Browse by title

You are looking at 1-10 of 382 items :

  • Human Resource Management x
  • All accessible content x
Clear All
This content is available to you

Ronald J. Burke

This chapter sets the stage for the rest of the collection. Adults spend over one-third of their waking hours at work. Work can enhance or diminish well-being. Well-being is an umbrella concept including happiness, satisfaction, positive affect and flourishing among others. Stress at work is a major factor influencing well-being. Workplace stress exerts a high financial cost to societies, thus well-being is important for both individuals and organizations. Sources of stress that have received research attention include long work hours, autocratic leadership, bias and discrimination, sexual harassment, low levels of job security, and unsafe work environments. The goal for organizations then is to create more psychologically healthy and positive workplaces. Factors associated with such workplaces include types of leadership (transformational, servant), levels of job security, reasonable workloads, opportunities to increase person–job fit, training and development opportunities, high levels of job civility and fairness, investments in developing human capital in all employees, and fun at work. Organizational case studies of psychologically healthy workplaces are offered.

This content is available to you

Richard Philip Winter

Chapter 1 portrays managing as a sensemaking process and assumes academic-managers will exercise some degree of choice in choosing perspectives of managing that best fit their social worlds and their own personal beliefs, values and goal intentions. A process of sensemaking lets managers see how their thinking may be associated with certain working relationships and scholarship outcomes within HEI and their wider communities. Keywords: sensemaking; ideologies; values; emotions; goal intentions; role expectations
This content is available to you

Edited by Pawan S. Budhwar and Kamel Mellahi

This content is available to you

Pawan S. Budhwar and Kamel Mellahi

This content is available to you

Edited by Pawan S. Budhwar and Kamel Mellahi

This content is available to you

Edited by Pawan S. Budhwar and Kamel Mellahi

This content is available to you

Edited by Pawan S. Budhwar and Kamel Mellahi

This content is available to you

Edited by Pawan S. Budhwar and Kamel Mellahi

This content is available to you

  • Research Handbooks in Business and Management series

Edited by John P. Meyer

This content is available to you

  • Research Handbooks in Business and Management series

Emma Stringfellow

Kirton and Greene (2010) argue that an emphasis on a voluntary, unilateral managerial approach is an “essential dimension” of the (Anglo-Saxon) diversity management (DM) discourse. Diversity management has therefore been criticised as representing a “soft option” for employers, emphasising a top-down, management-led approach and giving managers the power to define problematic areas (Liff 1997; Kirton and Greene 2010). It is questionable, however, whether this applies in continental Europe, where issues of equality are usually regulated through social dialogue or collective bargaining. This chapter compares the unilateral managerial versus social dialogue dimension of diversity management in Sweden, France and Germany. The chapter examines the main actors driving diversity management in each country; what their motivations were for doing so; and how this impacted on the extent of a social dialogue approach. It then looks at the extent and quality of social dialogue on diversity management and what form it has taken – ranging from co-determination at one end of the spectrum (where unions take the leading role in designing and implementing DM policies); through genuinely negotiated agreements on issues directly or indirectly related to promoting diversity; to joint initiatives and projects; to the façade of collective bargaining in which unions are invited to sign or reject agreements without any real negotiation. The chapter then looks at how social dialogue might have shaped diversity management, and vice versa, in each country.