Search results

1 – 10 of 43
Per page
102050
Citations:
Loading...
Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 9 April 2018

Herman Aguinis, Luis R. Gomez-Mejia, Geoffrey P. Martin and Harry Joo

The purpose of the study is to set a research agenda so that future conceptual and empirical research can improve the understanding of why CEO pay and CEO performance are…

1057

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the study is to set a research agenda so that future conceptual and empirical research can improve the understanding of why CEO pay and CEO performance are decoupled.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper compiles and adds to many of the explanations provided by this special issue’s nine commentaries regarding why CEO pay and CEO performance are decoupled. These explanations were grouped into two categories: economic (e.g. marginal productivity theory, agency theory and behavioral agency model) and social-institutional-psychological (e.g. CEO individual differences and characteristics and CEO-organization interactions). Moreover, new analyses based on additional data were conducted to examine measurement-related explanations for the observed pay-performance decoupling.

Findings

Results based on alternative measures of pay and performance confirmed, once again, the existence of pay-performance decoupling.

Research limitations/implications

This paper will stimulate research pitting theoretical explanations against each other to understand their relative validity in different contexts.

Practical implications

The paper informs ongoing efforts to link CEO pay to performance.

Social implications

The paper also revisits the decoupling of CEO pay and firm performance from a normative and value-based perspective (i.e. regarding whether pay and performance should be related).

Originality/value

The paper clarifies that the articles in this special issue largely concluded that CEO pay is decoupled from CEO performance.

Objetivo – El objetivo es proponer una ageda de investigación de forma que la futura investigación conceptual y empírica pueda mejorar la comprensión sobre por qué la retribución y el rendimiento del CEO no están conectados.

Diseño/metodología/aproximación – El artículo compila y añade a la mayoría de las explicaciones proporcionados por los nueve comentarios publicados en este número especial acerca de porqué la retribución y el rendimiento del CEO están desconectados. Estas explicaciones se agrupan en dos categorías: económicas (e.g. teoría de la productividad marginal, teoría de agencia, modelo de agencia comportamental) y socio-institucional-psicológicas (e.g. diferencias y características individuales del CEO, interacción CEO-organización). Además, se llevan a cabo nuevos análisis sobre datos adicionales para examinar algunas explicaciones relativas a la medición para la falta de conexión entre retribución del CEO y su rendimiento.

Resultados – Los resultados basados en medidas alternativas de retribución y rendimiento confirman, una vez más, la existencia de una desconexión entre ambas magnitudes.

Limitaciones/implicaciones – Este artículo estimulará a investigación contraponiendo diferentes explicaciones teóricas para entender su validez relativa en diferentes contextos.

Implicaciones prácticas – El artículo informa sobre los esfuerzos actuals para relacionar la retribución del CEO y su rendimiento.

Implicaciones sociales – El artículo revisa la desconexión entre la retribución y el rendimiento del CEO desde una perspectiva normativa y de valor (i.e. sobre si la retribución y el rendimiento deben estar conectados).

Originalidad/valor – El artículo clarifica que los artículos en este número especial concluyen que la retribución del CEO está desconectada de su rendimiento.

Objetivo

O objetivo é estabelecer uma agenda de investigação para que futuros estudos conceptuais ou empíricos possam melhorar a compreensão do porquê de a compensação do CEO e o desempenho do CEO estarem dissociados.

Metodologia – O artigo compila e acrescenta às muitas explicações fornecidas pelos oito comentários deste número especial sobre as razões da dissociação da compensação e do desempenho do CEO. Estas explicações agrupam-se em duas categorias: económicas (eg., teoria da produtividade marginal, teoria da agência, modelo da agência comportamental) e Socio-institucional-psicológicas (eg., características e diferenças individuais do CEO, interações CEO-Organização). Além disso, conduziram-se novas análises baseadas em dados para examinar explicações baseadas em medições para a dissociação pagamento-desempenho.

Resultados – Resultados baseados em medidas alternativas de pagamento e desempenho confirmaram, uma vez mais, a existência da dissociação entre pagamento e performance.

