Search results

Institutional investors—insurance companies, pension funds, investment trust companies and unit trusts—have increased significantly and persistently their ownership of British industry. At the end of 1977 they owned approximately 46 per cent of the ordinary shares in UK quoted companies and in recent years have accounted for over 50 per cent of stock market turnover in UK equities. Their presence in the stock market has been associated with their ability to influence share prices, decide the outcome of takeover battles, and trade outside the London Stock Exchange. As major shareholders in public companies they have been encouraged to participate in managerial decision‐making. For corporate management, the growth of institutional shareholdings provides opportunities to utilise their voting power in takeover situations, encourage their support for the market value of the company, and use financial institutions as sources of new capital.

Many modern theories of managerial behaviour are based on the initial observation of the separation of ownership and control. This article is concerned with the ownership of British industry. Statistics are presented relating to the pattern of UK share ownership both now and in the future. Emphasis is placed on the persistent and rapid growth in equity holdings by financial institutions—insurance companies, pension funds, investment trust companies and unit trusts. Some concluding comments are made on the possibility of greater managerial participation by major financial institutions, and hence the possible convergence of ownership and control.

The Growth of Institutional Shareholdings 1966–1980. Institutional investors, particularly insurance companies and pension funds, are consistent purchasers of company and overseas securities. Of particular interest is the ownership of U.K. quoted equities, rather than ownership of debentures, preference shares and overseas securities. Ownership of the ordinary share capital is of particular interest because the votes attached to equities give the holders legal powers to influence management through general meetings. The impact of the growth of institutional shareholdings on corporate management and the London Stock Exchange will be discussed in later articles. This article demonstrates the growth of institutional ownership of British industry, comments on the concentration of institutional holdings in large companies, illustrates the avoidance of new issues by financial institutions, and comments on the future pattern of U.K. share ownership.

A comprehensive review of UK share ownership during the 1966–1980 period, with particular reference to the work of Revell and Moyle at the Department of Applied Economics, Cambridge.

In social theory, emergence is the process of novelty (1) creation, (2) growth, and (3) formation into a recognizable social object, process, or structure. Emergence is recognized as important for the existence of novel features of society such as new organizations, new practices, or new relations between actors. In this introduction to the volume on emergence, we introduce a framework for examining emergence processes and theories that have been applied or can be applied to each of the three stages. We also review each volume chapter and discuss their relation to each other. Finally, we make suggestions on the future of research on social emergence processes.

Human resource accounting is concerned with the identification and measurement of data relating to the organisation's human resources and the communication of such relevant information to interested parties. Our objectives in this article are firstly to familiarise both financial and non‐financial managers with the techniques of accounting for human resources, and secondly to summarise the advantages and disadvantages of this additional financial reporting activity. The wide range of human resource valuations yielded by different accounting procedures is demonstrated in a research application of human resource valuation to the staff of Liverpool F.C. Ltd.

Most of my work focusing on educational systems – including universities, public elementary schools, private schools, and training programs in organizations – was supported by Stanford University centers and grants separate from the Training Program, for example, the Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching (1968–1977) and the Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance (1979–1986). Faculty collaborators in these studies included Elizabeth Cohen and Terrence Deal in the School of Education, and John W. Meyer, my colleague in Sociology. A number of NIMH trainees participated in these studies, including Andrew Creighton, Margaret Davis, and Brian Rowan. Other doctoral students involved in this research included Sally Cole, Joanne Intili, Suzanne E. Monahan, E. Anne Stackhouse, and Marc Ventresca.

The 1980s and 1990s at Stanford University were a uniquely productive era for research on organizations and labor markets. I describe three important, interconnected themes that characterize the research on organizations and labor markets that emerged from Stanford during this era: the central role of the firm in a multi-level system that determines labor market outcomes, the role of institutions in both creating and constraining labor market outcomes, and the dynamic, often unexpected, consequences of labor market outcomes. I describe the genesis and development of each theme and conclude by discussing what lessons can be learned from this era about creating an innovative and productive research culture.

In recent years, practitioners have identified a number of problems with traditional performance management (PM) systems, arguing that PM is broken and needs to be fixed. In this chapter, we review criticisms of traditional PM practices that have been mentioned by journalists and practitioners and we consider the solutions that they have presented for addressing these concerns. We then consider these problems and solutions within the context of extant scholarly research and identify (a) what organizations should do going forward to improve PM practices (i.e., focus on feedback processes, ensure accountability throughout the PM system, and align the PM system with organizational strategy) and (b) what scholars should focus research attention on (i.e., technology, strategic alignment, and peer-to-peer accountability) in order to reduce the science-practice gap in this domain.