Search results

The purpose of this paper is to report on a study of change management practices in private sector organisations in the small island economy of Mauritius.

Interviews were conducted with key decision makers and individuals who had experienced the organisational change process in three private organisations from different sectors in Mauritius: a bank, a hotel and a privatised state-owned enterprise. A grounded theory approach was employed to establish the key dimensions of organisational change in this setting.

Organisational change is a multi-dimensional, multi-directional and evolutionary process strongly influenced by the contextual and historical aspects of the country. The emerging key elements of change identified in the data confirmed a range of dimensions evident in the extant literature, but also identified a largely unacknowledged factor, considered to be central to the change process in Mauritian organisations. This emerging factor was identified as partisanship.

This study served to confirm six dimensions evident in the extant literature on organisational change: organisational structure, organisational culture, leadership processes, individuals, knowledge management and resistance to change. A seventh dimension, and heretofore largely unacknowledged factor, considered to be central to the change process in Mauritian organisations was also identified: partisanship. The study identified this emerging key dimension as having a pervasive influence. History, culture and context have served to embed this dimension in Mauritian organisations. Evidence is presented to illustrate how the process of organisational change is undertaken in Mauritius, and identify the role of partisanship. This has the potential to be applied to other small island economies with similar historical, cultural or contextual features.

For many, the claim that a new approach to bureaucracy—new political governance (NPG)—is underway reads as if it was written by Stephen King: Frightening fiction. While the thought of promiscuously partisan senior public servants publicly defending and promoting the government’s reputation to the demise of impartiality is disturbing, the evidentiary record has led most to dismiss the idea as empirically false. This article questions, and empirically investigates, whether dismissing the idea of promiscuous partisanship has been premature.

A case study of the loyalty displayed by Canada’s most senior public servant during a highly publicized parliamentary committee is analysed with a novel theoretical and empirical approach in three steps. First, the Clerk of the Privy Council (Clerk)’s committee testimony is analysed against analytical constructs of impartial and promiscuous partisan loyalty that focuses on the testimony’s direction and substance. Second, the objectivity and truthfulness of the testimony is analysed by comparing what was publicly claimed to have occurred against evidence submitted to the committee that provids an independent record of events. Third, the perception the Clerk’s testimony had on some committee members, political journalists and members of the public is analysed through print media and committee Hansard.

While the Clerk’s testimony displays an awareness of upholding impartiality, it also comprises promiscuous partisanship. Throughout his testimony, the Clerk redirects from the line of questioning to defend and promote the sitting government’s reputation. Moreover, to defend and promote the government’s reputation the Clerk’s testimony moved away from objectivity and engaged in truth-obfuscating tactics. Finally, the nature of the Clerk’s testimony was perceived by some committee members and the public—including former senior public servants—as having abandoned impartiality to have become a public “cheerleader” of the government.

Employing an in-depth case study limits the extent to which the findings concerning the presence of promiscuously partisan loyalty can be generalized beyond the present case to the larger cadre of senior public servants.

Empirically, while most research has dismissed claims of promiscuous partisanship as empirically unfounded, this article provides what is possibly the strongest empirical case to date of a public incident of promiscuous partisanship at the apex of the bureaucracy. As such, scholars can no longer dismiss NPG as an interesting idea without much empirical leverage. Theoretically, this article adds further caution to Aucoin’s original narrative of NPG by suggesting that promiscuous partisanship might not only involve senior public servants defending and promoting the government, but that doing so may push them to engage in truth-obfuscating tactics, and therein, weaken the public’s confidence in political institutions. The novel theoretical and empirical approach to studying senior public servants’ parliamentary testimony can be used by scholars in other settings to expand the empirical study of bureaucratic loyalty.

This study examined how likeminded Facebook comments with incivility and without supporting evidence influence readers' evaluations of the commenter and online political participation intention. This study also investigated whether the indirect effect of exposure to uncivil comments and comments without evidence on online political participation through evaluations of the commenters is contingent on the strength of partisanship.

The study used a 2 (uncivil comments vs civil comments) × 2 (comments without supporting evidence vs comments with supporting evidence) factorial design with a scenario about reading similar viewpoints about the gun control issue in Facebook comments.