Limitações/implicações – Este artigo estimula investigação que contraponha diferentes explicações teóricas, para perceber a sua validade relativa em diferentes contextos.

Implicações práticas – O artigo dá informação sobre esforços em curso para ligar a compensação do CEO ao desempenho.

Implicações sociais – O artigo revisita a dissociação do pagamento e desempenho da empresa Numa perspectiva normative e baseada em valores (ie, sobre se a compensação e a performance devem estar relacionadas).

Originalidade/valor – O paper clarifica que os artigos neste número especial basicamente concluiram que a compensação do CEO está dissociala do desempenho do CEO.

Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 9 April 2018

Herman Aguinis, Geoffrey P. Martin, Luis R. Gomez-Mejia, Ernest H. O’Boyle and Harry Joo

The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which chief executive officers (CEOs) deserve the pay they receive both in terms of over and underpayment.

2317

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which chief executive officers (CEOs) deserve the pay they receive both in terms of over and underpayment.

Design/methodology/approach

Rather than using the traditional normal distribution view in which CEO performance clusters around the mean with relatively little variance, the authors adopt a novel power law approach. They studied 22 industries and N = 4,158 CEO-firm combinations for analyses based on Tobin’s Q and N = 5,091 for analyses based on return on assets. Regarding compensation, they measured the CEO distribution based on total compensation and three components of CEO total pay: salary, bonus, and value of options exercised.

Findings

In total, 86 percent of CEO performance and 91 percent of CEO pay distributions fit a power law better than a normal distribution, indicating that a minority of CEOs are producing top value for their firms (i.e. CEO performance) and a minority of CEOs are appropriating top value for themselves (i.e. CEO pay). But, the authors also found little overlap between CEOs who are the top performers and CEOs who are the top earners.

Implications

The findings shed new light on CEO pay deservingness by using a novel conceptual and methodological lens that highlights systematic over and underpayment. Results suggest a violation of distributive justice and offer little support for agency theory’s efficient contracting hypothesis, which have important implications for agency theory, equity theory, justice theory, and agent risk sharing and agent risk bearing theories.

Practical implications

Results highlight erroneous practices when trying to benchmark CEO pay based on average levels of performance in an industry because the typical approach to CEO compensation based on averages significantly underpays stars and overpays average performers.

Originality/value

Results offer new insights on the extent of over and underpayment. The findings uncover an extremely large non-overlap between the top earning and top performing CEOs and to an extent far greater in magnitude than previously suggested.

Objetivo – El objetivo de nuestro estudio fue examinar si los directores ejecutivos (CEOs) merecen la remuneración monetaria que reciben.

Metodología – En lugar de utilizar el enfoque tradicional que asume que la distribución del rendimiento de CEOs sigue la curva normal (con la mayoría de CEOs agrupados en torno a la media y relativamente poca variación), adoptamos un enfoque diferente basado en la ley de potencia. Incluimos 22 industrias y N = 4.158 combinaciones de CEO-firma para análisis basados en Tobin’s Q y N = 5.091 para análisis basado en la rentabilidad de los activos. En cuanto a la remuneracion, medimos distribuciones basadas en la remuneración total y tres componentes del pago completo a los CEOs: salario, bonos, y el valor de las opciones ejercitadas.

Resultados – 86% de las distribuciones de rendimiento de CEOs y el 91% de las distribuciones de pago de los CEO se aproximan mejor a una distribución de ley de potencia que a una distribución normal. Esto indica que una minoría de los CEOs produce un valor muy superior para sus empresas (es decir, el rendimiento CEO) y una minoría de los CEOs apropia valor superior para sí mismos (es decir, pago de los CEO). Sin embargo, encontramos muy poco solapamiento entre aquellos CEOs que se desempeñan mejor y los CEOs que ganan más.

Implicaciones – Nuestros hallazgos usando una conceptualización y metodología novedosas ponen en relieve que a muchos CEOs se les paga demasiado y que a muchos no se les paga suficiente (en comparación con su desempeño). Los resultados sugieren una violación de los principios de justicia distributiva y no apoyan la hipótesis de “contratación eficiente,” y tienen implicaciones para para la teoría de la agencia, de la equidad, de la justicia, y de la distribución de riesgos.

