Search results

Presents the first of two reports which research into the handling styles of supervisors and managers when dealing with disciplinary and grievance situations. Compares the handling styles that they use when dealing with discipline and grievance situations and finds that differences exist in the styles used for the two types of issue. The less serious disciplinary cases seem to attract a fairly prescriptive autocratic style, whereas those which are potentially more serious to the organization tend to be handled with less prescriptive approaches that involve the employee to a greater extent, and it is this approach which theory suggests is more likely to bring about the desired change in the behaviour of the employee. With the exception of cases which pose some threat to managerial authority, the general pattern that emerges for grievances is that they tend to be explored in a less prescriptive way. Describes the research methodology and sets the scene for a further research report.

Examines the relative influence of a number of factors that can affect the approach (handling style) of a supervisor or manager when dealing with a disciplinary or grievance incident. Uses the same data set as the earlier paper in the same series. Finds that, for discipline, the most influential factors are the inconvenience for the manager of particular employee transgression and the length of employee service, with additional but comparatively minor effects for employee gender and the manager’s prior training and experience in handling issues. Identifies the most influential factors with grievance as the extent to which an issue challenges the authority of the manager, the length of employee service, the employee’s gender and, to a lesser extent, the gender of the manager handling the issue. Outlines the implications of these results for future research and for the training of supervisors and managers.

For the corporate real estate (CRE) executive who has the opportunity to plan a campus, this paper presents guidelines to ensure that campus workplace solutions are aligned not only with corporate objectives but with the corporate culture as well. The paper draws on a variety of corporate campus solutions and emphasises the importance of understanding the role of CRE in supporting the company’s unique culture and in enabling change to that culture.

Cloon Keen Atelier develops candle and skin care products. The challenge for this small operator is to develop a strategy, which reinforces its chosen position as it develops new products and expands into other markets. Cloon Keen is known for its premium scented candles, but it is seeking to expand into the personal care market by creating their own line of skin care products and complementary accessories. Cloon Keen believes their handcrafted candles could provide a platform for developing a lifestyle brand. This paper aims to address these issues.

In‐depth interviews and secondary sources are used to collate the information from which the case study is developed.

Achieving the status of a lifestyle brand means the products embody the values and aspirations of particular group(s) or culture; it speaks powerfully to the core identity of its consumers. Typically, lifestyle brands are accompanied by a powerful promotional campaign to communicate the lifestyle brand values to audiences. To date, Cloon Keen's promotional efforts have been limited. The question is whether it can develop sufficient market presence to one day make the claim of being a lifestyle brand. The challenge for Cloon Keen is to find the optimum market position that provides a strategic advantage in a climate of robust competition.

The case study provides the opportunity to examine how an small‐ to medium‐sized enterprises may build its brand presence within a highly competitive market.

With corporations reinventing and changing themselves with increasing frequency and speed, what is the real estate industry doing to enable that change? This paper presents the perspectives of a corporate tenant, a developer and an interior designer to answer the question of what some companies are doing to make workspace more flexible and to shorten the cycle time for the processes by which workspace is constructed, procured and fitted‐out for new occupancy. The following questions will be answered ‐ In the low vacancy market prevalent in so many parts of the United States, what strategies are corporate real estate executives in high‐growth companies using to acquire space fast? ‐ What trends are emerging in the industry to streamline the processes to build, acquire, fit‐out and manage space? ‐ How is the industry changing its product to ensure that the space that is delivered can meet a variety of users and uses as occupants churn through the space in unforeseen ways?

The most serious barrier to achieving a “forgiving building” is the cost of its special building systems. The library is increasingly becoming a “hi tech” and “smart” building. A sophisticated facility is required to support current collections and the emerging electronic and optical technologies that will occupy (and perhaps dominate) the future library. It is far less expensive to provide the capacity to support future components at the time of initial construction than to subsequently renovate a building to provide needed capacities at a later date. The real challenge for librarians is to convince those who fund library construction that the “forgiving building” is the least expensive alternative in the long run.

ANDREW CARNEGIE would have liked my mother, who for many years presided over one of his public libraries, but I am not sure he would have cottoned to me. Mother, after all, had many of the traits of his mother, whom he adored, and she also shared some of his own qualities. The only things Mr Carnegie and I would have had in common were strong‐minded mothers—Margaret Carnegie was said to be the one person whose will was never bent in surrender to her son—and the fact that we both at one time took elocution lessons. Also, each of us had our earlier literary work published in Sunday School papers.

It is arguable that the central questions requiring explanation by the behavioural and social sciences are those falling under the rubric “nature vs. nurture”. To be sure, the issue is oversimplified when stated so simply; there are both physiological and environmental elements in the causation of behaviour, as well as feedback through which each alters the other. Moreover, discussions of this dichotomy can often be seen to be sterile arguments about definition, rather than answers to the empirical question of what is, in fact, happening. What matters is not “nature” or “nurture” in the abstract, but the roles physiology, environment, and the interaction of the two play in generating specific behaviour.