Search results

The present study contributes to our understanding of how to curb burnout among hospital staff over time. The authors extend existing research by examining the mediating role of mission valence in the link between transformational leadership and burnout.

Self-administered questionnaire data from employees in a Canadian general hospital (N = 185) were analyzed using a time-lagged research design to examine whether transformational leaders can increase employees' attraction to the organization's mission (i.e. mission valence) and in turn alleviate long-term burnout.

Structural equation modeling analysis demonstrated that transformational leadership (time 1) was negatively related to the burnout components of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization (time 2). Further, the results showed that mission valence mediated these relationships.

The study findings are important for managers and professionals as they identify transformational leadership as a potent strategy to alleviate employee burnout and clarify the process through which this is achieved, namely, by increasing mission valence.

To date, surprisingly little research has explored how transformational leadership influences followers' burnout. To address this issue, the present study examined the role of transformational leadership on staff burnout through the mechanism of increasing mission valence. Understanding how to mitigate burnout is particularly critical in health care organizations given that burnout not only negatively impacts employee wellbeing but also the wellbeing and quality of care provided to patients.

This study aims to provide a measurement model, and the underlying constructs and items, for Logistics 4.0 in manufacturing companies. Industry 4.0 technology for logistics processes has been termed Logistics 4.0. Logistics 4.0 and its elements have seen varied conceptualizations in the literature. The literature has mainly focused on conceptual and theoretical studies, which supports the notion that Logistics 4.0 is a relatively young area of research. Refinement of constructs and building consensus perspectives and definitions is necessary for practical and theoretical advances in this area.

Based on a detailed literature review and practitioner focus group interviews, items of Logistics 4.0 for manufacturing enterprises were further validated by using a large-scale survey with practicing experts from organizations located in Central Europe, the Northeastern United States of America and Northern Thailand. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to define a measurement model for Logistics 4.0.

Based on 239 responses the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses resulted in nine items and three factors for the final Logistics 4.0 measurement model. It combines “the leveraging of increased organizational capabilities” (factor 1) with “the rise of interconnection and material flow transparency” (factor 2) and “the setting up of autonomization in logistics processes” (factor 3).

Practitioners can use the proposed measurement model to assess their current level of maturity regarding the implementation of Logistics 4.0 practices. They can map the current state and derive appropriate implementation plans as well as benchmark against best practices across or between industries based on these metrics.

Logistics 4.0 is a relatively young research area, which necessitates greater development through empirical validation. To the best of the authors knowledge, an empirically validated multidimensional construct to measure Logistics 4.0 in manufacturing companies does not exist.

Many entrepreneurs are able to manage their businesses within relatively contained and familiar geographical and cultural circles. With a world economy shrinking every day amid a flood of digital information, todayʼs entrepreneur is increasingly confronted with opportunities to consider new ways to secure vendors and recruit customers. Many unfamiliar possibilities emerge. Should the entrepreneur venture beyond “comfortable” surroundings to consider international connections? Specifically, what about China? How practical is this fetching business temptation of larger markets and lower-cost subcontractors? What are the social, trade, financial, and political issues? Should a “China strategy” be a true entrepreneurial offensive, or rather a defensive response to competition? Is this “China strategy” the promise of yet another entrepreneurial nirvana? Or is it perhaps again a case of “Be careful of what you wish for; it may really come true?”