Implicaciones prácticas – Los resultados destacan las prácticas erróneas con respecto a la distribución de compensación a CEOs que se basan en los niveles medios de rendimiento en una industria. Estas prácticas llevan a no pagar suficiente a los directivos “estrella” y pagar demasiado a los directivos con desempeño medio.

Originalidad/valor – Los resultados ofrecen nuevas perspectivas sobre la relación entre desempeño y compensación de CEOs y que los que se desempeñan mejor no son los que reciben más pago, y viceversa. Estas diferencias son mucho más grandes de que lo que se creía anteriormente.

Objetivo – O objetivo do nosso estudo foi examinar se os CEOs merecem a compensação monetária que recebem.

Metodologia – Em vez de utilizar a abordagem tradicional que assume que a distribuição do desempenho do CEO segue a curva normal (com a maioria dos CEOs agrupados em torno da média e relativamente pouca variação), adotamos uma abordagem diferente com base num enfoque inovador da lei de potência. Incluímos 22 indústrias e N = 4.158 combinações de CEO-empresa para análise baseada no Q de Tobin e N = 5091 para análise baseado na rentabilidade dos ativos. Em relação à compensação, medimos as distribuições de CEO com base no total de compensação e três componentes do pagamento total dos CEOs: salário, bônus e o valor das opções exercidas.

Resultados – 86% do desempenho do CEO e 91% das distribuições de pagamento do CEO correspondem a uma lei de potência melhor do que uma distribuição normal, indicando que uma minoria de CEOs está produzindo valor superior para suas empresas (ou seja, desempenho do CEO) e uma minoria de CEOs se apropriando do valor superior para si próprios (isto é, o salário do CEO). Mas, também encontramos pouca sobreposição entre CEOs que tem os melhores desempenhos e os CEOs que tem as maiores ganancias.

Implicações – Nossas descobertas lançam nova luz sobre o merecimento do pagamento do CEO, usando uma nova lente conceitual e metodológica que destaca o excessivo e o baixo pagamento sistemático. Os resultados sugerem uma violação da justiça distributiva e não apoiam a hipótese da contratação eficiente, e tem implicações para a teoria da agência, teoria da igualdade, teoria da justiça e distribuição de riscos.

Implicações práticas – Os resultados destacam práticas errôneas quando se tenta benchmark de remuneração do CEO baseado em níveis médios de desempenho em uma indústria, porque essas práticas levam a não pagar o suficiente aos CEOs “estrela” e pagar em excesso CEOs com desempenho médio.

Originalidade/valor – Os resultados oferecem novas perspectivas sobre a relação entre desempenho e retribuição dos CEOs e que os que desempenham melhor não são os que recebem um pagamento maior, e vice-versa. Estas diferenças são muito maiores do que se pensava anteriormente.

Available. Open Access. Open Access
Article
Publication date: 20 January 2025

Herman Aguinis, Harry Joo, Guillermo Armando Ronda-Pupo and Young Hun Ji

The purpose of this study is to examine the narrowing of the gender publication gap (GPG) and predict when gender publication parity will be achieved. It investigates if women’s…

139

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to examine the narrowing of the gender publication gap (GPG) and predict when gender publication parity will be achieved. It investigates if women’s publication rates are catching up with men’s when the proportion of published articles by women will match their representation in the field, and how the gender gap and parity are changing concerning lead authorships. The study analyzes data from 11,097 researchers across 8 management journals from 2002 to 2020, revealing a higher growth rate in women’s publications and varying degrees of parity achievement between micro and macro domains.

Design/methodology/approach

We created a database of all researchers who published at least one article in eight management journals from January 2002 through December 2020. It included 11,097 unique researchers who produced 7,357 unique articles, resulting in 21,361 authorships. We used data from the Web of Science to identify articles and their authors, filtering for “articles” and “reviews” only. We used allometric modeling and time series analysis to examine the GPG and forecast gender publication parity.

Findings

We found that the GPG is narrowing, with women’s publication rates growing faster than men’s. Parity in lead authorships has already been achieved or is within reach for many journals, especially in micro domains. However, macro-oriented journals show slower progress, with some not expected to reach parity until 2045 or later. These improvements are linked to increased representation of women in leadership positions and targeted mentoring programs in micro domains.

