Search

Faced with competitive labor markets, firms increasingly use employer branding to build a qualified workforce and engage their employees. However, our understanding of the impact of employer branding orientation on firm performance and the theoretical firm‐level mechanisms underlying this potential impact is very limited. To address this gap, we integrate brand marketing theory with human resource management (HRM) research to develop a model explicating how employer branding orientation is linked to firm performance through a dual route by enhancing both recruitment efficiency (i.e., external route: applicants) and positive affective climate (i.e., internal route: incumbent employees). The results of a multisource study (i.e., top management, human resource managers, employees) with 93 firms show employer branding orientation is positively related to firm performance through positive affective climate but not recruitment efficiency. Using a brand equity approach to HRM, our results advance the literature by demonstrating the generalizability of employer branding effects independent of concrete brand attributes and explaining the firm‐level mediating mechanisms linking it to firm performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Corporate philanthropy has gained substantial relevance to daily business operations. In the United Kingdom alone, leading publicly traded companies made donations to nonprofit organizations in 2003 and 2004 that were [...]

Why do motivated managers often fail to follow through? Because taking sustained action in the workplace requires more than motivation. It requires the deep commitment that comes from activating willpower. [...]

With this article we contribute to the inclusion of employees with disabilities in the workplace. Based on Stone and Colella's (1996) model of factors affecting the treatment of employees with disabilities in organizations, we concentrate on the investigation of job satisfaction as a focal affective response. Besides examining job satisfaction differences between employees with and without disabilities, we focus on perceived flexibility as an organizational boundary condition, arguing for its influence on the job satisfaction of employees with disabilities. We introduce perceived centralization and formalization, representing different indicators of flexibility, as moderators of the disability-job satisfaction relationship. Regression analysis using data from 110 small and medium-sized companies with 4,141 employees reveals that employees with disabilities are less satisfied than their colleagues without disabilities in highly centralized environments. As predicted, a decentralized organizational context relates to higher job satisfaction levels for all employees, but especially for those having a disability. Contrary to our hypothesis, perceived formalization does not significantly influence the relationship between having a disability and job satisfaction. However, our results clearly indicate the need for companies and especially human resource departments to better adapt to the needs of people with disabilities by creating flexible working environments. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation: Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO) is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

We use the case of German aviation Group Deutsche Lufthansa and its strategic change program, ‘D-Check Maintaining Leadership’, to illustrate how a large company was able to execute group-wide change in order to effectively secure its future despite a highly turbulent environment. In this context, we found that top executives must systematically make two decisions. First, they need to decide what the right change is for their company and second, they need to decide how to implement the change correctly. In the process of making these decisions, various critical factors also need to be taken into individual consideration in a methodical, deliberate way. Details of Lufthansa's program are provided and the benefits of and insights into pre-implementation decision-making processes are assessed for framing and subsequently implementing strategic change. The impact of leadership and management decisions for successful strategic change is discussed in the analysis. We round up our discussion with major lessons learned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Effective execution lies at the heart of achieving superior business performance, and purposeful action-taking by managers lies at the heart of effective execution. This article shows that only a relatively small proportion of managers actually engage in such purposeful action taking. A set of answers have been developed to the research questions, namely: What are the causes of this lack of action-taking by managers? What is different about those who take purposeful action? What can managers do to enhance their personal action-taking ability? And what can corporate leaders do to create an organizational context in which others can take purposeful action? A broad overview is given on some of the key findings of an investigation of the phenomenon of managerial action-taking.