Search results

This study explored the challenges academics faced with work structures during the COVID-19 pandemic and their implications for their work–life balance (WLB).

Relying on the interpretative paradigm and the qualitative research method, the dataset consists of semi-structured interviews with 43 academics in the United Kingdom.

This study’s findings indicate that academics in the UK experience issues around increased boundary permeability between work and nonwork domains and role overlap, which engender the transfer of negative rather than positive spillover experiences and exacerbate negative consequences to the well-being of academics. ICTs also reinforced gendered work-family boundaries and generated more negative work–life/family spillover for women than for men.

Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) need to address ICT-related health issues through better work designs and HR initiatives that respond to the health requirements of academics. Policymakers should be futuristic and ensure comprehensive work–life policies for academics, which are necessary for humanising overall organisational well-being.

Although COVID-19 challenges are common to all workers, the experiences and effects on specific workers (in this case, UK academics) within specific national jurisdictions play out differentially, and they are often experienced with different levels of depth and intensity.

This study investigates whether a firm that has experienced an environmental accident (EA) is less likely to conduct a product recall. If true, it would indicate that EAs tempt firms to hide operational problems that need to be revealed. The logic is that both events are operational failures that damage a firm's reputation and share price. Following an EA, a firm may avoid a discretionary product recall to avoid providing additional evidence of operational incapability and social irresponsibility and thereby triggering amplified reputational and market penalties.

The dataset is compiled from several public and private sources and includes 4,355 product recalls, 153 EAs and 120 firms from the industries that often recall products, including automotive, pharma, medical device, food and consumer products. The study timeframe is 2002–2013. Empirical models are evaluated using hazard modeling.

Results show that EAs reduce the probability of a product recall by 32%, on average. Effect sizes are larger when accidents are more frequent or more severe and when recalls are less severe. Through post hoc analyses, the study finds support for the proposed mechanism that firms avoid recalls due to reputational concerns, provides evidence that EAs can have a lengthy impact on recall behavior, and shows that firms are more likely to avoid recalls managed by the CPSC and NHTSA than recalls managed by the FDA.

Prior studies in operations management (OM) have not examined the impact of one negative event on another. This study finds that EAs tempt firms to hide operational problems that need to be revealed. While recalling fewer defective products is of concern to consumers and regulators, should EAs influence a broader set of discretionary operational decisions, such as closing/relocating a production facility, outsourcing production or conducting a layoff, study implications increase significantly.