Research limitations/implications

While our study focused on publications, it did not account for citations, which could provide a more comprehensive view of research impact. Future research should explore other journals and different time windows and include citation analysis to understand the GPG and parity further.

Practical implications

The narrowing GPG is a positive development for organization studies, particularly in micro domains. This progress can mitigate stereotypes about women’s abilities, promote equity in hiring and promotion by considering authorship order and highlight the importance of targeted mentoring programs to reduce barriers for women. Additionally, business schools should identify and address performance situational constraints that disproportionately affect women, using techniques like the critical incidents approach to design effective interventions.

Social implications

The study’s societal implications include fostering greater gender equity in academic publishing, which can influence broader social norms and reduce gender stereotypes in academia. Achieving gender parity in publications can lead to more equitable hiring, promotion and recognition practices. Additionally, it highlights the importance of removing performance situational constraints and biases that hinder women’s academic progress, thus promoting a more inclusive and fair academic environment. These changes can inspire other fields to implement similar measures, contributing to societal progress toward gender equality.

Originality/value

The study’s originality/value lies in its longitudinal approach to analyzing the GPG in organization studies, contrasting with prior cross-sectional studies. It provides new insights by predicting when gender parity will be achieved in various journals, showing faster progress in micro domains compared to macro domains. Additionally, the study introduces methodological innovations such as allometric modeling and scenario-based analyses, highlighting the importance of reducing situational constraints for women in academia. These findings offer a nuanced understanding of the ongoing efforts and challenges in achieving gender equity in academic publishing.

Details

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, vol. 44 no. 9
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 2040-7149

Keywords

Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 9 April 2018

Martin J. Conyon

This is a short commentary on Herman Aguinis, Geoffrey Martin, Luis Gomez-Mejia, Ernest Boyle and Harry Joo (2017): “Two sides of CEO pay injustice: A power law conceptualization…

411

Abstract

Purpose

This is a short commentary on Herman Aguinis, Geoffrey Martin, Luis Gomez-Mejia, Ernest Boyle and Harry Joo (2017): “Two sides of CEO pay injustice: A power law conceptualization of CEO over and underpayment.”

Design/methodology/approach

Using insights from prior studies on executive compensation, the author’s commentary presents a critical evaluation of “Two sides of CEO pay injustice: […].” In addition, the author offers potential avenues for further research.

Findings

The paper “Two sides of CEO pay injustice” is well executed and makes several significant contributions to the management and executive compensation literature. Particularly, noteworthy are the use of advanced quantitative methods, the use of power law distributions to explain chief executive officer (CEO) pay outcomes, the focus on pay-for-performance and the role of justice in CEO outcomes. The author’s commentary in the present paper discusses the measurement of CEO pay and performance, poses alternative estimation methods to explore the pay-for-performance link and offers thoughts on justice theory in the context of CEO pay.

Research limitations/implications

The authors’ findings may be briefly stated as CEO pay is better described by a power law distribution than a normal distribution, CEO pay is not linked to firm performance and the patterns of CEO pay does not conform to patterns of distributive justice. Overall, the authors provide an important way to evaluate CEO pay outcomes. Thy set the stage for new avenues of research.

Practical implications

CEO pay is a highly controversial subject in the domain of corporate governance. This paper offers boards of directors and policymakers a method to better understand the success or failure of boardroom pay policies.

Social implications

CEO pay is an important social measure.

Originality/value

The authors’ paper is original by offering a method for determining over and underpayment of CEOs. The author in the present paper makes suggestions on how one might extend the research.

Objetivo – Este es un comentario sobre el trabajo de Herman Aguinis, Geoffrey Martin, Luis Gomez-Mejia, Ernest Boyle y Harry Joo (2017): “Two sides of CEO pay injustice: A power law conceptualization of CEO over and underpayment”.

Diseño/metodología/aproximación – Utilizando las ideas de la literatura previa sobre retribución de ejecutivos, mi comentario presenta una evaluación crítica del artículo “Two sides of CEO pay injustice: […]”. Además, esbozo algunas ideas para la investigación futura.

