Search results1 – 10 of 18
Interest in employee mindfulness has increased dramatically in recent years, fueled by several important conceptual articles, numerous studies documenting the benefits of…
Interest in employee mindfulness has increased dramatically in recent years, fueled by several important conceptual articles, numerous studies documenting the benefits of mindfulness for employee outcomes, and the adoption of mindfulness-based practices in many Fortune 500 organizations. Despite this growing interest, the vast majority of research on employee mindfulness has taken an intrapersonal focus, failing to appreciate the ways in which mindfulness may enhance work-related relational processes and outcomes. The authors explore possible associations between mindfulness and relationally oriented workplace phenomena, drawing from interdisciplinary scholarship examining mindfulness in romantic relationships, child–parent relationships, patient–healthcare provider relationships, and student–teacher relationships. A framework is proposed that links mindfulness to three distinct relationally oriented processes, which are expected to have downstream effects on work-related relational outcomes. The authors then take the proposed framework and discuss possible extensions to a variety of unique workplace relationships and discuss critical next steps in advancing the relational science of mindfulness.
The events surrounding the financial crisis of 2008 are well known, and subject to a broad level of agreement. Less accepted are theories regarding the larger context…
The events surrounding the financial crisis of 2008 are well known, and subject to a broad level of agreement. Less accepted are theories regarding the larger context within which this crisis was able to unfold. Much has been made of the financialization of the American economy and the lax regulation of new financial instruments, both of which stem from the trend toward a laissez-faire economic policy that has characterized the United States since the late 1970s. I do not take issue with these claims. Instead, I argue that these developments have an earlier and deeper source: a breakdown in the ability of large American corporations to provide collective solutions to economic and social problems, a phenomenon that I term “the decline of the American corporate elite.” From a group with a relatively moderate political perspective and a pragmatic strategic orientation, this elite, through a series of historical developments, became a fragmented, largely ineffectual group, with a high degree of societal legitimacy but a paradoxical lack of power. I trace the history of this group, from its origins in the early 1900s, through its heyday in the post-World War II period, to its decline beginning in the 1970s and escalating in the 1980s. I argue that the lack of coordination within the American business community created the conditions for the crises of the post-1980 period – including the massive breakdown of 2008 – to occur.
Although there is considerable scholarly research on advertising self‐regulation in the USA, there is no research at all on the unique problems that comparative…
Although there is considerable scholarly research on advertising self‐regulation in the USA, there is no research at all on the unique problems that comparative advertising created for those involved in the industry's self‐regulation. This study aims to address this gap in the literature with an historical analysis of the industry's efforts to respond to the widespread adoption of comparative advertising during the twentieth century.
The study's primary and secondary sources consist of nearly 640 articles collected from historical and contemporary trade journals. The analysis focuses on two research questions: When did calls for the reform and regulation of comparative advertising appear, why did they appear, and who did advertisers believe should be responsible? and Why did advertisers and industry observers believe comparative advertising should be regulated, and what were the consequences of their self‐regulation efforts and initiatives?
The paper finds that industry calls for comparative advertising reform began to appear during the Depression and peaked during the most contentious period of self‐regulation, the 1970s. The findings show that during the 1930s, members of the industry mostly abandoned their efforts to manage what they considered unfair business practices, including explicit comparative advertising, by shaping government policy. The findings also reveal that the issues of disparagement of competitors and the misappropriation of their brand names and trademarks set the stage for an extraordinary conflict between the industry, its self‐regulators, and the Federal Trade Commission.
The findings offer some new and interesting insights into the consequences that can occur when advertisers choose to employ explicit comparative advertising, or what has been called “the hardest sell of all”; the history of advertising self‐regulation in the USA; and the complex relationships among consumerism, political and economic ideology, and industry self‐regulation.
Intensifying efforts to utilize behavioral science concepts and knowledge in administrative research and practice in education during the past quarter‐century have…
Intensifying efforts to utilize behavioral science concepts and knowledge in administrative research and practice in education during the past quarter‐century have produced an impressive body of literature, largely taxonomic in nature. Much of this literature involves system theory and attempts to identify and classify the various processes by which planned change may be controlled and directed. It thus gives rise to the concept of coherent change strategies and tactics: a concept useful to both the student of organizational change and the administrative practitioner. The author describes four major attempts to identify and classify strategies of organizational change and the tactice that “go with them. In general, these strategies address the problem of how to change organizations, but it is also necessary to know what to change. Leavitt has identified and described four crucial organizational variables which are amenable to administrative control and manipulation: (1) task, (2) structure, (3) people, and (4) technology. These variables are dynamically interrelated but are helpful to the researcher and the administrator in designing and monitoring systemic approaches to organizational change utilizing any strategy which may have been selected.