Search results

Israel, characterized by various knowledge-intensive entrepreneurial firms, provides an interesting case study for examining sector-based differences and “small country” regional patterns. This chapter has a dual goal of exploring sector and regional differences of knowledge-intensive firms in Israel. The first goal is to depict similarities and differences between firms in three knowledge-intensive sectors: Life Sciences, information technology, and Cleantech. The second goal questions whether the geographical distribution of these firms across regions is associated with different levels of knowledge concentration and organizational homogeneity. Regional and sector-based differences were measured by firm-level network structures, funding patterns, and innovation proxies. One way analysis of variance tests were conducted for attaining these research goals. The main findings show that while most regions exhibit similar patterns of firm and network characteristics, many differences exist on the sector level that are associated with sector-specific attributes. These findings support the notion of a “small country inter-regional homogeneity effect.”

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the effects of diffusional pressures as they relate to organizational performance (OP) across public, private, and not-for-profit sectors in two different national contexts.

A review is conducted of institutional forces in the environment of two nations; one highly developed and the other developing to identify isomorphic pressures in each of the countries. An organizational performance assessment (OPA) tool is used to analyze the differences in the performance of the three sectors in the two national contexts identified. The research relies on Pearson correlation, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and MANCOVA statistical applications to validate the assessment instrument and shed light on differences across nations and sectors that can be attributed to organizational diffusion as a result of institutional pressures that exist in the countries in which the organizations are embedded.

The findings indicate there is greater need to adapt to local ways of doing things when working cross-nationally within developing countries than with those that are developed where management practices are more alike than dissimilar. The results of the study suggest that when managing organizations cross-nationally, in the more developed nations organizations will perform more effectively and more alike than when working with organizations in less developed countries where the conditions for the diffusion of organizational practices are weaker.

The research focussed on two countries for comparative purposes. Due to sampling limitations, the findings are more relevant to the sectors the authors studied within countries than between the countries per se. It is recommended further research be conducted using larger samples across many national cultures. While relying on broad societal institutional dynamics, the study design does not permit the analysis of the effects of specific contextual characteristics on OP. Such an undertaking is undoubtedly a “next step” that the authors recommend.

The extant literature finds that managing systems cross-nationally requires adaptation to local national contexts. Where there is less economic and technological development, less opportunity for free market competition (capitalism), educational opportunities, and shared standards from which the performance of organizations are judged, the more unlikely organizations will employ commonly applied management practices. A new tool is introduced that can be used to further research on OP cross-nationally.

The study provides empirical evidence to demonstrate that in nations where stronger diffusional pressures exist, fewer differences will be found among the performance of the three sectors. Additionally, the effectiveness of organizations in these national contexts will be greater. While research among the three sectors has identified performance differences, such differences are less likely to be discernible in developed nations due to isomorphic pressures. The study is especially relevant to those who manage global organizations cross-nationally. It introduces a new tool to measure OP across national boundaries.

This article concerns a study with the purpose of identifying differences in the management of quality between manufacturing, private service and public service organisations. A questionnaire was sent to members of the Swedish Association for Quality. Some interesting differences were identified. Customer orientation is highest in the private service sector and lowest in the public service sector. The manufacturing companies’ usage of ISO 9000 is extremely high and their usage of the Swedish Quality Award is fairly low whereas the public service organisations use both these two models equally. This corresponds with the finding that ISO 9000 produces better results in the manufacturing sector whereas The Swedish Quality Award produces better results in the service sector. Generally, the indication is that quality management is most successful in the manufacturing sector and least successful in the public service sector. There is also a difference in that improvements in the manufacturing sector are more often about the processes whereas the organisations within the public service sector more often report improvements regarding personnel.

This purpose of this paper is to examine whether and how different diversity approaches of public, semi-public and private sector organizations affect negative treatment experienced in the workplace. Broadly speaking, organizations might either approach diversity as a problem of inequality or as a resource and an added value for the organization. As such, a pro-equality and a pro-diversity approach can be distinguished which are both examined in this paper.

In a quantitative study, structural equation modeling was used on survey data of a representative sample of Dutch employees.

Results show that while both approaches are negatively associated with negative treatment, the pro-diversity is most strongly so. Sector differences were less pronounced than expected, although employees across different sectors of employment benefit from both the approaches to a different extent.

Further research examining the effect of diversity approaches to negative treatment across sectors is required. Suggestions for further research are discussed.

Looking at sector differences, the findings showed that employees across public, semi-public and private sector organizations benefitted from the diversity approaches to a different extent. Organizations across different sectors are therefore suggested to adopt different diversity approaches to combat negative treatment in the workplace.

Most studies either focus on a pro-equality or pro-diversity approach. The present study combines both and, moreover, pays attention to the way both approaches affect negative treatment experienced in the semi-public sector. Examining variation within the public sector is unique in the context of diversity research.

The authors aim to investigate public‐private pay determination using French, British and Italian micro data from the 2001 ECHP (European Community Household Panel) and estimate public/private wage differentials by country. By focussing on different countries, they exploit institutional differences to gain insights on the process of pay formation.

The authors use regression techniques to compute the pay premium both at the average and at different education/skill levels. They then decompose the observed differences into a part due to characteristics and another part due to different returns between sectors, also at different quantiles of the wage distributions within skills.

Even after controlling for observable characteristics, the authors find an overall positive wage differential for public sector workers in each of the three countries. As expected, the differential varies by skill. In general, the present findings do not fully support the view that the public (private) sector pays more (less) among the low skilled than the private (public) sector, and that the opposite is true for the highly skilled. The authors also document that the public pay premium varies as one moves up or down in the skill distribution.