Resultados – El artículo “Dos lados de la injusticia de la retribución de los CEO” está bien desarrollado y realiza varias contribuciones significativas a las literaturas de gestión y retribución de ejecutivos. En particular, son de señalar: a) el uso de métodos cuantitativos avanzados, b) el uso de la distribución de ley de poder para explicar los resultados de la retribución de los CEO, c) el foco en el pago por resultados, d) el papel de la justicia en el rendimiento del CEO. Mi comentario a) discute las medidas de retribución y rendimiento del CEO, b) propone métodos de estimación alternativos para la relación entre retribución y rendimiento y c) ofrece ideas en torno a la teoría de la justicia en el contexto de la retribución del CEO.

Implicaciones – Los resultados de los autores pueden resumirse así: a) La retribución de los CEO se describe mejor como una distribución de ley de poder que como una distribución normal, b) la retribución del CEO y el rendimiento empresarial no están conectados, c) los patrones de retribución del CEO no concuerdan con los patrones de justicia distributiva. En general, los autores proporcionan un importante método para evaluar los resultados de la retribución de los CEO y fomentar la investigación futura.

Implicaciones prácticas – La retribución del CEO es un tema muy controvertido en el ámbito del gobierno corporativo. Este artículo proporciona a los consejos de administración y a los decisores públicos un método para entender mejor el éxito o fracaso de las prácticas retributivas en los consejos de administración.

Originalidad/valor – El trabajo de los autores es original al ofrecer un método para determinar la sobre o la infra retribución de los CEO. Yo apunto algunas sugerencias sobre cómo puede extenderse esta investigación.

Objetivo – Este é um breve comentário a Herman Aguinis, Geoffrey Martin, Luis Gomez-Mejia, Ernest Boyle and Harry Joo (2017): “Two sides of CEO pay injustice: A power law conceptualization of CEO over and underpayment”.

Metodologia – Usando conhecimentos de estudos anteriores em compensação executiva, o meu comentário apresenta uma avaliação crítica de “Two sides of CEO pay injustice:….”. Adicionalmente, ofereço potenciais avenidas para investigação futura.

Resultados – O artigo “Two sides of CEO pay injustice” está bem feito e apresenta diversas contribuições importantes à literature sobre compensação executiva e de gestores. Em particular, são de salientar: a) o uso de métodos quantitativos avançados b) o uso de distribuições da lei de potência para explicar os resultados do pagamento a CEOs c) O enfoque no pagamento pela performance d) o papel da justiça nos resultados para o CEO. O meu comentário a) discute a medida de pagamento ao CEO e do desempenho b) Propõe métodos alternativos de estimação para explorar a ligação pagamento ao desempenho e c) Apresenta argumentos da teoria da justiça no contexto da compensação do CEO.

Implicações – Os resultados dos autores podem resumir-se como: a) Compensação do CEO é mais bem descrita por uma distribuição da lei de potência que por uma distribuição normal b) Compensação do CEO não está ligada à performance da empresa c) Os padrões da compensação do CEO não se conformam com justiça distributiva. Em geral, os autores fornecem uma forma importante de avaliar a compensação do CEO. Apresentam por isso novas vias para investigação futura.

Implicações práticas – Compensação do CEO é um tópico controverso do domínio da governança corporativa. Este artigo oferece aos Conselhos de Administração e decisores politicos um método para melhor perceber o sucesso ou insucesso das políticas de pagamento aos membros das Administrações.

Originalidade/valor – O artigo é original e oferece um método para determinar sobre ou sub compensação do CEO. Faço sugestões de como se pode estender a investigação.

Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 9 April 2018

Albert Cannella and Valerie Sy

The purpose of this paper is to extend discussions in the CEO compensation research domain. Specifically, this paper provides a critical analysis of the power law…

362

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to extend discussions in the CEO compensation research domain. Specifically, this paper provides a critical analysis of the power law conceptualization and pay injustice contribution by Aguinis, Martin, Gomez-Mejia, O’Boyle and Joo.

