Search results

The context of a long-standing research tradition, discrimination has emerged as a critical factor contributing to inequalities within the labor market. While existing studies have primarily focused on overt discrimination during the recruitment and selection process, influenced by biases, attitudes, or stereotypes, there remains a significant knowledge gap regarding discrimination within the workplace and its underlying structural dimensions. This article aims to address this gap by examining the impact of organizational culture, structure and policies on workplace discrimination, with a particular emphasis on women and ethnic minorities.

Utilizing a case study strategy centered around a Belgian branch of a multinational professional service agency, data was gathered through ten semi-structured in-depth interviews conducted with employees representing various organizational levels.

The findings reveal that organizational culture, structure and policies may pose inherent risks in perpetuating discrimination throughout individuals' professional trajectories. Furthermore, it becomes apparent that, albeit often unconscious, these elements exhibit biases against women and ethnic minorities.

Given the unintentional nature of structural discrimination, it is crucial to foster increased awareness and understanding of these dynamics.

The originality of this research article lies in its focus on addressing a critical knowledge gap in the existing research tradition on discrimination in the labor market. While previous studies have primarily concentrated on overt discrimination during recruitment and selection, this article delves into the often overlooked area of discrimination within the workplace itself. It explores the intricate interplay of organizational culture, structure and policies in perpetuating discrimination, particularly against women and ethnic minorities. By utilizing a case study approach within a multinational professional service agency in Belgium, the research uncovers hidden biases and unconscious elements contributing to structural discrimination. This emphasis on understanding unintentional discrimination adds a novel dimension to the discourse on workplace inequalities.

This study aims to explore a range of institutional, environmental and policy conditions that influence the creation of “bossless” or “flat” companies, i.e. firms with little or no formal hierarchy.

The author builds on the theory and evidence presented by Foss and Klein (2022) in their study of the costs and benefits of organizing without hierarchy. The author also draws on a variety of related theoretical insights and empirical evidence. The paper is exploratory and anecdotal though and is intended to motivate further research rather than provide a definitive account of bossless organizing.

The paper develops nine propositions. It suggests that high levels of economic freedom create maximum scope for entrepreneurs to experiment with different organizational forms (1). Likewise, a lack of economic freedom increases the scope for the government to experiment (2). Markets characterized by technological innovation and uncertainty are likely to discourage bossless organizing (3 and 4), while stagnating industries with major capital requirements are likely to encourage it (5). Labor market interventions that increase the cost of employment contracts sometimes encourage firms to flatten (6), but more generally, these interventions encourage expanding management layers (7). In environments with strong intellectual property (IP) laws, companies with more modular and knowledge-based work are more likely to flatten (8). The creation of low-hierarchy firms such as cooperatives is encouraged by public subsidies, access to cheap credit and preferential tax treatment (9).

Studies of bossless or flat firms focus almost exclusively on describing their internal organization and evaluating their performance; little attention is paid to the conditions that encourage or discourage the emergence of these firms. This paper focuses on the latter, with a view to encouraging more scholarly interest in this field.

This research paper highlights the economic impact on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) due to Coronavirus outbreaks. It proposes factors that influence the strengthening and survival of SMEs.

In this research, resilience is reflected in the following aspects hope, problem resolution and persistence. This quantitative study analyses a purposive sample of 120 small and medium-sized firms in India. The study's primary data are the responses to questionnaires issued to respondents, analyzed and hypotheses formed and tested using the structural equation modeling (SEM) technique.

The study results show that all the variables significantly reduce the impact of COVID-19 on SMEs. The presented model is expected to help researchers, business modelers, analysts and real professionals with further studies in the SME context.

This new approach adds to the business resilience knowledge of SMEs and has practical implications for manufacturing organizations seeking to become robust during and after COVID-19.

The commercialization of research produced by universities constitutes a core facet of academic entrepreneurship (AE). Academic literature reveals the need to shed light on entrepreneurial processes in higher education institutions (HEIs). This study intends to fill this gap by researching the mechanisms for facilitating AE and the variables that can moderate the relationship between such mechanisms and AE in Portuguese HEIs.

Our research model aims to assess the mechanisms of academic entrepreneurship (AE) within a sample of 125 Portuguese public higher education institutions (HEIs). To test our research hypotheses, we employed a structural equation model (SEM) using the partial least squares (PLS) method. Additionally, our evaluation examines the potential moderating effects of incubator programs, support initiatives, and proof-of-concept programs (PoCs). Our research model seeks to evaluate the mechanisms for facilitating AE and explore the effects of including incubator programs, support initiatives, and PoCs as moderators. The seven variables (Research mobilization, Unconventionality, Industry collaboration, University policies, Incubator programs and support initiatives, Proof-of-concept programs, and academic entrepreneurship) were measured using a 7-point Likert scale.

The results revealed that different drivers of AE influence the creation and development of entrepreneurial activities. Our findings also show the moderating effects of incubator programs, support initiatives, and proof-of-concept programs on AE. We find that incubator programs, other support initiatives, and PoCs maintain a moderating effect on AE and benefit their respective HEIs.

The study examines only the Portuguese HEI context. Therefore, generalizing these results necessitates reservations. However, the responses came from various actors in HEIs, from different academic backgrounds and research interests. This makes the results more generalizable. Limitations are evident in external validity, given that we gathered the data over a relatively short period.

Observed factors are explored to gain a deeper understanding of their influence on the mechanisms of AE. The implications arise from the new perspective presented and the methodology used to identify mechanisms capable of fostering AE. We hope this research will encourage other researchers to study this topic further.

the engagement of universities at the global level should be emphasised in future policy. While universities in innovation systems often have a local focus, their engagement in innovation ecosystems transcends the boundaries of geographic locations.

PoCs had a significant positive moderating effect on the impact of research mobilization and university policies on AE. Thus, we find interactions between universities and industry boost AE. This study demonstrates how AE benefits HEIs by extending orientation towards mobilizing research, unconventional approaches, cooperation with industry, and university policy implementation. We thus advocate a new approach, demonstrating the influence that the mobility of research, unconventionality, industry collaboration, and university policies hold over AE.