Ownership and the Changing Employment Relationship: Why Stylized Notions of Labor No Longer Generally Apply: A Reply to Zardkoohi and Paetzold

Rousseau, Denise M.; Shperling, Zipi

doi:10.2307/20159070

Cited by 14 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Expansion or contraction in the overall demand for labor, together with the scarcity and substitutability of specific employee competencies, will impact on employee salience. The perceived legitimacy of the claims of employee stakeholders relates to the nature of the psychological contract between employer and employee (Rousseau and Shperling ) as well as to the level of employee awareness or sophistication regarding the issue in question. Transactional psychological contracts are typically short term, based on exchange relationships and a lower level of trust between the parties, which together imply limited organization concern for employee expectations.…”

Section: Determining Employee Stakeholder Saliencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Transactional psychological contracts are typically short term, based on exchange relationships and a lower level of trust between the parties, which together imply limited organization concern for employee expectations. Relational contracts are longer in duration, grounded in greater commonality of values and based on greater mutual trust, which suggest that employee concerns will have greater weight in organization decision making (Rousseau and Shperling ). The notion of employee sophistication as an influence on the perceived legitimacy of stakeholder claims derives from research into the impact of consumer sophistication on purchasing decisions (Titus and Bradford ).…”

Section: Determining Employee Stakeholder Saliencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Giving as Good as They Get? Organization and Employee Expectations of Ethical Business Practice

Mason¹,

Simmons²

2013

Business and Society Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Corporate malpractice and malfeasance on an unprecedented scale have brought ethical issues to the fore and accentuated demands from activists, governments, and the public for greater corporate social responsibility (CSR). The predominant response of researchers and policymakers has been to focus on the external impact of business operations and the merits of regulation or persuasion in achieving more responsible practice in these areas. In this article, we focus on a less well explored aspect of CSR, namely the evaluation of an organization's CSR activities by its internal stakeholders (i.e., employees). Salient CSR literature is reviewed to differentiate between CSR and ethical business practice (EBP), conceptualizing the latter as the internal manifestation of CSR as represented by an organization's values and vision, strategy and policy, systems and procedures, and people management practices. This article assesses organizational espousal of EBP in three ways: how successfully it is communicated to employees, how closely espousal aligns with employee expectation, and how this evaluation impacts on employee commitment. Our research approach aligns with and extends previous work in this area that identifies the likelihood of a “false consensus bias” by managers in assuming congruence between organization espousal of EBP and employee expectation. A conceptual model is offered to explain possible employee responses to an organization's EBP. This relates organization espousal of EBP to employee assessment of its salience to identify three positions on commitment that employees can adopt—abrogated, continuance, and affective commitment—together with their likely behavioral implications. The analysis generates a series of research questions and related areas of exploration to empirically test the conceptual model.

show abstract

Section: Determining Employee Stakeholder Saliencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Determining Employee Stakeholder Saliencementioning

confidence: 99%

Giving as Good as They Get? Organization and Employee Expectations of Ethical Business Practice

Mason¹,

Simmons²

2013

Business and Society Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While scholars have theoretically considered the sharing of employee ownership broadly in family firms (Cruz et al, 2011), empirical studies have focused narrowly on employee ownership among the executive ranks, namely family executives (e.g., Gomez‐Mejia, Larraza‐Kintana, & Makri, ; Tiscini & Raoli, ). This is unfortunate, as broad‐based employee ownership allows a majority of the firm's employees, rather than just the executives, to become owners, thereby creating a competitive advantage through the entire workforce (Rousseau & Shperling, ). Consequently, this study advances research by providing empirical evidence of how family firms differentially approach the use of BEOPs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Piece of the Pie? The Effects of Familial Control Enhancements on the Use of Broad‐Based Employee Ownership Programs in Family Firms

Mullins

2017

Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While family firms tend to be highly committed to their employees, scholars contend that founding family owners are likely hesitant when it comes to sharing ownership broadly with nonfamily employees. Taking a heterogeneous view of family firms, this study investigates the implications of different familial control‐enhancing mechanisms on the use of broad‐based employee ownership programs (BEOPs) among publicly‐traded family firms. Based on a five‐year panel data set of S&P 500 family firms, the findings indicate that certain control‐enhancing mechanisms can cause family owners to frame their decision to use BEOPs differently. Essentially, family firms with family CEOs, regardless of whether the CEO is a founder or descendant, have a decreased likelihood of using BEOPs in spite of the direct control that family owners have over the firm's operations. Conversely, when family owners hold dual‐class shares, which enhance shareholder voting power, family firms are more likely to use BEOPs. Furthermore, the likelihood of family firms with family CEOs using BEOPs increases when the family holds dual‐class shares. Moreover, there is no significant difference between founder and descendant CEOs, as both are less resistant to using BEOPs when a dual‐class share structure is in place. These findings have implications for HR practitioners working in family firms given the influence that family owners can have on the firm's HR activities, namely BEOPs.

show abstract

“…There is evidence of increasing usage of stock ownership and stock option schemes by many, certainly not all, organisations. Over one-fifth of U.S. private sector employees-24 million workers-own stock in their own companies, and 8 million participate in employee stock ownership plans (Rousseau and Shperling, 2004). In Ireland, stock ownership schemes have become institutionalized over the past decade in much of the ICT and Pharmachem sectors (O'Regan et al, 2005).…”

Section: Assumption-4: Hrd Is Not Associated With the Unitarist Hrm Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Critically Challenging some Assumptions in HRD

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper sets out to critically challenge five interrelated assumptions prominent in the HRD literature. These relate to: the exploitation of labour in enhancing shareholder value; the view that employees are co-contributors to and co-recipients of HRD benefits; the distinction between HRD and HRM; the relationship between HRD and unitarism; and, the relationship between HRD and organisational and learning cultures. From a critical modernist perspective, it is argued that these can only be adequately addressed by taking a point of departure from the particular state of the capital-labour relation in time, place and space. HRD, of its nature, exists in a continuous state of dialectical tension between capital and labour-and there is much that critical scholarship has yet to do in informing practitioners about how they might manage and cope with such tension.

show abstract

Ownership and the Changing Employment Relationship: Why Stylized Notions of Labor No Longer Generally Apply: A Reply to Zardkoohi and Paetzold

Cited by 14 publications

References 0 publications

Giving as Good as They Get? Organization and Employee Expectations of Ethical Business Practice

Giving as Good as They Get? Organization and Employee Expectations of Ethical Business Practice

A Piece of the Pie? The Effects of Familial Control Enhancements on the Use of Broad‐Based Employee Ownership Programs in Family Firms

Critically Challenging some Assumptions in HRD

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About