Design/methodology/approach

This commentary addresses statistical and theoretical issues of the power law distribution with respect to prior compensation research and offers additional perspectives on the issue of CEO pay deservingness.

Findings

The power law is worth investigating further, but more attention should be paid to outliers and fit to the distribution. Stronger theory is needed for using the power law to explain CEO compensation phenomena, especially regarding standard firm performance measures and anomalies in the compensation process. Finally, “injustice” and “deservingness” in discussions of CEO pay exist in the eye of the beholder.

Originality/value

This paper offers additional considerations for scholars to explore when applying the power law distribution to compensation research.

Objetivo

El objetivo de este artículo es extender la discusión en el ámbito de la investigación sobre la retribución del CEO. En concreto, este artículo ofrece un análisis crítico de la conceptualización de ley de poder y la contribución sobre injusticia en la retribución de Aguinis, Martin, Gomez-Mejia, O’Boyle, and Joo.

Diseño/metodología/aproximación

Este comentario analzia las implicaciones estadísticas y teóricas del uso de la ley de poder en relación a la investigación previa sobre retribución y ofrece perspectivas adicionales acerca del merecimiento de la retribución del CEO.

Resultados

Merece investigar más la distribución de ley de poder, pero debe prestarse más atención a los outliers y al ajuste de la distribución. Es necesaria una teoría más desarrollada para poder utilizar la distribución de ley de poder en la investigación sobre la retribución de los CEO, en particular en lo relativo a medidas estándar de resultados empresariales y a las anomalías en el proceso de retribución. Finalmente, las percepciones sobre “injusticia” y “merecimiento” en la discusión sobre la retribución del CEO dependen de la perspectiva de quien juzga.

Originalidad/valor

El artículo proporciona consideraciones adicionales a los académicos que están considerando aplicar la distribución de ley de poder a la investigación sobre la retribución.

Objetivo

O objetivo deste artigo é ampliar as discussões na literatura acerca das remunerações dos CEOs. Especificamente, este artigo apresenta uma análise crítica da conceitualização da lei do poder e da injustiça na remuneração dos CEOs apresentados por Aguinis, Martin, Gomez-Mejia, O’Boyle, e Joo.

Design/ metodologia/abordagem

Este comentário analisa questões estatísticas e teóricas da distribuição da lei do poder em relação às pesquisas prévias em remunerações, e oferece novas perspectivas sobre o merecimento da remuneração do CEO.

Resultados

A lei do poder merece mais investigação, entretanto mais atenção deve ser dada aos valores atípicos e aos ajustes da distribuição. É necessária uma teoria mais desenvolvida para utilizar a lei do poder para explicar o fenômeno de remuneração do CEO, especialmente relacionado às medidas padrões de desempenho empresarial e anomalias no processo de remuneração. Finalmente, nas discussões sobre pagamento do CEO, existem “injustiça” e “merecimento” na perspectiva de quem observa.

Originalidade/valor

Este artigo apresenta novas considerações para serem exploradas por pesquisadores quando utilizarem a distribuição da lei do poder em pesquisas relacionadas à remuneração.

Details

Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, vol. 16 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1536-5433

Keywords

Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 5 August 2014

Herman Aguinis and Harry Joo

The papers published in this special issue demonstrate that the field of management can make important contributions to the knowledge about Hispanics and Latin Americans (HLAs) in…

393

Abstract

Purpose

The papers published in this special issue demonstrate that the field of management can make important contributions to the knowledge about Hispanics and Latin Americans (HLAs) in the workplace. The purpose of this paper is to offer an alternative yet complementary perspective that conducting research on HLAs will make important contributions to the field of management.

Design/methodology/approach

Conceptual paper.

Findings

Research on HLAs provides opportunities to develop and use innovative research design and measurement approaches (including qualitative and hybrid methods), leads to innovative solutions and protocols for addressing ethical challenges and Institutional Review Board regulations, and creates opportunities to access large secondary databases, sources of data collection, and research funding.

Research limitations/implications

Additional research is needed to realize the benefits that result from conducting research on HLAs in the workplace.

Practical implications

Because research on HLAs involves designing studies with an end in mind, results will lead to actionable knowledge that will help bridge the science-practice gap.

