Search results

To make better use of its human resource assets, this aerospace company embarked on a major reorganization of operations and introduced the concept of autonomous work teams.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.

The Howard Shuttering Contractors case throws considerable light on the importance which the tribunals attach to warnings before dismissing an employee. In this case the tribunal took great pains to interpret the intention of the parties to the different site agreements, and it came to the conclusion that the agreed procedure was not followed. One other matter, which must be particularly noted by employers, is that where a final warning is required, this final warning must be “a warning”, and not the actual dismissal. So that where, for example, three warnings are to be given, the third must be a “warning”. It is after the employee has misconducted himself thereafter that the employer may dismiss.

The overall goal of science is to build a valid and reliable body of knowledge about the functioning of the world and how applying that knowledge can change it. As personnel and human resources management researchers, we aim to contribute to the respective bodies of knowledge to provide both employers and employees with a workable foundation to help with those problems they are confronted with. However, what research on research has consistently demonstrated is that the scientific endeavor possesses existential issues including a substantial lack of (a) solid theory, (b) replicability, (c) reproducibility, (d) proper and generalizable samples, (e) sufficient quality control (i.e., peer review), (f) robust and trustworthy statistical results, (g) availability of research, and (h) sufficient practical implications. In this chapter, we first sing a song of sorrow regarding the current state of the social sciences in general and personnel and human resources management specifically. Then, we investigate potential grievances that might have led to it (i.e., questionable research practices, misplaced incentives), only to end with a verse of hope by outlining an avenue for betterment (i.e., open science and policy changes at multiple levels).

In recent years, guides to hiking trails and wilderness areas have enjoyed an increase in popularity. Here, Douglas J. Ernest and Lewis B. Herman evaluate more than 100 such books.

This article attempts to provide an institutionalist analysis and diagnosis of the current crisis of orthodox economics. We shall, first, characterise the predominant opinion in economics—the neoclassical synthesis. Next, we examine the anomalies which are currently vexing orthodox opinion and their power to provoke a period of crisis and extraordinary science. In the final section, we diagnose the source of the anomalies of the neoclassical synthesis.

AT the Conference at Folkestone of the London and Home Counties Branch of the Library Association, Mr. Jast gave one more example of his old fire and vigour in a paper which he entitled Publishers and Librarians. No doubt in other pages than ours the text will be given in full. Here, in summary, we may say that he dealt with some of the needs of librarians and readers for well‐produced editions of good books which for some reason were obtainable only in double‐columned small type or otherwise almost unreadable or at any rate unattractive form. He instanced Disraeli's Curiosities of Literature. He urged that if a sufficient number of public and other librarians represented this want to publishers, promising that the libraries would support such an edition, it was unlikely that the request would be ignored. A further suggestion arose from the established fact that in the welter of editions of certain books many were ill‐produced and unworthy to be placed in the hands of unsuspecting bookbuyers. Robinson Crusoe was a case in point, and as many parents desired their sons to read this they were often persuaded to buy editions which were unsuitable. Here he made a suggestion which is entirely practicable: that the Library Association should examine all of the common classics for form and for textual accuracy—a feature in which he alleged that some were deficient—and fix on suitable editions, allowing the publisher to add to their title‐pages “approved by the Library Association.” We seize upon this point first because there is nothing Utopian about it. It is a work that ought to be done.