Search results

In many conceptual discussions of criteria for defining the quality of working life safe and healthy working conditions figure prominently. A well known paper by Richard Walton, for example, lists eight major conceptual categories (the second of which is safe and healthy working conditions) which in his view, “… provide a framework for analysis of the salient features that together make up the quality of working life”. It is Walton's contention that this schema of eight conceptual categories invites several types of analysis, including that of how each quality of working life attribute tends to be related to the others in practice, i.e. are these attributes positively or negatively correlated and to what extent?

This study moves beyond existing research on gender diversity to define a new construct – gender power. The study examines gender power within the top management team (TMT) and its relationship to firm performance and firm risk.

The study utilizes a cross-disciplinary combination of upper echelons theory and finance theory as a framework to further examine the impact of gender power within the TMT and its impact on firm risk and firm performance. Employing data collected for 2,570 American publicly traded small-, medium- and large-cap firms over a 20-year period, panel regression analyses were conducted for measures of firm risk and firm performance, beta and return on assets (ROA), respectively.

This study shows that gender diversity and gender power are two distinct constructs with different effects. The findings from this study suggest that gender power may be a stronger predictor of the relationship between firm performance and firm risk than simply gender diversity alone.

This study was conducted based on a sample of publicly traded firms. These relationships may not be generalizable to firms in other contexts. Further, other variables representing firm performance and firm risk may add to this research.

Understanding the differences between gender diversity and gender power may allow firms to make more informed decisions when adding female executives to their TMTs.

This study proposes an objective representational indicator of structural power to measure the relative power of female executives of public companies that allows the expansion of existing research examining the distinction between gender diversity and gender power and their relationship to firm risk and firm performance.

There is a great deal of interest in the environment these days, and while much of that interest focuses on saving the world, a lot of it relates to learning about nature. Field guides are among the most popular natural history guides for the general public; it sometimes seems that almost every household must have at least one lurking in a corner. There are an incredible variety of field guides available for inquiring naturalists. The well‐known Peterson, Golden, and Audubon series and the typical bird, flower, and tree guides are just the tip of the iceberg.

In the history of business management thought, six idea families have predominated during the last eighty or so years — bureaucracy (Max Weber), scientific management (Frederick Winslow Taylor), classical management (Henri Fayol), human relations (Elton Mayo), neo‐human relations (Abraham Maslow). To these one can add the more recent contributions of different writers under the heading of guru theory. The first five idea families are well known, but the sixth requires explanation. Gury theory achieved prominence during the 1980s. While not yet featuring extensively in management textbooks it has received widespread attention in the financial and business press (Lorenz, 1986; Dixon, 1986; Clutterbuck and Crainer, 1988; Pierce and Newstrom, 1988; Heller, 1990). Guru theory consists of the diverse and unrelated writings of well‐known company chief executives such as Lee lacocca (Chrysler), Harold Geneen (ITT), John Harvey‐Jones (ICI) and John Sculley (Apple Computer); of management consultants like Tom Peters and Philip Crosby; and of business school academics like Michael Porter, Rosabeth Moss Kanter and Henry Mintzberg. Since their contributions are so heterogeneous, and as the writings draw so much of their authority from the individual authors themselves, the adopted label is felt to be appropriate.

Based on research in a number of organizations that have implemented complex information systems, it is apparent that there is a large, untapped potential for organizations to control the effects of new information technology. The new information technology now available also makes it feasible to modify systems design to take advantage of this potential. These observations have resulted in a proposed methodology for creating organizationally effective information systems. A key element of this methodology is the Organizational Impact Statement, which serves as a focal point for identifying those areas of the organization where potential effects of the technology can be predicted and acted upon.

This paper examines the potential relationship between the history of American generations and the development of American management thought. The paper reviews the recently developed generational theory of American history, along with the generational concept itself. Then, the leading thinkers in the history of the management discipline are classified according to their generational membership. The potential theoretical and research implications of the interplay of managerial and historical generations are then discussed.

The paper has three main sections. The first summarises both the evidence for union decline or stagnation (such as decreasing union density, falling numbers of workplace representatives and fewer days lost in strikes), and the standard explanations (such as macro‐economic factors, labour force changes, falling workplace size and changes in the bargaining context). The second section suggests an approach to the comparison of union cultures in the three countries. The third section develops a comparative approach to trends in job regulation, and the role of unions within this. Finally, the paper offers some conclusions from this comparative analysis on the emerging debate over union survival.

Increased worker autonomy and participation are being proclaimed as the foundation for economic competitiveness in the 1990s (Reich, 1991). Management has been generally favorable towards such strategies and surveys of workers also indicate widespread support (Hackman, 1990). However, trade unionists fear that these new organizations of work are, at least in part, being sponsored by management in an attempt to undermine unions and manipulate workers (Grenier, 1988; Parker, 1985). More cautious forms of this argument propose that participation schemes are initiated to extract from workers the important “working knowledge” (Kusterer, 1978) and “tricks of the trade” (Thomas, 1991; Hodson, 1991) that are often workers' resource in bargaining with management over wages and conditions. Participation schemes may also lead to the unraveling of “informal agreements” between workers and front line supervisors concerning work effort and work procedures that both labor and management would prefer to keep hidden (Thomas, 1991:8).

To test the relationship between HRM practice and employee work‐related attitudes and examine whether different approaches to measurement of HRM gives different results.

HRM practice was measured in three ways: additive measures of numbers of HRM practice, employer reports and employee reports of strength of practices. Employee attitudes were measured using organisational commitment, job satisfaction and organisational fairness scales. Matched data sets tested the relationships.

Statistically significant results were obtained between HRM practice and employee attitudes, but only when employee reports of the strength of HRM practice were used to measure HRM.

This study emphasises that care must be taken in HRM research to use suitable data sources, with employees being a valuable, but under‐used, source.

Effective HRM policies and practices should be measured by their perceived quality, not simply by the number of practices introduced.

This study highlights that there are perceptual differences as to the strength of HRM practices and emphasises the importance of allowing employee voice in HRM research.

The purpose of this paper is to take a serious look at the relationship between joint consultation systems at the workplace and employee satisfaction, while at the same time accounting for the (possible) interactions with similar union and management-led high commitment strategies.

Using new, rich data on a representative sample of British workers, the authors identify workplace institutions that are positively associated with employee perceptions of work and relations with management, what in combination the authors call a measure of the “good workplace.” In particular, the authors focus on non-union employee representation at the workplace, in the form of joint consultative committees (JCCs), and the potential moderating effects of union representation and high-involvement human resource (HIHR) practices.

The authors’ findings suggest a re-evaluation of the role that JCCs play in the subjective well-being of workers even after controlling for unions and progressive HR policies. There is no evidence in the authors’ estimates of negative interaction effects (i.e. that unions or HIHR negatively influence the functioning of JCCs with respect to employee satisfaction) or substitution (i.e. that unions or HIHR are substitutes for JCCs when it comes to improving self-reported worker well-being). If anything, there is a significant and positive three-way moderating effect when JCCs are interacted with union representation and high-involvement management.

This is the first time – to the authors’ knowledge – that comprehensive measures of subjective employee well-being are being estimated with respect to the presence of a JCC at the workplace, while controlling for workplace institutions (e.g. union representation and human resource policies) that are themselves designed to involve and communicate with workers.