Social implications

Future research on HLAs is likely to have important social implications given that demographic changes in the USA have catapulted HLAs into soon becoming the largest ethnic minority group in the country and Hispanic workers are projected to represent about 80 percent of the total growth in the US labor force over the next four decades.

Originality/value

The alternative perspective that conducting research on HLAs will benefit the field of management is not meant to compete with but, rather, complement contributions of the other papers published in this special issue.

Available. Content available
Article
Publication date: 9 April 2018

Martin Larraza-Kintana

712

Abstract

Details

Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, vol. 16 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1536-5433

Access Restricted. View access options
Book part
Publication date: 4 September 2020

Torrie Hester

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) states in 2018 that safeguarding “civil liberties is critical” to their official duties. The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

Abstract

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) states in 2018 that safeguarding “civil liberties is critical” to their official duties. The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties within DHS, as its website explains,

reviews and assesses complaints from the public in areas such as: physical or other abuse; discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability; inappropriate conditions of confinement; infringements of free speech; violation of right to due process … and any other civil rights or civil liberties violation related to a Department program or activity.

My chapter tracks the centrality of deportability in shaping the civil liberties and rights that DHS is tasked with enforcing. Over the course of the twentieth century, people on US soil saw an expanding list of civil liberties and civil rights. Important scholarship concentrates on the role of the courts, state and federal governments, advocacy groups, social movements, and foreign policy driving these constitutional and cultural changes. For instance, the scholarship illustrates that coming out of World War I, the US Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect something the Justices labeled “irresponsible speech.” The Supreme Court soon changed course, opening up an era ever since of more robust First Amendment rights. What has not been undertaken in the literature is an examination of the relationship of deportability to the sweep of civil liberties and civil rights. Starting in the second decade of the twentieth century, federal immigration policymakers began multiplying types of immigration statuses. A century later, among many others, there is the H2A status for temporary low-wage workers, the H2B for skilled labor, and permanent residents with green cards. The deportability of each status constrains access to certain liberties and rights. Thus, in 2016, when people from the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties within DHS act, they are not enforcing a uniform body of rights and liberties that applies equally to citizens and immigrants, or even within the large category of immigrants. Instead, they do so within a complicated matrix of liberties and rights attenuated by deportability, which has been shaped by the history of the twentieth century.

Details

Studies in Law, Politics, and Society
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-83982-297-1

Keywords

Access Restricted. View access options
Book part
Publication date: 28 June 2023

Ali Asghar Abbassi Kamardi and Sina Sarmadi

The decision to become international is a highlighted organisational decision that affects all dimensions at all firm levels. Human resources are also among the parts of the…

Abstract

The decision to become international is a highlighted organisational decision that affects all dimensions at all firm levels. Human resources are also among the parts of the organisation affected by this decision. Paying attention to employees can speed up and facilitate this process. Organisational integrity is one of the most significant issues that must be considered. In this regard, identifying, investigating and planning to deal with the destructive effects that may influence the employees of small and medium-sized enterprise (SMEs) in internationalisation, are among the subjects that have so far received less attention and should be studied more. The present study explores the destructive influences of internationalisation on the employees of SMEs by a hybrid multi-layer decision-making model-psychological solution. First, by reviewing the literature, the destructive impacts of internationalisation on employees are extracted. In the next stage, these factors are screened according to the condition of the SMEs in an emerging economy by interval-valued intuitionistic hesitant fuzzy Delphi (IVIHF-Delphi). The impact of these factors on each other is then evaluated applying interval-valued intuitionistic hesitant fuzzy DEMATEL-based ANP (IVIHF-DANP). Consequently, the highlighted destructive impacts are determined and the psychological solutions to face them are provided.

Details

Decision-Making in International Entrepreneurship: Unveiling Cognitive Implications Towards Entrepreneurial Internationalisation
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-80382-234-1

Keywords

Access Restricted. View access options
Book part
Publication date: 19 November 2009

John Zacharias

Abstract

Details

Pedestrian Behavior
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-848-55750-5

1 – 10 of 43
Per page
102050