Current Issue : April - June Volume : 2020 Issue Number : 2 Articles : 5 Articles
The notion of organizational hierarchy is disputed, also in view of the rise of new\norganizational forms claimed to have â??hierarchies without bosses.â? To better understand the\ncontested nature of hierarchy, this essay provides a systemic perspective on organizational\nhierarchy defined as a sequence, or ladder, of accountability levels. I then argue this ladder\ncan be used in a top-down manner (e.g., as a chain of command), but also in bottom-up\nways (e.g., by employees taking charge of higher-level responsibilities). Subsequently, several\npropositions that may guide future work in this area are formulated, and the implications\nfor organization design are fleshed out. Overall, the notion of hierarchy may become less\ncontested by defining it as an accountability ladder which can be instantiated and used in\nhighly different ways....
The digital age has profoundly changed the mode of social production and\nHumanâ??s life style. New technologies represented by Internet, Internet of\nThings, big data, cloud computing and artificial intelligence are deeply integrated\nwith real economy and virtual economy to promote the paradigm of\nhuman resources management and enterprise management mode to transform\ntowards digitalization. How to comprehensively improve the digitalized\nviability of enterprises has become an important issue to be studied and\nsolved urgently. This paper expounds the development trend of the new paradigm\nof human resources management in the digital age, analyses the opportunities\nand challenges faced by human resources management in the digital\nage, and discusses about the specific strategies for constructing the new\nparadigm of human resources management in the digital age, such as precise\nselection of personnel, construction of the information interaction platform\nand data mining. We should construct the interest appeal platform, know\nhow to judge people and use them, establish the talent sharing platform with\ncross-border thinking, establish the value creation platform, and allow the\nconstruction of platforms to help the new paradigm of human resources\nmanagement to better serve enterprises, thus creating more economic benefits\nfor enterprises....
Many cities in China suffer from extremely rapid growth and consequent\ncongestion problems. Simultaneously, other cities are stagnating due to emigration.\nIn this paper, we will use comparisons between cities, and at the national\nlevels respectively, to argue that links between transportation and labor\ndistribution may be related. We argue that transportation development may\nunderlie both problems. Based on previous literature, we provide insights into\nhow transportation can lead to labor redistribution and practical solutions\nto solve these problems....
Based on Anomie theory and actual revenue management theory, this paper\nexplores the relationship between R&D investment and short-term investment\nafter administrative change/mandatory change. It is found that administrative\nchange/mandatory change can significantly reduce R&D investment,\nand executive change can be significantly changed. Increasing short-term investments\nand mandatory changes in executives can significantly increase\nshort-term investments. In addition, mandatory changes in executives can\nsignificantly reduce a companyâ??s R&D investment. Successful sources can mitigate\nthis relationship between administrative changes/mandatory changes\nand corporate R&D investments, and short-term investments in companies\nwith executive change/mandatory changes. External successors will weaken\nchanges/mandatory changes to R&D investments, while internal successors\nwill enhance the impact of change/mandatory changes on R&D investment.\nAt the same time, external successors will reduce the positive impact of\nchange/mandatory changes on short-term investments, and internal successors\nwill enhance the positive impact of change/mandatory changes on\nshort-term investments....
Since the Industrial Revolution, management has relied on hierarchy to control assets\nand employees. The negative impact of that hierarchical control on employee\nperformance has long been recognized, yet in spite of expert and scholarly attempts to\nsolve these problems hierarchical control generally continues to dominate\nmanagement theory and practices. This article argues that is because these problems\nare rooted not in hierarchy, but rather in organizational expectations of hierarchy.\nHierarchy emphasizing â??liberating servant leadershipâ? (Dr. Isaac Getz of the ESCP\nBusiness School in Paris introduced the term â??liberating leadership,â? the French\nequivalent of which â??entreprise libéréeâ? has become a household term in France. Max\nDe Pree suggested the leader must become a servant in Leadership is an Art. This\ncombines the two concepts.) instead of controlling employees can produce\nextraordinary business results. Eighteen innovative CEOs (The innovative CEOs and their\nsuccessful companies in alphabetical order are Bill Gore, W.L. Gore Company; Bob\nBeyster, Science Applications International Corporation; Bob Davids, Radica Games &\nSea Smoke Vineyard and Winery; Bob Koski, Sun Hydraulics; Bob Townsend, AVIS; David\nKelley, IDEO; Garry Ridge, WD-40; Gordon Forward, Chaparral Steel; Harry Quadracci,\nQuad/Graphics; Herb Kelleher, Southwest Airlines; Jeff Westphal, Vertex; Ken Iverson,\nNucor Steel; Kim Jordan, New Belgium Brewing; Max De Pree, Herman Miller; Paul\nStaley, PQ Corporation; Rich Teerlink, Harley Davidson; Robert McDermott, USAA\nInsurance; and Stan Richards, The Richards Group. Additional details about each leader\ncan be found in the books Freedom, Inc. by Brian Carney and Isaac Getz and\nQuestioning Corporate Hierarchy by Paul Staley and Bill Nobles.) whom I have studied\ndiscovered this by trial and error while trying to take advantage of Douglas McGregorâ??s\nTheory Y. Their leadership changed the design of their organizations. Believing that\nindividuals can drive themselves more effectively than managers can, these CEOs\nsought to create conditions in which associates committed themselves to\norganizational objectives, and satisfied their ego and self-development needs. The CEOs\nrelied on hierarchy to control financial assets, but fundamentally changed the human\ndimension. The organizational roles traditionally called â??middle managersâ? responsible\nfor controlling employees became â??liberating servant leadersâ? responsible for ensuring\nthat associates had everything needed to freely self-control and self-coordinate their \nefforts. The resulting self-motivated, creative employees played key roles in each CEOâ??s\ncompany being extraordinarily successful. These experiences provide a foundation for\ntransforming the human role of hierarchy in organizational design....
Loading....