Justice source and justice content:evaluating the fairness of organizational career management practices

This article presents part of the findings of a multi-method study into employee perceptions of fairness in relation to the organisational career management (OCM) practices of a large financial retailer. It focuses on exploring how employees construct fairness judgements of their career experiences and the role played by the organisational context and, in particular, OCM practices in forming these judgements. It concludes that individuals can, and do, separate the source and content of (in)justice when it comes to evaluating these experiences. The relative roles of the employer, line manager and career development opportunities in influencing employee fairness evaluations are discussed. Conceptual links with organisational justice theory are proposed, and it is argued that the academic and practitioner populations are provided with empirical evidence for a new theoretical framework for evaluating employee perceptions of, and reactions to, OCM practices.

An integrative framework for determining cross-national human resource management practices

Currently, debate in the area of cross-national human resource management (HRM) suggests that both “culture-bound” and “culture-free” factors and variables are important determinants of HRM policies and practices. HRM is presented as being context-specific and it is argued that with the growth of new markets world-wide, and increased levels of competition and globalization of business, there is a strong need for more cross-national HRM studies. However, the literature shows the absence of an integrated framework, which can help to highlight the different role that context-specific facets of HRM practices play. The nature of different determinants in different national and regional settings is rarely analyzed. This paper develops an integrated framework. It delineates the main distinctive facets associated with national factors, contingent variables, and organizational and human resource (HR) strategies and policies, that may be used to evaluate cross-national comparative HRM policies and practices.

A comparative study of career management practices in Britain and India

This paper examines the developments in the field of career management in a cross-national comparative context. It investigates a wide range of career practices via two large-scale surveys in 108 Indian and 194 British organisations. The influence of a number of organisational characteristics on career practices is analysed. The study has identified a number of similarities as well as differences in the career management systems of firms operating in both India and Britain. Theoretical and managerial implications for the fields of careers and international HRM are discussed.

Career management practices in India:an empirical study

This paper examines and discusses the developments in the field of career management, bringing in the international perspective. In particular, the paper explores career management practices in 108 Indian organizations. A factor analysis procedure suggested five groups of practices: formal planning, formal active management, developmental, career stages and assessment. These are found to be associated with certain organizational and cultural characteristics. The research has both theoretical and practical implications.

Benchmarking project management practices of Caribbean organizations using analytic hierarchy process

Effective management of projects is becoming increasingly important for any type of organization to remain competitive in today’s dynamic business environment due to pressure of globalization. The use of benchmarking is widening as a technique for supporting project management. Benchmarking can be described as the search for the best practices, leading to the superior performance of an organization. However, effectiveness of benchmarking depends on the use of tools for collecting and analyzing information and deriving subsequent improvement projects. This study demonstrates how analytic hierarchy process (AHP), a multiple attribute decision-making technique, can be used for benchmarking project management practices. The entire methodology has been applied to benchmark project management practice of Caribbean public sector organizations with organizations in the Indian petroleum sector, organizations in the infrastructure sector of Thailand and the UK. This study demonstrates the effectiveness of a proposed benchmarking model using AHP, determines problems and issues of Caribbean project management in the public sector and suggests improvement measures for effective project management.

Innovation in project management practices:a case of Indian organization in the petroleum industry

The Indian petroleum industry is passing through a very dynamic business environment due to the liberalisation of many government policies, vertical integration among organisations and the presence of multinational companies. This caused a competitive environment among the organisations in the Indian petroleum industry in the public sector. Effective project management for developing new infrastructures and maintaining the existing facilities has been considered one of the means for remaining competitive in this business environment. However, present project management practices suffer from many shortcomings, as time, cost and quality non-achievements are part and parcel of almost every project. This study focuses on identifying the issues in managing projects of the organisation in the Indian petroleum sector with the involvement of the executives in a workshop environment. This also suggests some remedial measures for resolving those issues through identifying critical success factors and enablers. The enablers not only resolve the present issues but also ensure superior performance. These are analysed in a quantitative framework to derive improvement measures in project management practices.

The UK productivity gap in the service sector: do management practices matter?

