Search results

The construction industry has high rates of work-related ill health. Whilst there have been more recent calls for a “health like safety” narrative within the industry, health has still predominantly been viewed via health risks rather than a more holistic conceptualisation of health and well-being. The workplace is viewed as a fruitful site for health promotion work, yet we know little about the possibilities and promise of health promotion within the construction industry. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This paper explores the views of stakeholders with health-related roles and responsibilities within the UK construction industry. From the 21 semi-structured qualitative interviews, thematic analysis was conducted and two key themes emerged: the construction industry as anti-health promoting and understanding industry-specific health issues.

The construction industry faces significant constraint in attempting to promote better health and well-being due to its makeup, yet the health and well-being issues of the industry notably stress, and early retirement are major issues for both the industry and individuals.

The authors argue that only through understanding the structural constraints of the industry in this way can the possibilities and potentials for undertaking health promotion work be fully embedded within the industry in order to help create meaningful change for both employees and the industry as a whole.

This paper offers insight into the challenges that exist within construction for promoting positive employee health and well-being and takes an in-depth approach to exploring why health promotion may not be occurring within the industry.

The Seitz and Hulin article applying multi-level simulation to the analysis of the AIDS pandemic fills a much needed void in the social sciences literature. In light of its pioneering aspects, four topics will be highlighted by way of review: (1) methodological contributions, (2) theoretical contributions, (3) need for visualization techniques, and (4) possible applications in management above and beyond health issues. Once its initial assumptions are recognized, this article represents a positive addition to the multi-level modeling and simulation literature.

In this commentary, we will examine London and Sessa's (this volume) article on continuous learning in organizations from alternative researcher and practitioner perspectives. Specifically, we review its major points, examine the issues of entity selection and definitions, discuss the need for a “parts and wholes” approach, contrast alternative process models that stress the importance of time, and speculate about different user perspectives and their approaches. On balance, their article will stimulate much needed discussion and research in an important area.

The paper aims to establish the relationship between leader member exchange (LMX) relationship and work role performance through the dynamic process of employee engagement. The study outlines why and how leadership is important for employee engagement and effective work role performance. Adopting a survey based research design, a sample of 198 Indian working managers at different levels including various sectors has supported our hypotheses that employee engagement mediates the relations between LMX and work role performance. It provides empirical insights about how employee engagement process influences the LMX and work role performance relationships. The results also suggest that high quality relationship of employees with their leaders is positively related to employee engagement and their work role performance.

Kerstin Aumann is a doctoral student in the social-organizational psychology program at Teachers College, Columbia University. She received her B.S. at Northwestern University, after which she spent three years working in the Change Communication Specialty Group at Burson-Marsteller, a global communications firm. Her research interests include international human resources management, cross-cultural organizational behavior, and cultural diversity.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.

Computational modeling brings unique and critical contributions to behavioral and social research. Computational modeling can transform logic models into dynamic models and helps formalize complex theory construction. Computational modeling opens new vistas in data designs and data analysis. Computational models allow us to explore systems not in dynamic equilibrium, to understand the implications of different initialization conditions, to examine complex system synergies through process decomposition, and to provide policy-related tools such as counterfactual simulations.

This paper aims to investigate the principles of high reliability organisations (HROs), present in safety and crisis teams, as applied to innovation teams. Safety and crisis teams cannot fail, as failure leads to disaster and casualties. Innovation teams cannot fail either, as this harms the organisations’ competitiveness and effectiveness. Do HRO principles, rooted in mindful infrastructure, enable innovation resilience behaviour (IRB)?

A study of 18 innovation projects performed by project teams was carried out. A survey by team members/leaders of these teams was completed; team members/leaders of other projects were added to achieve a larger sample. Mindful infrastructure consists of team psychological safety, team learning, complexity leadership and team voice. The analyses assessed the teams’ mindful infrastructures as a causal condition enabling IRB.

Applying qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), the findings indicate that mindful infrastructure enables team IRB, which is a set of team behaviours indicating their resilience when encountering critical incidents. Teams apply different “paths” to IRB.

The exploratory study’s generalizability is limited. The findings nonetheless indicate the usefulness of non-linear techniques for understanding different roads to successful innovation processes.

HRO principles are applicable by non-HROs. These require investments in organisational learning.

HRO studies fail to account for the antecedents of HRO principles. This study groups these antecedents of team behaviour into a mindful infrastructure. QCA has not been applied within the domain of HROs before and only scarcely within the domain of innovation teams.