Search results

Prior work has demonstrated that management enjoys a substantive edge in many grievance cases largely as a function of its discretion to pursue or dismiss these cases as it chooses. Conversely, organized labor has far less discretion in as much as it must pursue serious grievances which may be less viable. It is argued here that grievances “filed in the name of the union” may provide an important exception to this principle. This field assessment of format grievances (N = 538) indicates robust differences in the outcomes of grievances between those “filed in the name of the union” and those filed in the more traditional manner. This tendency may provide some countervailing influence for the grievant to the advantages posited for management.

Prior research has argued that management has an advantage in many grievance cases largely because it enjoys the discretion to pursue these cases or otherwise as it chooses. Conversely, organized labor has far less discretion inasmuch as it must pursue serious grievances for which positive outcomes cannot reasonably be expected It was recently demonstrated that grievances “filed in the name of the union” may provide an important exception to this principle. This empirical assessment of arbitration cases (N = 520) extends these arguments from the context of the grievance to that of arbitration, an arguably more valid and generalizable context for such an assessment. The results indicate that “filing in the name of the union” does provide a substantive edge in arbitration outcomes, even while controlling for the various types of arbitration cases.

Research relying on laboratory protocol and case studies has demonstrated positive effects from cognitive conflict and controversy. Reported benefits have included better judgments, improved strategic decisions and a better understanding of others' positions. This study develops and assesses the psychometric properties of an instrument designed to examine decision conflict in field settings. This instrument was administered on site to 63 managers. Factors identified in the instrument were disagreement, openness, and control. Interestingly, the openness dimension was positively associated with job commitment. The control factor was inversely associated with job satisfaction.

Meta-analysis has been relied on relatively infrequently in strategic management studies, certainly as compared to other fields such as the medical sciences, psychology, and education. This may be unfortunate, as there are several aspects of the manner in which strategic management studies are typically conducted that make them especially appropriate for this approach. To this end, we provide a brief foundation for meta-analysis, an example of meta-analysis, and a discussion of those elements that strongly recommend the efficacy of meta-analysis for the synthesis of strategic management studies.

Although there has been a good deal of prior research on differences between Asian (i.e., Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea) and American business practices, few studies have dealt with comparisons of approaches to decision making in the various cultures. This paper addresses how levels of openness, conflicting advice, centralized control, and disagreement across different countries may affect decision making. It may be that the “common wisdom” which suggests Japanese decision making exclusively involves cooperation ignores the existence of conflict in Japanese decisions. In fact, Japanese decision makers may be more open, resolve conflict prior to reaching consensus, and exert less centralized control than decision makers in the U.S. and Hong Kong. This could help explain their abilities to make effective business decisions in Japan.

Are they an effective executive retention strategy? Studies say no.