Purpose – This paper aims to contribute to the debate on the drivers of the productivity gap that exists between the UK and its major international competitors. Design/methodology/approach – From the macro perspective the paper explores the quantitative evidence on the productivity differentials and how they are measured. From the micro perspective, the article explores the quantitative evidence on the role of management practices claimed to be a key determinant in promoting firm competitiveness and in bridging the UK gap. Findings – This study suggests that management practices are an ambiguous driver of firm productivity and higher firm performance. On the methodological side, qualitative and subjective measures of either management practices or firm performance are often used. This makes the results not comparable across studies, across firms or even within firms over time. Productivity and profitability are often and erroneously interchangeably used while productivity is only one element of firm performance. On the other hand, management practices are multi-dimensional constructs that generally do not demonstrate a straightforward relationship with productivity variables. To assume that they are the only driver of higher productivity may be misleading. Moreover, there is evidence of an inverse causal relationship between management practices and firm performance. This calls into question most empirical results of the extant literature based on the unidirectional assumption of direct causality between management practices and firm performance. Research limitations/implications – These and other issues suggest that more research is needed to deepen the understanding of the UK productivity gap and more quantitative evidence should be provided on the way in which management practices contribute to the UK competitiveness. Their impact is not easily measurable due to their complexity and their complementary nature and this is a fertile ground for further research. Originality/value – This paper brings together the evidence on the UK productivity gap and its main drivers, provided by the economics, management and performance measurement literature. This issue scores very highly in the agenda of policy makers and academics and has important implications for practitioners interested in evaluating the impact of managerial best practices.

On the adoption decision and the intensity of use of complementary innovations: The intra firm diffusion of management practices across UK establishments

This paper contributes to the literature on the intra-firm diffusion of innovations by investigating the factors that affect the firm’s decision to adopt and use sets of complementary innovations. We define complementary innovations those innovations whose joint use generates super additive gains, i.e. the gain from the joint adoption is higher than the sum of the gains derived from the adoption of each innovation in isolation. From a theoretical perspective, we present a simple decision model, whereby the firm decides ‘whether’ and ‘how much’ to invest in each of the innovations under investigation based upon the expected profit gain from each possible combination of adoption and use. The model shows how the extent of complementarity among the innovations can affect the firm’s profit gains and therefore the likelihood that the firm will adopt these innovations jointly, rather than individually. From an empirical perspective, we focus on four sets of management practices, namely operating (OMP), monitoring (MMP), targets (TMP) and incentives (IMP) management practices. We show that these sets of practices, although to a different extent, are complementary to each other. Then, we construct a synthetic indicator of the depth of their use. The resulting intra-firm index is built to reflect not only the number of practices adopted but also the depth of their individual use and the extent of their complementarity. The empirical testing of the decision model is carried out using the evidence from the adoption behaviour of a sample of 1,238 UK establishments present in the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey (WERS). Our empirical results show that the intra-firm profitability based model is a good model in that it can explain more of the variability of joint adoption than models based upon the variability of adoption and use of individual practices. We also investigate whether a number of firm specific and market characteristics by affecting the size of the gains (which the joint adoption of innovations can generate) may drive the intensity of use of the four innovations. We find that establishment size, whether foreign owned, whether exposed to an international market and the degree of homogeneity of the final product are important determinants of the intensity of the joint adoption of the four innovations. Most importantly, our results point out that the factors that the economics of innovation literature has been showing to affect the intensity of use of a technological innovation do also affect the intensity of use of sets of innovative management practices. However, they can explain only a small part of the diversity of their joint adoption use by the firms in the sample.

The intra-firm diffusion of complementary innovations: Evidence from the adoption of management practices by British establishments

This paper presents a simple profitability-based decision model to show how synergistic gains generated by the joint adoption of complementary innovations may influence the firm's adoption decision. For this purpose a weighted index of intra-firm diffusion is built to investigate empirically the drivers of the intensity of joint use of a set of complementary innovations. The findings indicate that establishment size, ownership structure and product market concentration are important determinants of the intensity of use. Interestingly, the factors that affect the extent of use of technological innovations do also affect that of clusters of management practices. However, they can explain only part of the heterogeneity of the benefits from joint use.

Managing careers and managing fairness : an organisational justice theory perspective on employee evaluations of, and reactions to, organisational career management practices

This thesis presents the results of a multi-method investigation of employee perceptions of fairness in relation to their career management experiences. Organisational justice theory (OJT) was developed as a theoretical framework and data were gathered via 325 quantitative questionnaires, 20 semi-structured interviews and the analysis of a variety of company documents and materials. The results of the questionnaire survey provided strong support for the salience of employee perceptions of justice in regard to their evaluations of organisational career management (OCM) practices, with statistical support emerging for both an agent-systems and interaction model of organisational justice. The qualitative semi-structured interviews provided more detailed analysis of how fairness was experienced in practice, and confirmed the importance of the OJT constructs of fairness within this career management context. Fairness themes to emerge from this analysis included, equity, needs, voice, bias suppression, consistency, ethicality, respect and feedback drawing on many of the central tenants of distributive, procedural, interpersonal and information justice. For the career management literature there is empirical confirmation of a new theoretical framework for understanding employee evaluations of, and reactions to, OCM practices. For the justice literatures a new contextual domain is explored and confirmed, thus extending further the influence and applicability of the theory. For practitioners a new framework for developing, delivering and evaluating their own OCM policies and systems is presented.