On the one hand, the authors’ results confirm that the public sector acts in general as a “fair employer”, compressing pay dispersion with respect to the private sector. On the other hand, the interactions of public and private labour market institutional arrangements play a crucial role in shaping the structure of relative wages across sectors. For example, when the monopsony power in wage bargaining is relevant in both sectors as, for example, in Britain, the private sector pays in absolute value proportionally less, and also the public wage premium is smaller.

This is the first attempt to use comparable data for three countries to analyse public/private wage differences by skill levels and to link the evidence with differences in public/private wage setting regimes.

The purpose of this paper is to bring attention to the issues of validity and subgroup differences of selection devices currently being used in the public sector.

An attempt is made to identify unfair hiring practices, particularly important within the public sector, as this area of employment is characterized by a unique set of circumstances. Among them, economic constraints, the social burden to ensure fair treatment among applicants and incumbents, and an increasingly higher expectation of quality service among customers in the public sector. This paper also explores the effectiveness of two strategies for reducing subgroup differences while maintaining or increasing criterion‐related validity.

The findings of this study are important and answer some central questions. First, g and job knowledge were the best individual predictors of overall performance criteria; second, the g, alternative, and full models all significantly predicted the performance criteria, with the alternative model predicting more variance than the g model; third, the alternative model had more incremental validity over the g model than the g model had over the alternative model; the alternative model also produced less subgroup differences for Black–White comparisons than the g model. The Native American‐White differences were larger for the alternative model compared to the g model, but these differences are considered small effects and were non‐significant in the statistical sense. The Hispanic‐White differences were also somewhat larger for the alternative model when compared to the g model; however, this result is probably unreliable due to a very small Hispanic sample size and is a small effect. Thus, the alternative model will predict performance well for similar public sector samples while producing generally smaller subgroup differences.

There is little extant published research examining the validity and ethnic group score differences of alternate predictors used in the US public sector and the current effort seeks to provide empirical evidence to fill this void.

The aim of this paper is to shed light on recent debates in this journal on differences in home‐region orientation depending on type of company and the home region in which they are based.

The paper looks at the structure of trade (imports and exports) across different types of goods in order to shed light on differences between sectors and types of technology. The paper also explores structures across regions in order to shed light on regional differences.

This research indicates that there are major differences in structures of trade between different types of goods. However, these differences do not necessarily conform to a clear pattern across different technological levels and differ between regions and the direction of trade. The fact that Asian cultures have greater psychic distance from European and North American cultures is not reflected in higher levels of home‐region orientation.

The paper helps to clarify some of the hypotheses on home‐region orientation recently identified in this journal and, thus, helps to advance theories about why this orientation is so prevalent. The main limitations are related to the methodology. Using trade data, the paper cannot define the boundaries of the firm and, therefore, can only make conclusions at the macro level. These conclusions can, nevertheless, help to orient work at the micro level to further explore the key questions which recent work has raised.

Limited comparative work across sectors or technologies has been undertaken in the context of the debate on home‐region orientation. Differentiating between different types of goods can help to give us insights into why so many companies tend to focus so consistently on their home region, while others are more global.

Recent literature on nonprofit boards of directors has extensively investigated the composition, role, responsibilities, and characteristics of boards. Given the growing number of studies on nonprofit boards, which added new impulse to the debate on the role and characteristics of these players, it is time to analyze the state of the art and systematize the current knowledge. On the other hand, despite the presence of some literature reviews, a research comparing the debate among the nonprofit, private, and public sectors is still lacking. Using Gabrielsson and Huse’s (2004) framework, we wanted to identify factors that can influence research on nonprofit boards and compare our results with existing studies on private and public sector.

We conduct a systematic literature review, selecting empirical articles published in international scientific journals from 1992 to 2012.

We found similarities and differences in relation to research on boards among sectors. As a common result, we found that evolutionary studies still remains a neglected area in all of three realms. Finally, whereas input–output studies prevail in the private sector and contingency studies prevail in the public sector, behavioral studies prevail in the nonprofit sector, demonstrating, also, that the sector itself can make a difference in the board’s research.

This literature review provides some suggestion for further research on boards for all of three sectors. For example, we suggest complementing research on boards on all three sectors, especially in relation to evolutionary studies.

This paper fills the need to clarify the status of research on nonprofit boards, in order to address scholars in the understanding of the phenomenon.

This paper tries to shed light on the international progress regarding the adoption of International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS), to accentuate the benefits resulting from the application of IPSAS, and to highlight the main differences between IPSAS and IFRS.

A comprehensive literature review is conducted which focuses on issues concerning the factors that induce the adoption of IPSAS, the obstacles that must be overcome, the degree of IPSAS’ proliferation worldwide, the repercussions from adopting IPSAS, the benefits of IPSAS, and the differences between IPSAS and IFRS. The selection process of the cited articles focuses on journals with high rankings in the ABS list.

It is accentuated that IPSAS carry significant benefits regarding the improved quality of the financial information reported by the public sector, the enhancement of transparency and accountability, the upgrading of the decision-making process and the restored trust in public finances. However, there is more work that needs to be done toward the global proliferation of IPSAS.

This study provides insights regarding the implementation process of IPSAS, which should be useful to all the parties engaged in the reform of the public administration, such as national governments, local or international regulators, accounting standard setters and institutional organizations.

The current study clarifies whether the public sector should move from using the business focused IFRS, as it is frequently the case, to the adoption of IPSAS. In addition, this study comprehensive literature review can be used by academics and researchers as a basis for further research on the issue. More importantly, policymakers and other officials who need to make informed decisions about financial reporting issues at the government level and the public sector in general can benefit from this study.