The results showed that compared to exposure to civil agreeing comments, exposure to uncivil likeminded comments resulted in higher levels of negative evaluations of the commenters, which in turn decreased willingness to participate in political activities online. Exposure to comments without evidence led to more negative evaluations of the commenters, but it did not significantly influence online political participation. In addition, the strength of partisanship did not significantly moderate the indirect effect of exposure to uncivil comments and comments without evidence on online political participation through evaluations of the commenters.

Although previous studies have demonstrated the significant effects of incivility and reasoned argument, little is known about whether and how people evaluate ingroup members' comments that are uncivil and lacking reasoned arguments. Most of these studies have examined incivility in political contexts, but few have extended the context to the effect of likeminded comments, especially when the comments are uncivil and lack supporting evidence. The current study aims to fill this gap in the literature.

The study investigates the effect of an uncivil comment made by a party representative on social media and tests whether it can lead to a change in observers' attitude toward the party.

Data are collected from 196 respondents using a scenario-based survey. Proposed model is tested using partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).

It is found that individual's moral identity and issue involvement influence perceived civility of the online post, which in turn affects attitude toward the party as well as the individual. It is observed that for high partisans, effect of perceived civility on attitude toward the party is stronger compared to low partisans. Party's lack of responsiveness to address the uncivil comment from its representative increases party's incivility accountability and lowers the partisan attitude toward the party.

The study presents a novel understanding of how political party representatives can influence the image of the party by engaging in an uncivil discourse on social media. Results support that strong partisan would react more unfavorably indicating that loyalty toward the party cannot be taken for granted.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-03-2020-0084

In this chapter, I apply theories of conflict and social control derived from the work of Donald Black to explain when suicide attacks will occur and who will carry them out.

Drawing on the published literature on suicide, suicide terrorism, and social control, I present a structural analysis of suicide attacks that specifies which configurations of social space and social time are most likely to produce them.

I propose that suicide attacks can be explained by structural patterns such as social distance, status inferiority, organization, and large movements of social time. Furthermore, sacrifice is greater among those who are socially marginal individuals whose locations are otherwise conducive to both partisanship and self-destruction.

I highlight structural similarities between suicide attacks and other forms of violence, social control, and suicide, thus contributing to the systemization of structural theories of human behavior and suggesting avenues for further study.

This study aims to examine the role of hope and hate in political leaders’ messages in influencing liberals versus conservatives’ social-distancing behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the increasing political partisanship across the world today, using the appropriate message framing has important implications for social and public policy.

The authors use two Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods – a pretrained package (HateSonar) and a classifier built to implement our supervised neural network-based model architecture using RoBERTa – to analyze 61,466 tweets by each US state’s governor and two senators with the goal of examining the association between message factors invoking hate and hope and increased or decreased social distancing from March to May 2020. The authors examine individuals’ social-distancing behaviors (the amount of nonessential driving undertaken) using data from 3,047 US counties between March 13 and May 31, 2020, as reported by Google COVID-19 Community Mobility Reports and the New York Times repository of COVID-19 data.

The results show that for conservative state leaders, the use of hate increases nonessential driving of state residents. However, when these leaders use hope in their speech, nonessential driving of state residents decreases. For liberal state leaders, the use of hate displays a directionally different result as compared to their conservative counterparts.

Amid the emergence of new analytic techniques and novel data sources, the findings demonstrate that the use of global positioning systems data and social media analysis can provide valuable and precise insights into individual behavior. They also contribute to the literature on political ideology and emotion by demonstrating the use of specific emotion appeals in targeting specific consumer segments based on their political ideology.

The findings have significant implications for policymakers and public health officials regarding the importance of considering partisanship when developing and implementing public health policies. As partisanship continues to increase, applying the appropriate emotion appeal in messages will become increasingly crucial. The findings can help marketers and policymakers develop more effective social marketing campaigns by tailoring specific appeals given the political identity of the consumer.

Using Neural NLP methods, this study identifies the specific factors linking social media messaging from political leaders and increased compliance with health directives in a partisan population.

Companies' voices on social justice issues, such as racial justice, gender equality and LGBTQ rights, have become increasingly prevalent. To contribute to current knowledge around corporate communication on social justice, this study aims to understand the differential effects of three types of corporate social justice statements – symbolic statements, substantive statements on external actions and substantive statements on internal actions.

