Search results

Much like “Yeti,” the Abominable Snowman whose footprints are everywhere but itself nowhere to be seen, unfounded assertions of human capital as valuable contributors to strategic success continue to proliferate. Many of these treatments are nonbinding, nonmeasureable, idiosyncratic, tautological, and therefore nearly impossible to use for any comparative market valuation. In this chapter, we selectively review the interdisciplinary literature on exemplars of human-derived capital. We systematically examine specific epistemological strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in recognized theories, measures, and practices. In particular, a multidisciplinary, multilevel, connectionist point of view is suggested. We present the case for an evidence-based classification system of human-derived capital at the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels. Our framework goes beyond static stock models by emphasizing dynamic human-derived capital flows, as well as their within-level and cross-level linkages, all within the context of a modern society that increasingly is networked, fluent with technology, and prodigious with social media.

This study aims to address demographic variables believed likely to restrain or modify homogeneous attitudes and values purported as inherent in each generational cohort and associated with divergence of workplace preferences and expectations.

Using a subsample of data collected from a larger study conducted as part of the General Social Survey and supported by the National Science Foundation, this study contributes to the emerging generational differences in literature by using Kruskal–Wallis tests in the analysis of five generational research questions.

In one sense, the results of this study appear to reflect the mixed and confusing disarray of evidence regarding the influence of generational differences on job preferences and workplace behaviors. On only two of the five job characteristics in this study did generational cohort membership demonstrate beyond random chance divergence in generational preference. However, the analysis of the interaction of cohort membership and demographic covariates on these two job characteristics points toward merit in further examination of relationship of subgroup differences relative to overarching assumptions about generational attitudes and norms of behavior.

A number of limitations to the interpretation of this study merit reflection. First, given that the data for this study were cross-sectional in nature, the relationships in our study may be subject to temporal change. Second, the data were secured by self-report and is subject to all the limitations of self-reported data. Third, some of the demographic variables in this study were the result of aggregation in an attempt to secure adequate observations in each cell, and as such, important variance may have been concealed. Fourth, the study did not control for the confounding influence of age difference on cohort preferences.

In a rush to adapt and develop different approaches to human resource management in hope of meeting the needs of successive generational cohorts, it behooves scholars and practitioners alike to acknowledge the confused state of research on generational cohorts and to question the assumed monolithic model of generational cohort job-related likes and dislikes.

This study would suggest that the assumed homogeneity of generational values and attitudes and their influence on the US workplace frequently fails to consider the heterogeneity evolving from the rural/urban characteristics where cohort members experienced adolescence.

Scholars will appreciate the broad perspective presented in this study and the potential new avenues for research. For practitioners, the study provides valuable insights into the three dominant generational cohorts currently in the workplace, thus enabling practitioners to understand the underpinnings of performance and work climate with greater depth and breadth of perspective.

The purpose of this paper is to extend investigation of differences in job performance related ratings across racial and ethnic groupings by comparing predictions derived from the theories of similarity‐attraction and social categorization with predictions derived from leader‐member exchange theory.

Survey data are secured from 91 matched pairs (managerial level subordinates and immediate supervisor) secured in a field study of 17 employers of choice in the geographical area served by a metropolitan university in the USA. A moderated hierarchical regression is performed to test the two original hypotheses, and a chi‐square analysis tests a third hypothesis evolving from the data.

Examination of data reveals that supervisor and subordinate racial demographics are weak predictors of measures of subordinate performance. Measures of leader‐member exchange make any contributions attributed to racial demographics insignificant.

This research is subject to all the concerns associated with field studies and quasi‐experiments.

Since high quality exchange between supervisor and subordinate is a track inward to the central core of the management system and upward mobility, this study points to the value of providing all managers and all subordinates exposure to and instruction in how to initiate and maintain a high quality social exchanges across racial and ethnic groupings.

While null results such as reported in this study are not typically found in the literature, they should spark additional theory development especially when the research methods used are robust.