Search results

Suggests that before measurement of noise can be implemented all “non‐aircraft noises” must be eliminated. Sets out various approaches to the problem of airport noise: the acoustic companies’ approach; the systems companies’ approach; systems costs; flight identification and correlation; and noise monitoring. Looks at international standards for noise monitoring and reports on the current noise monitoring terminal situation. Includes an Appendix on units of measure for noise.

The different types of estimators of rational expectations models are surveyed. A key feature is that the model′s solution has to be taken into account when it is estimated. The two ways of doing this, the substitution and errors‐in‐variables methods, give rise to different estimators. In the former case, a generalised least‐squares or maximum‐likelihood type estimator generally gives consistent and efficient estimates. In the latter case, a generalised instrumental variable (GIV) type estimator is needed. Because the substitution method involves more complicated restrictions and because it resolves the solution indeterminacy in a more arbitary fashion, when there are forward‐looking expectations, the errors‐in‐variables solution with the GIV estimator is the recommended combination.

The personalities of the design team members constitute one of the factors that influence team effectiveness. In this study, 223 members of the “American Institute of Architects” who are employed by the largest architectural design firms in the United States of America were categorized according to their personality types by using “The Enneagram Personality Type Model.” Also, the respondents’ opinions about eight team effectiveness outcomes were recorded in order to explore the relationship between team members’ personality types and team effectiveness outcomes.

The information was collected by a questionnaire where the first part included 144 pairs of statements that were used to identify respondents’ personality types. The second part sought designers’ opinions about the importance of eight team effectiveness outcomes rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. The results were assessed by performing the Kruskal–Wallis test first and Dunn’s post-hoc test with Bonferroni adjustment subsequently.

The findings highlight the significance of personality types in effective design teams. While Type 6 (loyalist and skeptic) and Type 3 (achiever and performer) architects prioritize team effectiveness the most, Type 7 architects (enthusiasts and epicureans) assign the lowest importance. However, the presence of Type 1 (reformist and perfectionist) and Type 8 (challenger and protector) architects within the same design team may involve challenges or conflicts.

The primary contribution of this study is that it is the first study in the construction management literature that utilizes The Enneagram of Personality Test to understand the relationship between team members’ personality types and team effectiveness outcomes. This study is of direct relevance to practitioners and could be utilized in design team-building activities.

Historically, performance appraisals were intended to focus on three areas: development, motivation, and recognition of achievement. One major purpose of performance appraisals is to determine individual merit, especially where pay for performance systems are employed. Based upon expectancy theory, high performance ratings should entail high merit increases while low performance ratings result in low merit increases. However, it appears that decoupling performance ratings and merit increases is common practice. This paper explores the effects of receiving a low performance rating and high merit increase or a high performance rating and a low merit increase and empirically investigate its impact on knowledge workers’ motivational and general morale.

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

In the last four years, since Volume I of this Bibliography first appeared, there has been an explosion of literature in all the main functional areas of business. This wealth of material poses problems for the researcher in management studies — and, of course, for the librarian: uncovering what has been written in any one area is not an easy task. This volume aims to help the librarian and the researcher overcome some of the immediate problems of identification of material. It is an annotated bibliography of management, drawing on the wide variety of literature produced by MCB University Press. Over the last four years, MCB University Press has produced an extensive range of books and serial publications covering most of the established and many of the developing areas of management. This volume, in conjunction with Volume I, provides a guide to all the material published so far.

The aim of this chapter is to argue that charisma is a collective representation, and that charismatic authority is a social status that derives more from the “recognition” of the followers than from the “magnetism” of the leaders. I contend further that a close reading of Max Weber shows that he, too, saw charisma in this light.

I develop my argument by a close reading of many of the most relevant texts on the subject. This includes not only the renowned texts on this subject by Max Weber, but also many books and articles that interpret or criticize Weber’s views.

I pay exceptionally close attention to key arguments and texts, several of which have been overlooked in the past.

Writers for whom charisma is personal magnetism tend to assume that charismatic rule is natural and that the full realization of democratic norms is unlikely. Authority, in this view, emanates from rulers unbound by popular constraint. I argue that, in fact, authority draws both its mandate and its energy from the public, and that rulers depend on the loyalty of their subjects, which is never assured. So charismatic claimants are dependent on popular choice, not vice versa.

I advocate a “culturalist” interpretation of Weber, which runs counter to the dominant “personalist” account. Conventional interpreters, under the sway of theology or mass psychology, misread Weber as a romantic, for whom charisma is primal and undemocratic rule is destiny. This essay offers a counter-reading.

This chapter provides comments and suggestions to the lawmaker, and especially to economic policy-makers in the field of the optimal regulatory framework and implementation of sustainable practices. The main findings are as follows: (1) degradation of the rule of law in several European Union (EU) Member States and constant political undermining of the legal institutions represent the main threat for the implementation of sustainable practices and development; (2) the golden regulatory rule of thumb provides that regulatory intervention is suggested merely in cases of market failures under the condition that the costs of such intervention do not exceed the benefits; (3) over-regulation might impede implementation of sustainable practices, distort the operation of the market, undermine productivity, diminish growth and social wealth and consequently also sustainability; (4) efficiency and wealth maximization should be the lawmaker’s leading normative principle in designing the legal framework that will enable effective implementation of sustainable practices; (5) the efficient level of harmonization or subsidiarity of decision-making in the EU urges for a rigorous investigation of costs and benefits of the EU top-down harmonization policies which should lead to a better, efficient vertical allocation of sustainability agenda between EU and the Member States; and (6) The Reflection Paper on Sustainable Development Goals – “Towards a Sustainable Europe in 2030” – represents an effective institutional framework in pursue of the overall sustainability targets.

The purpose of this paper is to provide some reflections on the Australian experience of ‘Big Bang’ regulatory reform. The analysis is confined to the recent legislation passed on 1st July, 1998 and the reform processes that fuelled these regulatory innovations.