A between-subjects experiment was conducted (N = 502), with different types of statements as the independent variable and corporate reputation and perceived corporate relationship-building efforts as outcomes. The three dimensions of perceived authenticity (i.e. perceived benevolence, transparency and commitment) were included as parallel mediators.

This study found that compared to symbolic statements, substantive statements on external or internal actions generated higher perceived authenticity on at least one of the three dimensions, which in turn, led to a more positive corporate reputation and perceived relationship-building efforts. Substantive statements on external actions and on internal actions also had differential indirect effects on the outcomes through different dimensions of perceived authenticity. Partisanship did not have a moderating effect on the mediating effects of perceived authenticity.

This study highlights the importance of authenticity in corporate social justice communication and reveals practical implications about how businesses should communicate with publics when engaging in social justice issues.

This study is among the earliest efforts to examine the effects of different corporate social justice statements. It contributes to the existing literature by demonstrating the impacts of perceived authenticity on publics' evaluation of companies and opens up an avenue for future research to further examine various authenticity dimensions.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the influence of the political partisanship of government in charges of returns on the European stock markets. The authors found a large body of research investigating this issue for the case of US stock market but less evidence for the European stock markets.

The authors employ a panel data model with fixed-effects and an additional dynamic panel model using the bias-corrected LSDV estimator on a data set consisting of monthly and quarterly data. The data range from 2000 to 2010 and cover 20 European Union (EU) countries. The authors test several hypotheses, and run distinct regressions using political, financial, and economic variables. The authors also divide the data set into two sub-samples in order to reveal the distinctions between advanced and emerging economies in the EU.

The authors find that stock markets perform better under right-wing administrations. The result is consistent for the advanced EU economies, but the authors found no robust evidence in that sense for emerging countries. Additionally, the authors show that European stock market preferences for right/left-wing administrations is not necessarily related to the beliefs about the size of unemployment, inflation, deficit, and/or debt, which opens the field for further research in this area.

The study contributes to existing knowledge. It examines if Wall Street folklore, asserting for many decades that stock markets perform better under right-wing governments, also holds for European stock markets given the distinctions in the political and financial systems between USA and Europe. Moreover, the authors underline the introduction in the analysis of the Central and Eastern European countries.

The purpose of this study is to examine, in the context of online news use, the predictive values of two factors: perceived bias in traditional media and preference for partisan news.

This study used data collected as part of the Pew Internet and American Life Project between December 28, 2009, and January 19, 2010. The data were analyzed using linear regression analysis.

The findings provide evidence of the values of two potentially significant predictors of online news use: a perception of bias in traditional media and preference for partisan news. In addition, higher levels of political partisanship were shown to intensify the positive effect of perceived bias in traditional media on online news use in new media outlets, reinforcing the impact of preference for partisan news on participatory online news use.

Depending on individual decisions, the internet can either help to empower deliberative democracy (where diverse and different voices coexist) or lead to an extremely polarized society.

With the explosive growth of the internet as a news source, media scholars have explored the factors that encourage people to rely on the internet for news and information. Nevertheless, certain attributes of online news consumption originating from individual attitudes about and perceptions of the media environment remain underspecified. This research helps advance an understanding of the types of people who seek news online and how they use various sources.

This paper utilizes Svara's facilitative leadership model to examine local government council/board effectiveness in Michigan, United States.

This study performs a binary logistic regression to assess the influence of four independent variables–consensus building, cooperative relationship, clarity of responsibility and existence of factions/partisanship on five measures of council/board effectiveness (long-term goal setting, administrative, financial, addressing citizen expectations and overall performance), while controlling for other variables.

Overall, the findings of this study have serious theoretical and practical implications. Specifically, the findings revealed that cooperative relationships, clarity of responsibility, discussion of public issues and partnership influence council/board effectiveness. The findings further support Svara's (2003) model on facilitative leadership and the model's usefulness in understanding local government leadership, i.e. council/board leadership effectiveness.

First, survey data contains desirability bias which can affect the results presented in this study. Second, the data does not include socio-demographic variables of the respondents.

The study is original because it utilizes a data set that is not commonly used in understanding local government council/board effectiveness. Furthermore, the study also shows the usefulness of Svara's facilitative leadership in local government.