positive and sometimes negative outcomes of job insecurity, as well as traditional assumptions that employees primarily view job insecurity as either a hindrance or a challenge.

The intention of this article is to show possible contributions of the concept of autonomous cooperation to enable complex adaptive logistics systems (CALS) to cope with increasing complexity and dynamics and therefore to increase the systems' information-processing capacity by implementing autopoietic characteristics. In order to reach this target, the concepts of CALS and autopoietic systems will be introduced and connected. The underlying aim is to use the concept of self-organization as one of their essential similarities to lead over to the concept of autonomous cooperation as the most narrow view on self-organizing systems, which is discussed as a possible approach to enable systems to handle an increasing quantity of information. This will be analyzed from both a theoretical and an empirical point of view.

Family constitutions are relatively new to the law of family companies, although there might have been forerunners in the history of entrepreneur families. The practical importance and the proliferation of family constitutions in German family companies are increasing, along with the discussion of family constitutions in legal literature. This new instrument of family governance is not law driven but business driven, it has been designed by business advisors. Its analysis and classification are still at the very beginning in academic research and practice. Even though family constitutions are generally deemed to be without any legal effect and not legally binding, from a legal point of view, this assumption is at least highly questionable.

Economic stressors such as job insecurity, job loss, unemployment, and underemployment cause severe difficulties for the workers affected, their families, organizations, and societies overall. Consequently, most past research has taken a thoroughly negative perspective on economic stress, addressing its diverse negative consequences and the ways that people try to cope with them. And even when following the advice provided by the scientific literature, people affected by economic stress will usually end up being off worse than they were before the onset of the stressor.

The current chapter pays credit to this perspective yet also tries to counterbalance it with an alternative one. While acknowledging the vast amount of literature outlining the negative consequences of economic stress on peoples’ well-being and careers, some literature also points at opportunities for a more positive perspective. More specifically, we argue that affected people can use a wide repertoire of behaviors for handling their current situation. Of particular promise in this regard is the concept of career adaptability, generally defined as the ability to change to fit into new career-related circumstances. Indeed, studies show that under certain conditions, career adaptability can facilitate people's search for not just any job but for a qualitatively better job, thus breaking through the spiral of losses usually associated with economic stress.

For the purpose of this argument, we link career adaptability to the concept of proactive coping, analyzing how and under which conditions career adaptability may present a contextualized form of proactive coping. We then address known personal and situational antecedents of career adaptability and show how career adaptability may be fostered and trained among different types of job seekers. We end this chapter with a discussion of open questions as well as directions for future research.

With higher female labor force participation and the greater prevalence of dual-career families, family responsibilities ever more overlap work responsibilities. Companies have begun to respond to the changing nature of the workforce by offering family-friendly policies that are intended to help employees manage family responsibilities while remaining productive workers. Examples of family-friendly policies include child and dependent care, flexible leave polices, and time off for family emergencies (Daley, 1998; Folsom & Botsch, 1993; Greenfield, 1997; Ezra & Deckman, 1996). Some benefits frequently offered by employers are not considered family-friendly policies because they are not primarily directed toward the management of family responsibilities. Examples of those benefits are educational assistance for the employee, mortgage assistance, holidays, and employee wellness programs.

The transformations in the existing forms of governmentality and power regimes are deeply rooted within the political economy of advanced neoliberalism, having profound implications in the governance matrix. The new rationalities and instrumentalities of governance involve ‘governing without government’ (Rhodes, 1996) following the delegitimisation and deconstruction of the Keynesian Welfare State and the gradual enactment of what Jessop (2002) calls the Schumpeterian Competition State. This chapter throws open the play field for competing standpoints on governing the mega corporates. Various theorists consider that there is emptiness within the existing global regulatory armoury concerning the operational activities of TNCs. The convolution of ‘steering’ in this poly-centred, globalised societies with its innate uncertainty makes it tricky to keep an eye on the fix of ‘who actually steers whom’ and ‘with what means’. There also appears to be huge disinclination to spot systemic technical description of the evolving modern institutional structure of economic regulation in a composite and practical manner. Thus, the complexity of international issues, their overlapping nature and the turmoil within the arena in which they surface defy tidy theorizing about effective supervision.

This brings in the wider questions dealt with in the chapter – Is globalisation then a product of material conditions of fundamental technical and economic change or is it collective construct of an artifact of the means we have preferred to arrange political and economic activity? The new reflexive, self-regulatory and horizontal spaces of governance are getting modelled following the logic of competitive market relations whereby multiple formally equal actors (acting or aspiring to act as sources of authority) consult, trade and compete over the deployment of various instruments of authority both intrinsically and in their relations with each other (Shamir, 2008). The chapter also looks into these messy and fluid intersections to situate the key actors at the heart of processes of ‘rearticulation’ and ‘recalibration’ of different modes of governance which operates through a somewhat fuzzy amalgamation of the terrain by corporates, state hierarchy and networks all calibrating and competing to pull off the finest probable’s in metagovernance landscape. Unambiguously, this chapter seeks to elaborate on an institutional-discursive conceptualization of governance while stitching in and out of the complex terrain a weave of governances for modern leviathan – the global corporates.