Search results
1 – 10 of 26Ellen Ernst Kossek, Brenda A. Lautsch, Matthew B. Perrigino, Jeffrey H. Greenhaus and Tarani J. Merriweather
Work-life flexibility policies (e.g., flextime, telework, part-time, right-to-disconnect, and leaves) are increasingly important to employers as productivity and well-being…
Abstract
Work-life flexibility policies (e.g., flextime, telework, part-time, right-to-disconnect, and leaves) are increasingly important to employers as productivity and well-being strategies. However, policies have not lived up to their potential. In this chapter, the authors argue for increased research attention to implementation and work-life intersectionality considerations influencing effectiveness. Drawing on a typology that conceptualizes flexibility policies as offering employees control across five dimensions of the work role boundary (temporal, spatial, size, permeability, and continuity), the authors develop a model identifying the multilevel moderators and mechanisms of boundary control shaping relationships between using flexibility and work and home performance. Next, the authors review this model with an intersectional lens. The authors direct scholars’ attention to growing workforce diversity and increased variation in flexibility policy experiences, particularly for individuals with higher work-life intersectionality, which is defined as having multiple intersecting identities (e.g., gender, caregiving, and race), that are stigmatized, and link to having less access to and/or benefits from societal resources to support managing the work-life interface in a social context. Such an intersectional focus would address the important need to shift work-life and flexibility research from variable to person-centered approaches. The authors identify six research considerations on work-life intersectionality in order to illuminate how traditionally assumed work-life relationships need to be revisited to address growing variation in: access, needs, and preferences for work-life flexibility; work and nonwork experiences; and benefits from using flexibility policies. The authors hope that this chapter will spur a conversation on how the work-life interface and flexibility policy processes and outcomes may increasingly differ for individuals with higher work-life intersectionality compared to those with lower work-life intersectionality in the context of organizational and social systems that may perpetuate growing work-life and job inequality.
Details
Keywords
Henry Mutebi, Wilbroad Aryatwijuka, Aloysious Rukundo, Ronald Twongyirwe, Naster Tumwebembeire and Miriam Tugiramasiko
This paper aims to examine the interconnectedness between stakeholder expectations (SE), inter-organizational coordination (IOC) and procurement practices within humanitarian…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to examine the interconnectedness between stakeholder expectations (SE), inter-organizational coordination (IOC) and procurement practices within humanitarian organizations (HOs) based in Uganda.
Design/methodology/approach
Employing a quantitative cross-sectional design, data were gathered from 43 HOs and analyzed using SmartPLS 4.0.8.3. Variance-based structural equation models (VB-SEMs) were employed to examine both direct and indirect effects.
Findings
The findings show a significantly positive relationship between SE, IOC and procurement practices. Additionally, the mediating role of IOC in the relationship between SE and procurement practices is evident.
Research limitations/implications
While this study offers insights into procurement practices in HOs, the use of a quantitative approach might limit capturing dynamic changes over time. Future research could benefit from a nuanced approach involving interviews and longitudinal studies to uncover incremental changes.
Practical implications
During relief management, HOs need to understand their SE through information sharing and capacity building. This understanding can aid in selecting procurement practices that align with SE and ensure the delivery of relief.
Originality/value
Leveraging stakeholder theory, this research contributes to the understanding of how SE and IOC influence the adoption of procurement practices in HOs during relief delivery.
Details
Keywords
Constructive deviance has received increasing attention across the last 20 years. However, because the distinction between constructive and traditional forms of deviance (i.e.…
Abstract
Constructive deviance has received increasing attention across the last 20 years. However, because the distinction between constructive and traditional forms of deviance (i.e., destructive) is based on the intent behind the behaviors, it can be difficult to determine which acts are constructive. As an umbrella construct consisting of several forms of deviant acts (e.g., whistle-blowing, employee voice, necessary evils), research into constructive deviance has largely remained focused on the individual behaviors to date. While advancements have been made, this focus has limited the consideration of an overarching understanding of constructive deviance in the workplace. Further, constructs like constructive deviance that straddle the bounds between beneficial and detrimental necessitate the exploration into their antecedents as determined by the employees (i.e., apples), their environments (e.g., barrels), or some combination of the two. The author seeks to advance the research in constructive deviance by proposing a testable model. In which, the author develops an interactionist perspective of the antecedents to reposition constructive deviance as the acts of good employees in restrictive or negative environments. In doing so, the author considers how various aspects of individuals, their organizational environments, and the influence of their leaders interact. The author then develops a multi-stakeholder approach to the outcomes of constructive deviance to consider how the various parties (i.e., organization, coworkers, customers) are expected to respond and how these responses impact the more distal outcomes as well as the likelihood of engaging in future constructive deviance.
Details