Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of salary raises and employees’ perception of these salary raises on their intended retention and turnover. By using a survey data set from a representative American public university, this study investigates a novel hypothesis that faculty perceptions of salary raises, relative to their perceptions of other faculty members’ assessments of the raises, influence their intended labor supply.

Using both ordered probit and OLS modeling frameworks, the authors focus on the impact of salary raises and the relative perception of these raises on intended labor supply behavior. They explore a hypothesis that a mismatch between one’s ranking of the salary raise and the perception of others’ rankings causes dissatisfaction.

The results provide evidence that salary raises themselves are effective monetary tools to reduce intended turnover; however, the results also suggest that relative deprivation as a comparison of one’s own perceptions of a salary raise with others affects employee intended retention. The authors find that employees who have less favorable perceptions of salary adjustments, compared to what they believe their colleagues think, are more likely to consider another employer, holding their own perception of raises constant. Conversely, more favorable views of salary raises, compared to how faculty members think other’s perceived the salary raises, does not have a statistically significant impact on intended retention.

This is the first study that explores an employee’s satisfaction with salary raises relative to perceptions of other employees’ satisfaction with their own salary raises, and the resulting intended labor supply in an American university. The results indicate that monetary rewards in the form of salary raises do impact faculty intended retention; however, perception of fairness of these salary raises is more important than the actual raises. Given the high cost of job turnover, these findings suggest that employers may benefit from devoting resources toward ensuring that salary- and raise-determining procedures are generally perceived by the vast majority of employees as being fair.

Corporate scandals at Enron, Tyco, and MCI highlight the issue of opportunistic management behavior. The US Congress responded to these scandals by passing the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). SOX imposes additional management responsibilities and corporate operating costs on companies trading under SEC regulations. This paper examines three options for US corporations responding to SOX: compliance with SOX, taking a company private, or moving to a non‐ SEC‐regulated exchange, such as an international exchange. The paper then examines potential corporate governance options using Transaction Cost Economics (TCE; Williamson 1985) to develop propositions regarding which options firms may select.

Self-employed business owners are far less compliant in reporting and paying their taxes than wage earners (employees). Discounted utility theory suggests that people act rationally and would not be willing to prepay an upcoming obligation. Mental accounting and behavioral economics theory take a different view, asserting that taxpayers will prefer a pay-as-you-go pattern (i.e., regularity). In response to these opposing theories, we conducted a behavioral experiment to see if a taxpayer who is given the opportunity to pay estimated federal income taxes monthly (instead of quarterly) will do so, and also whether they are less delinquent than those in the control group, who paid estimated federal income taxes quarterly. Our results indicate that when respondents were explicitly offered the opportunity to make monthly rather than only quarterly payments, the majority of the respondents opted to make monthly prepayments at least once. Additionally, those with an explicit option to pay as often as monthly rather than quarterly had significantly fewer dollars of delinquency. Paying more frequently could alleviate some budgeting pressures for the self-employed and result in fewer delinquencies to be collected at the federal level.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of a particular low marginal-cost employee benefit on employees’ intended retention and performance. By utilizing a unique data set constructed by surveying full-time faculty and staff members at a public university in the USA, the authors study the impact of this employee benefit on faculty and staff performance and retention.

The authors focus on the impact of reduction in dependent college tuition at various levels on employees’ intentions to work harder and stay at their current job by using both OLS and ordered probit models. The authors also simulate the direct opportunity cost (reduction in revenue) in dollars and as a percent of total budgeted revenue to facilitate administrative decision making.

The results provide evidence that for institutions where employee retention and productivity are a priority, maximizing or offering dependent college tuition waiver may be a relatively low-cost benefit to increase retention and productivity. In addition, the amount of the tuition waiver, number of dependents and annual salary are statistically significant predictors of intended increased productivity and intent to stay employed at the current institution.

Employee retention and productivity is a challenge for all organizations. Although pay, benefits and organizational culture tend to be key indicators of job satisfaction, little attention is given to specific types of benefits. This study is the first comprehensive attempt to explore the relationship between the impact of this low-cost employee benefit and employee performance and retention in a higher education institution in the USA.

Recent reports suggest the shape and size of the digital divide may be changing. This exploratory study aims to examine the relationships between demographic and situational variables and small and medium‐sized enterprise (SME) owners' intentions to adopt and use free public wifi technology.

A survey study of 158 SME owners in the urban renewal community (RC) of a large Southwestern metroplex investigated the influence of known digital divisors – gender, ethnicity, age, education, and experience – on the adoption and use of wi‐fi technologies. Partial least squares was used to test the hypotheses.

Contrary to previous research, gender, age, education, and experience were not related to the intention to adopt wifi technology. Ethnicity was significantly related to intent to adopt, but the relationship was small. Ethnicity and age were found to be somewhat related to wifi usage. In marked contrast from earlier research, education, gender, and experience were not significant predictors of usage.

The findings suggest that access to high‐speed wifi has the potential to reduce and/or eliminate the digital divide. The projected changes in the digital divide can be expected to make a significant impact on SME productivity and performance.

This study is one of the first to examine the influence of the adoption and use of public wi‐fi technologies by SME owners on the digital divide.

This research provides accounting-ethics authors and administrators with a benchmark for accounting-ethics research. While Bernardi and Bean (2010) considered publications in business-ethics and accounting’s top-40 journals this study considers research in eight accounting-ethics and public-interest journals, as well as, 34 business-ethics journals. We analyzed the contents of our 42 journals for the 25-year period between 1991 through 2015. This research documents the continued growth (Bernardi & Bean, 2007) of accounting-ethics research in both accounting-ethics and business-ethics journals. We provide data on the top-10 ethics authors in each doctoral year group, the top-50 ethics authors over the most recent 10, 20, and 25 years, and a distribution among ethics scholars for these periods. For the 25-year timeframe, our data indicate that only 665 (274) of the 5,125 accounting PhDs/DBAs (13.0% and 5.4% respectively) in Canada and the United States had authored or co-authored one (more than one) ethics article.