Search results

Purpose – Over the last 15 years, research provided insight into several firm- and country-level determinants of asymmetric cost behavior. Their implicit premise builds on rational trade-off decisions between holding costs of idle resources and adjustment costs. The authors build upon these findings and establish an irrational component – sunlight-induced managerial mood.

Methodology/approach – The authors rely on the established cross-sectional model of asymmetric cost behavior to investigate short-term resource adjustment decisions and extend it by an exogenous proxy for managerial mood (i.e., daily sunshine hours per US county-year).

Findings – Beyond rational trade-off and planning decisions, the authors provide large-sample evidence on the influence of irrational mood on cost decisions. In accordance with research in psychology showing that higher serotine levels, attributable to sunlight, contribute to happiness and optimism, the results suggest that sunlight-induced mood increases the level of asymmetric cost behavior. Managers from firms headquartered in counties with a higher level of sunlight less likely react to a decrease in sales by reducing idle resources. Instead, they seem to be more optimistic about future demand conditions and, thus, more inclined to “sit out” downturns in firm activity until sales recover.

Research limitations/implications – Although the mood proxy is truly exogenous in the setting, the authors are unable to establish causality as the actual cost management decisions could not be observed directly. Moreover, the analyses are limited to the county level, whereas weather undoubtedly oftentimes exhibits intra-county variation.

Originality/value – This study is the first to establish an irrational antecedent of managerial resource adjustment decisions, which adds to the cost stickiness literature by demonstrating the important role of deliberate managerial decisions for corporate cost behavior.

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.

Research on coping at work has tended to adopt a between-person perspective, producing inconsistent findings on well-being outcomes. This focus on interindividual differences is in contrast to many theories that position coping as process, hence, as an intraindividual process that unfolds over time in response to job stressors and appraisals. The authors propose that focusing more on the within-person coping processes and integrating them with learning perspectives has the potential to advance our understanding. More specifically, coping behavior and well-being can be seen as an outcome of current and past learning processes. In this chapter, the authors discuss three mechanisms that explain how coping processes can produce positive versus negative effects on well-being, and how coping can be integrated into a learning framework to explain these pathways. First, the stress process entails encoding and evaluation of the situation and, as a consequence, deployment of suitable coping behavior. Over and above the efforts that have to be invested to understand the stressful situation, the coping behavior itself also requires time and energy resources. Second, coping behavior likely co-occurs with learning processes such as reflection, exploration, and exploitation. These learning processes require further time and cognitive resources. Third, although coping behaviors and their accompanying learning processes have the potential to drain resources at the within-person level, they can also build up interindividual coping resources such as a broader repertoire and coping flexibility. These between-level differences equip employees to deal with future stressors.

This chapter provides an overview of the role of socioeconomic status (SES) in health, including disease, health behaviors, and access to health. The literature on the social determinants of health is reviewed. The chapter then provides a review of the health status of the homeless, poor, and near-poor. The incidence and mortality rates for leading diseases and health behaviors are reviewed, in addition to issues of environmental exposures, access to care, and health literacy. SES is one of the strongest predictors of health status (Kahng, 2010; Kawachi & Kennedy, 1997; Link & Phelan, 1996). SES is important to health regardless of a person's social status and in general, the more advantaged individuals are, the better their health, and the more disadvantaged individuals are, the greater their chances of increased morbidity and mortality (Adler et al., 1994; Adler & Coriell, 1997, Kidder, Wolitski, Campsmith, & Nakamura, 2007; Zlotnick and Zerger, 2009).

The chapter provides an overview of strategies and policies to address the health needs of the poor and vulnerable in our society, including workplace wellness strategies and school-based health clinics. The authors suggest ways to extend these innovative practices. This chapter emphasizes an approach to addressing the health of the poor and near-poor that acknowledges the significant role that access to social and economic resources plays in the acquisition and maintenance of health. Recommendations for health interventions are focused on strengthening the utilization of community institutions to deliver needed services.