No abstract

The corporate board is a common feature of both private sector and public sector enterprises. The roles undertaken by boards are therefore a significant area of interest for writers on organizations. This paper makes two contributions to the study of corporate hoards. First, it presents the results of an intensive study of the performance of the board of directors of a first wave National Health Service (NHS) Trust based on three sources of data: actors' accounts; minutes; and observation. This study concludes that the board has made only a marginal contribution to the governance of the Trust. Second, it provides a critique of the three methodological approaches which are available to researchers undertaking such studies and argues that most reported studies of boards are unreliable as they are based on only one, or at best two, of the three available sources of data.

Following the closure of the last Victorian asylum in Somerset, the health authority and county council undertook a review of mental health services. A major outcome of this review was the creation of an integrated mental health and social care provider. The current paper explores the impact of this integration on the morale of staff members involved, using a conceptual model derived from the literature on organizational behaviour. During the year immediately following integration, the average ratings on all measures of role clarity and job satisfaction reduced. For staff members involved in the integration, by far the largest group of whom were mental health nurses, job satisfaction was related to team role clarity, team identification, emotional exhaustion and gender. These effects of the integration on staff morale are discussed in light of the wider research into the determinants of job satisfaction and the conditions for success in merging organizations. The study has significant implications for managerial and professional leadership during organizational change.

We tested the validity of the Lees-Haley Fake Bad Scale (FBS) and the family of MMPI-2 F scales (F-family; F, F(p), and F-K scales) in predicting improbable psychological trauma claims in an applied setting. Litigants reporting implausible symptoms long after minor scares and nonlitigants clinically referred following severe stressors completed the MMPI-2. Both groups were naturally matched on social class. The FBS demonstrated sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive power in the detection of atypical problems but the F-family showed poor utility. FBS cutting scores derived from logistic regression were applied to a third group made up of litigants with histories of undeniably severe traumas. A substantial number of this third group scored above cutoffs for exaggeration, but this finding is ambiguous. Reasons for the F-family's insensitivity to real-world exaggeration may include using student simulators for validation and content reflective of psychotic simulation. The superiority of the FBS in applied forensic settings could derive from its development in actual litigants and content reflective of nonpsychotic exaggerations. The FBS appears acceptable for use in applied forensic settings where persons seek compensation for nonpsychotic syndromes.