A multi-organisational approach for disaster preparedness and response:the use of optimisation and GIS for facility location, stock pre-positioning, resource allocation and relief distribution

From 1992 to 2012 4.4 billion people were affected by disasters with almost 2 trillion USD in damages and 1.3 million people killed worldwide. The increasing threat of disasters stresses the need to provide solutions for the challenges faced by disaster managers, such as the logistical deployment of resources required to provide relief to victims. The location of emergency facilities, stock prepositioning, evacuation, inventory management, resource allocation, and relief distribution have been identified to directly impact the relief provided to victims during the disaster. Managing appropriately these factors is critical to reduce suffering. Disaster management commonly attracts several organisations working alongside each other and sharing resources to cope with the emergency. Coordinating these agencies is a complex task but there is little research considering multiple organisations, and none actually optimising the number of actors required to avoid shortages and convergence. The aim of the this research is to develop a system for disaster management based on a combination of optimisation techniques and geographical information systems (GIS) to aid multi-organisational decision-making. An integrated decision system was created comprising a cartographic model implemented in GIS to discard floodable facilities, combined with two models focused on optimising the decisions regarding location of emergency facilities, stock prepositioning, the allocation of resources and relief distribution, along with the number of actors required to perform these activities. Three in-depth case studies in Mexico were studied gathering information from different organisations. The cartographic model proved to reduce the risk to select unsuitable facilities. The preparedness and response models showed the capacity to optimise the decisions and the number of organisations required for logistical activities, pointing towards an excess of actors involved in all cases. The system as a whole demonstrated its capacity to provide integrated support for disaster preparedness and response, along with the existence of room for improvement for Mexican organisations in flood management.

Leadership and organisational outcomes in healthcare

This research examined to what extent and how leadership is related to organisational outcomes in healthcare. Based on the Job Demands-Resource model, a set of hypotheses was developed, which predicted that the effect of leadership on healthcare outcomes would be mediated by job design, employee engagement, work pressure, opportunity for involvement, and work-life balance. The research focused on the National Health Service (NHS) in England, and examined the relationships between senior leadership, first line supervisory leadership and outcomes. Three years of data (2008 – 2010) were gathered from four data sources: the NHS National Staff Survey, the NHS Inpatient Survey, the NHS Electronic Record, and the NHS Information Centre. The data were drawn from 390 healthcare organisations and over 285,000 staff annually for each of the three years. Parallel mediation regressions modelled both cross sectional and longitudinal designs. The findings revealed strong relationships between senior leadership and supervisor support respectively and job design, engagement, opportunity for involvement, and work-life balance, while senior leadership was also associated with work pressure. Except for job design, there were significant relationships between the mediating variables and the outcomes of patient satisfaction, employee job satisfaction, absenteeism, and turnover. Relative importance analysis showed that senior leadership accounted for significantly more variance in relationships with outcomes than supervisor support in the majority of models tested. Results are discussed in relation to theoretical and practical contributions. They suggest that leadership plays a significant role in organisational outcomes in healthcare and that previous research may have underestimated how influential senior leaders may be in relation to these outcomes. Moreover, the research suggests that leaders in healthcare may influence outcomes by the way they manage the work pressure, engagement, opportunity for involvement and work-life balance of those they lead.

A study of employee affective organisational commitment and retention in Pakistan:the roles of psychological contract breach and norms of reciprocity

Social exchange theory and notions of reciprocity have long been assumed to explain the relationship between psychological contract breach and important employee outcomes. To date, however, there has been no explicit testing of these assumptions. This research, therefore, explores the mediating role of negative, generalized, and balanced reciprocity, in the relationships between psychological contract breach and employees’ affective organizational commitment and turnover intentions. A survey of 247 Pakistani employees of a large public university was analyzed using structural equation modeling and bootstrapping techniques, and provided excellent support for our model. As predicted, psychological contract breach was positively related to negative reciprocity norms and negatively related to generalized and balanced reciprocity norms. Negative and generalized (but not balanced) reciprocity were negatively and positively (respectively) related to employees’ affective organizational commitment and fully mediated the relationship between psychological contract breach and affective organizational commitment. Moreover, affective organizational commitment fully mediated the relationship between generalized and negative reciprocity and employees’ turnover intentions. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Organisational cognitive neuroscience drives theoretical progress, or: the curious case of the straw man murder

In this critical essay, we respond to Lindebaum’s (2016) argument that neuroscientific methodologies and data have been accepted prematurely in proposing novel management theory. We acknowledge that building new management theories requires firm foundations. We also find his distinction between demand and supply side forces helpful as an analytical framework identifying the momentum for the contemporary production of management theory. Nevertheless, some of the arguments Lindebaum (2016) puts forward, on closer inspection, can be contested, especially those related to the supply side of organizational cognitive neuroscience (OCN) research: fMRI data, motherhood statements and ethical concerns. We put forward a more positive case for OCN methodologies and data, as well as clarifying exactly what OCN really means, and its consequences for the development of strong management theory.