Search results

Quality management constructs related to management leadership and workforce involvement have consistently shown strong correlation with firm success for years. However, there is an increasing body of research based on complexity theory (CT) suggesting that constructs such as these should be viewed as variables in a complex system with inter-dependencies, interactions, and potentially nonlinear relationships. Despite the significant body of conceptual research related to CT, there is a lack of methodological research into these potentially nonlinear effects. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the theoretical and practical importance of non-linear terms in a multivariate polynomial model as they become more significant predictors of firm success in collaborative environments and less significant in more rigidly controlled work environments.

Multivariate polynomial regression methods are used to examine the significance and effect sizes of interaction and quadratic terms in operations scenarios expected to have varying degrees of complex and complex adaptive behaviors.

The results find that in highly collaborative work environments, non-linear and interaction effects become more significant predictors of success than the linear terms in the model. In more rigid, less collaborative work environments, these effects are not present or significantly reduced in effect size.

This study shows that analytical methods sensitive to detecting and measuring nonlinearities in relationships such as multivariate polynomial regression models enhance our theoretical understanding of the relationships between constructs when the theory predicts that complex and complex adaptive behaviors are present and important.

This study demonstrates that complex adaptive behaviors between management and the workforce exist in certain environments and provide greater understanding of factor relationships relating to firm success than more traditional linear analytical methods.

WE have now to regard Indexing from quite another standpoint. Hitherto we have been assuming it to be undertaken from a co‐operative point of view, as in the case of Poole's Index and also in that of the Review of Reviews. In special work, the greater the magnitude of the task, as in the instance of Science as a whole, and any large divisions of Science, the more likely is co‐operative effort to be required, but speaking generally special indexes are largely the result of individual effort. It is here that that discrepancy in execution, allusion to which has been made earlier, becomes so manifest. It is my principal object to show how these contradictory methods, the natural result of several minds working on no fixed or settled plan, may be avoided. No space, therefore, will be wasted on detailing these inconsistencies, for the reader's and student's interests will be better served by the more positive method of pointing out how to index on a fixed and settled system. As in the previous section practical illustrations will appear later on to demonstrate this.

The following admirable letter from MR. G. BOOTH‐HEMING, the Ex‐Mayor of the City of Westminster, has been published by the Daily Telegraph. The eminently sane views and the timely warnings it contains should give pause to the foolish advocates of false “economy” and the hysterical preachers of indiscriminate “retrenchment”:—

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how a financial fraud practice, known as affinity fraud, relies on building trust with victims based on shared affiliations or characteristics such as age, race, religion, ethnicity or professional designations, for the purpose of exploiting the trust factor for financial advantage.

Sources of information consisted of scholarly articles and articles retrieved from the web.

Findings suggest that these fraud offenders rely on a myriad of persuasion techniques to overcome offender skepticism coupled with victims engaging in a psychological concept known as projection bias to evaluate the credibility of these offenders. These factors create a negative synergy that dilutes the perceived need for due diligence normally required prior to engaging in securities transactions. In addition, these offenders display a predatory quality, debunking the myth that fraud offenders exhibit a homogenous crime group behavioral profile.

Social institutions that include both for profit and not for profit should consider evaluating their interactions with those who share similar characteristics and affiliations that attempt to offer goods or services by considering some of the factors contained within this article that may dilute due diligence protocol.

This paper serves to alert and educate anti‐fraud professionals, law enforcement and policy makers of a predatory fraud practice that targets organizations exploiting the inherent trust that these organizations rely upon.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how a financial fraud practice, known as affinity fraud, relies on building trust with victims based on shared affiliations or characteristics such as age, race, religion, ethnicity or professional designations, for the purpose of exploiting the trust factor for financial advantage.

Sources of information consisted of scholarly articles and articles retrieved from the web.

Findings suggest that these fraud offenders rely on myriad persuasion techniques to overcome offender skepticism coupled with victims engaging in a psychological concept known as projection bias to evaluate the credibility of these offenders. These factors create a negative synergy that dilutes the perceived need for due diligence normally required prior to engaging in securities transactions. In addition, these offenders display a predatory quality. debunking the myth that fraud offenders exhibit a homogenous crime group behavioral profile.

Social institutions that include both for profit and not for profit should consider evaluating their interactions with those who share similar characteristics and affiliations that attempt to offer goods or services by considering some of the factors contained within this paper that may dilute due diligence protocol.

This paper serves to alert and educate anti‐fraud professionals, law enforcement and policy makers of a predatory fraud practice that targets organizations exploiting the inherent trust upon which these organizations rely.