Search results

The purpose of this paper is to develop a multistakeholder scale for assessing an excellent human resource (HR) function to demonstrate the extent to which it is focused on creating value from the perspective of its key internal and external stakeholders.

At the first stage, an in-depth literature review was conducted to extract the best practices for an excellent HR function. Then, to test the validation of the developed framework, it was sent to HR academics and practitioners in different countries. The survey responses were analyzed using the methods of the structural equation modeling (SEM) and confirmatory factorial analysis.

This study proposes an excellent HR multistakeholder assessment scale consisting of ten criteria based on the perceptions of internal and external HR stakeholders.

This study suggests a framework for assessing overall HR excellence based on the perceptions of key internal and external HR stakeholders. In addition, it is recommended that future researchers empirically test the developed scale across various industries and firm sizes.

HR managers, by using this framework, could continuously assess their HR excellence and compare their HR excellence with other companies’ HR excellence in the industry and then plan for continuous improvement in different HR areas to improve their stakeholders’ experiences.

This paper identifies the enablers and results of an excellent HR department and designs a multistakeholder feedback scale to better understand key internal and external HR stakeholders’ perceptions.

This paper aims to explore the key elements and dynamic formation mechanisms involved in the company identity construction during multicompany identification.

This study adopted a longitudinal single case study method, selected a representative company as the study case and analyzed the interactive practice of identity construction between the company and its external stakeholders based on the theory of organizational identity and sensemaking.

This study finds that the process of company identity construction for external stakeholders involves six elements. Companies mainly use a highly controlled, equality and interaction model to develop identity for a single stakeholder. Company identity is based on the company’s core identity claims and is formed by gradually integrating and cooperating with the identity claims of different stakeholders. Meeting the self-defining needs of stakeholders is a key driving force behind the evolution of company identity.

This study offers practical implications for companies to pursue and construct multicompany identity. For different types of external stakeholders, companies can adopt different identity sensemaking models. To build a new company identity, a company needs to do more on the basis of identity insights to break cognitive constraints and build new identity claim. Companies need to integrate new identity claims with the original identity claims. If different identity claims conflict or are difficult to reconcile, it may damage their original identity claims and companies need to evaluate the trade-offs.

This study expands the concept of company identity construction from the individual perspective to organizational identity and contributes to research in relationship marketing. This study identifies the key elements of company identity construction with multistakeholder participation and contributes to theory building in company identity research. The results of this study reveal the company identity construction mechanism for different external stakeholders and the dynamic formation process of multicompany identity.

Stakeholder theory understands business in terms of relationships among stakeholders whose interests are mainly joint but may be occasionally conflicting. In the latter case, managers may need to make trade-offs between these interests. The purpose of this paper is to explore the nature of managerial decision-making about these trade-offs.

This paper draws on the ordonomic approach which sees business life to be rife with social dilemmas and locates the role of stakeholders in harnessing or resolving these dilemmas through engagement in rule-finding and rule-setting processes.

The ordonomic approach suggests that stakeholder interests trade-offs ought to be neither ignored nor avoided, but rather embraced and welcomed as an opportunity for bringing to fruition the joint interest of stakeholders in playing a better game of business. Stakeholders are shown to bear responsibility for overcoming the perceived trade-offs through the institutional management of social dilemmas.

For many stakeholder theorists, the nature of managerial decision-making about trade-offs between conflicting stakeholder interests and the nature of trade-offs themselves have been a long-standing point of contention. The paper shows that trade-offs may be useful for the value creation process and explicitly discusses managerial strategies for dealing with them.

An in-depth analysis of how senior managers in a large multinational corporation interpret their social and environmental responsibilities revealed that, notwithstanding formal corporate interpretations, discrepancies persisted in their interpretation of what was expected of them and how to implement it. Two fault lines emerged: (1) an instrumental versus a normative interpretation of corporate societal responsibilities, and (2) a focus on ‘doing less/no harm’ versus ‘doing more good’. This chapter introduces a theoretical framework that combines these fault lines to form four quadrants that each represent a different set of challenges managers face as they commit to improving their organisation’s impact on society. Rather than adjudicate between them, a holistic interpretation of corporate social responsibility (CSR) takes all four types into account. But the four types of challenges differ considerably in nature and thus in the strategic approach that is necessary to deal with them. In this chapter, each quadrant is discussed in detail. What characterises the issues in this quadrant, what mindset, and what strategy are necessary to address them? The chapter concludes with the observation that the framework, and the taxonomy of types of CSR challenges that it brings to the fore, creates greater awareness of how industries are confronted with different sets of challenges and thus need different strategic approaches. A better understanding of these differences may lead to more support, in particular for those managers who work in industries that face a disproportionate share of one particular type of challenges, the ‘nasty trade-offs’.

This paper aims to investigate how chief executive officer (CEO) responsible leadership impacts corporate social responsibility (CSR) and organization performance by considering diverse organizational climates (including ethical, service and initiative climates) as mediators and CEO founder status as a moderator.

This study analyzed survey data from 212 service organizations in China with structural equation modeling.

The results clearly established that CEO responsible leadership played a crucial role in augmenting both CSR and organization performance by shaping positive organizational climates. Notably, CEO responsible leadership significantly fostered ethical, service and initiative climates. Furthermore, an ethical climate promoted CSR and organization performance, whereas service and initiative climates specifically enhanced organization performance. Additionally, responsible CEOs with founder status exhibited a higher propensity for enhancing ethical, service and initiative climates within service organizations.

Service organizations should take measures to build CEO responsible leadership, especially for CEOs with founder status. Furthermore, service organizations should motivate employees to reach consensus on ethical conducts, superior service and proactive approach to work.

First, the findings on CEO responsible leadership’s effects on CSR and organization performance extend the research on responsible leadership outcomes. Second, this paper adds to responsible leadership literature through exploring the mediating effects of ethical, service and initiative climates. Finally, the finding on the moderating role of founder CEOs offers a novel perspective regarding the boundary condition of the effects of CEO responsible leadership.

This final chapter of this book highlights and critically discusses some specific issues concerning talent management in the context of higher education raised in the chapters of this book. It recapitulates the transition higher education is going through. This transition started decades ago but was boosted by the movements of Open Science and Recognition and Rewards. It leads to a reorientation on the conceptualization of academic performance and subsequently also on the meaning of talent and talent management in academia. It points to a shift from an exclusive and performance orientation on talent, to an inclusive, developmental approach to talent management or a hybrid form. Yet, Thunnissen and Boselie state that there is a talent crisis in academia, and this crisis urges the need for more innovative ways of developing and implementing talent management practices. This chapter ends with some recommendations for further talent management research and practice.