Search results

The automotive industry in North America is experiencing a period of far‐reaching reorganization. Part of that change is in the automotive supply chain, including firms in the industry, such as Ford or General Motors, that assemble the vehicles and firms that are their suppliers. The particular emphasis in the research reported below is on the new relationships among these firms in the automotive supply chain. Some of the data come from in‐depth interviews with twenty‐six senior executives in North American automotive companies, from a survey of 175 firms in the North American automotive industry, and from sessions with an advisory board of representatives of leading industry companies. Additional data derive from historical accounts of the industry. This paper briefly summarizes the differentiation of the supply chain into four types of firms, and the reallocation of tasks within the supply chain. This has meant a transfer of responsibilities from the assemblers (such as Ford) to various kinds of suppliers, and a resultant shift in the system of responsibility and authority in the supply chain. The paper then explores in detail changes in the nature of relationships among firms in the supply chain from a type termed the market model to a type termed the commitment model. Additional topics include changes in the way relationships among firms are initiated and reasons for the new type of relationship. The changes are interpreted in terms of both firm‐level and industry level‐factors. The changes and their underlying causes allow certain predictions: the process of change to the new type of relationship will continue at least until 2005; and it is uncertain how far the new mode of relationship, the commitment model, will extend through the supply chain.

Coordination of processes may be explicit through logical control signals (asynchronous) or implicit through the use of a specified time base (synchronous). In addition, these interprocess communications can be neighborhood restricted or global in space. These interactions are explored and significant developments and problems are reviewed in this paper.

The obligation to seek best execution on behalf of clients is not a new issue for investment advisers but one which has received increased scrutiny by the SEC's Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE). This article discusses an adviser's duty to seek best execution and offers suggested guidelines from regulators and industry advocates when developing and implementing best execution policies and procedures. It also illustrates different trading analyses and sample controls that advisers may wish to consider when establishing a best execution monitoring program.

Borrowing from earlier contributions in the cross‐cultural management and international human resource management literatures, firstly we conceptualise expatriate adjustment as a multifaceted construct encompassing work, general, interaction and overall adjustment and then we examine the impact of work‐role characteristics in the form of role novelty, role ambiguity, role conflict and role overload on these different domains of adjustment. With respect to adjustment, while our data, drawn from a postal survey of US and Canadian expatriates on assignment in Ireland, show some variations in work, general, interaction and overall adjustment, the composite measure of overall adjustment reveals that, on the whole, respondents are well adjusted to working and living in Ireland. Turning to the impact of work‐role characteristics on adjustment domains, role novelty is positively correlated with work adjustment. Both role ambiguity and role conflict are negatively correlated with work adjustment. Multiple regression results reveal that, combined, role novelty, role ambiguity, role conflict and role overload account for 31.1 per cent of the variance in work adjustment, 13.4 per cent of the variance in general adjustment, 17.2 per cent in the case of interaction adjustment and 17.5 per cent of the variance in overall adjustment.

In this chapter, we have proposed that an important approach to understanding occupational stress and well-being among racial and ethnic minority workers is to integrate the occupational health disparities paradigm into work stress research. As such, the current chapter provides a state-of-the-art review of the existing literature on occupational health disparities for Latinos, Asian Americans, and African Americans. Each of the three sections has highlighted the unique occupational health problems encountered by the specific racial and ethnic group as well as the research and policy gaps. We end with a series of recommendations for future research.