No abstract

By now, the becoming business-like of nonprofit organizations (NPOs) is a wellestablished global phenomenon that has received ever-growing attention from management and organization studies. However, the field remains hard to grasp in its entirety, as researchers use a multitude of similar, yet distinct, key concepts. The considerable range and complexity of these overlapping notions create major challenges: Scholars struggle to position their work in a larger context; it is not easy to build on previous findings and methodological developments; and research gaps are difficult to identify. The present article presents the first systematic literature review to confront those challenges by reviewing 599 relevant sources. In a first step, various key concepts are clarified. Second, the field is mapped according to three research foci: causes of NPOs becoming business-like, organizational structures and processes of becoming business-like, and effects of becoming business-like. From this, we draw conclusions and make suggestions for further research.

This article uses a large-scale representative survey to examine a key aspect of control in multinational companies (MNCs): the extent of central influence over human resource (HR) policy formation in subsidiaries. This is a crucial aspect of behaviour, relevant for example for the cross-border diffusion of policies and practices and for the institutional distinctiveness of practice within a given host environment. The article assesses how far policy is determined by corporate headquarters or some other higher-level organizational structure. Its novelty lies primarily in its exploration of the influence of the structure of the HR management (HRM) function on subsidiary discretion. It finds, first, that the degree of central control is influenced for different HR issues by nationality of ownership and by international product/service standardization. Second, there is some variability in the antecedents associated with discretion on different HR issues. Finally, aspects of the structure of the HRM function significantly affect discretion, notably the networking of HR managers across borders and the direct reporting relationships within the function between the UK and higher organizational levels.

PurposeThe paper seeks to analyze empirically the consequences of family responsibilities for career success and the influence of career context variables and gender on this relationship.Design/methodology/approachThe sample consists of 305 business school graduates (52 percent male) from a major Central European university who finished their studies around 2000 and who were in their early career stages (i.e. third and fourth career years).FindingsThe paper reports a negative relationship between family responsibilities and objective and subjective career success via work centrality. There is also substantive support for the effect of contextual factors on the relationship between family situations and career success, emphasizing the importance of a multi‐level perspective. Finally, evidence of gender effects exists.Research limitations/implicationsThe empirical generalizability of the results is limited by the structure of the sample. Qualitative in‐depth studies are needed to further understand the relationships found.Practical implicationsThe results underscore the importance of the work‐family‐interface for employee retention measures. Tailored HR policies are crucial.Originality/valueTheoretically, the paper develops a multi‐level causal model of specific aspects of work‐family relations including variables ranging from meso (career context) to more micro (family, individual). Empirically, the study focuses on young business professionals prior to having a family or in the early stages of their family life.

Accumulating research suggests that the adoption of high performance work practices (HPWPs) is related to organizations' performance. The evidence base is limited by its reliance on retrospective survey reports. This study uses an intervention, including longitudinal interview and survey reports, of the implementation and outcomes of the introduction of HPWPs alongside time series data of objective performance metrics recorded before and after the intervention. The results showed that the implementation of HPWPs was associated with subsequent and sustained increases in productivity and safety performance. The study suggests that a specifically designed intervention involving HPWPs can have beneficial effects both on productivity and safety, but other intermediary variables associated with the implementation process may be critical in mitigating potentially detrimental worker welfare effects arising from work intensification

This article aims to contribute to the long-standing discussion about nonprofit organizations’ (NPOs) dependence on public funding and its consequences on their advocacy role in modern societies. Drawing on resource dependence theory and data from a quantitative survey, the study investigates the impact of public funding and its extent on nonprofit engagement in advocacy. Traditionally, scholars have cautioned that NPOs reliant on public sources will hesitate to pursue political objectives and to engage in advocacy work. Yet, empirical findings are strikingly inconsistent. One of the reasons for these ambiguous findings may be the way advocacy is measured. To address this issue, we apply two different approaches to evaluate NPO engagement. Both sets of findings from our multivariate analyses of Austrian NPOs suggest that public funding does not have a negative impact on advocacy.

Different disciplinary, theoretical, and empirical lenses have contributed to a kaleidoscopic picture of CSO governance. Most of the time, CSO governance is contrasted with corporate governance in business organizations; only rarely is the broad variety of CSOs taken into account. To widen this perspective, we develop an empirically grounded typology of five discourses of organization in CSOs: managerialist, domestic, professionalist, grassroots, and civic discourse. We argue that each of these discourses gives specific answers to the three core questions of governance: To whom is the CSO accountable, i.e., who are the key actors who need to be protected by governance mechanisms? For what kind of performance is the CSO accountable? And which structures and processes are appropriate to ensure accountability? The way in which different discourses answer these questions provides us with a deeper understanding of the reasons behind the manifold notions of governance in CSOs.2

No abstract