Suchergebnisse

Using longitudinal personnel data from a U.S. Fortune 500 manufacturing firm for the period of 1967 to 1993, I assess the effects of corporate restructuring and power differences between a firm and its managers on the nature and use of different incentives. I extend relative bargaining power theory to predict that a firm's ability to provide incentives in the ways it prefers—bonuses instead of increases to base salary or promotions—varies due to differences over time in monitoring and sanctions stemming from organizational change processes. Findings are consistent with the theory and show a negative effect of bonuses on salary increases and of bonuses on promotions, with tradeoffs greatest when the firm's oversight of rewards was highest and termination threats were most explicit. Further support for the theory is the finding that the strength of the negative effect of bonuses on promotions varied across managerial groups due to differences in managers' bargaining power: "fast-trackers" were much less likely to experience a tradeoff than were low performing managers, and women were less likely to experience a tradeoff than were men.

Women have made significant inroads into management in recent decades, yet remain underrepresented in leadership positions in large firms. In this article, I assess the critical but seldom analyzed role that widespread corporate restructuring may play in generating these inequalities. I build on social-cognitive research and the opportunity structure for discrimination framework to develop contrasting predictions of the effects from two forms of restructuring—reductions in force and reorganization of human resource management systems—on sex differences in managerial promotion. Analyses of longitudinal personnel records from a Fortune 500 manufacturing firm-a firm that restructured multiple times over the period examined–are consistent with the opportunity structure for discrimination framework and suggest that the firm responded to gender equity pressures to promote women when afforded the opportunity to do so. Women's promotion rates were higher than men's during restructuring, relative to previous years, with a greater difference at higher-status job levels. Importantly, however, few women transitioned into upper management positions in the firm during the restructuring period because (1) reductions in force slowed promotion rates for all managers, (2) women began their careers in lower-status jobs to begin with, relative to men, and (3) women's promotion advantages were often short-lived. I conclude by discussing implications of my findings for research on organizational dynamics and gender inequality.

A key debate in research on corporate restructuring is whether this widespread and extensive transformation process made contemporary employment relationships more open—with firms relying largely on market forces to reward employees—or left them relatively closed, with wages remaining primarily a function of internal labor market systems, practices, and policies. Research in this arena has had conceptual and empirical challenges in clearly distinguishing between these contrasting perspectives, leaving open the question of whether corporate restructuring reflects a full-fledged transformation in wage patterns, determinants, and outcomes, or instead erosion around the margins. We seek to resolve this debate by extending, refining, and assessing a rent-destruction account of the effect of corporate restructuring on employment relationships—which we contrast with internal labor market approaches. Results from analyses of 25 years of personnel records from a Fortune 500 energy-sector firm are consistent with the rent-destruction account: employment relationships became more market-based following the onset of corporate restructuring—albeit with production workers' contracts seemingly becoming more open than those of managers.

Research Summary: Research on necessity entrepreneurship has generated important insights, yet it views necessity entrepreneurs in developed countries as one encompassing group of unemployed individuals—ignoring that the level of need is not uniform but instead increases with time spent in unemployment. We begin to unpack the role of unemployment duration in necessity entrepreneurship by asking how it affects one of the most fundamental decisions in start-ups: "what business should I be in?" Analyzing primary data on 576 necessity entrepreneurs combined with three secondary data sets, we find that unemployment duration affects whether ventures are launched in "home" or in external industries, and moderates the extent to which founders' industry experience and the attractiveness of external opportunities relative to those in the "home" industry shape industry choice. Managerial Summary: Necessity entrepreneurs—individuals who create new firms because they have no other options for work—represent a substantial proportion of world-wide entrepreneurial activity, and, in developed countries, often come from the ranks of the unemployed. We analyze these entrepreneurs by answering the question "what business should I be in?," a fundamental strategic decision that founders make. Our findings reveal that duration in unemployment is a key, hitherto unexamined factor that systematically affects the industry-choice decision in startups. Moreover, we find that duration of unemployment moderates the founder's industry experience and the attractiveness of external opportunities relative to those in the "home" industry, with a markedly different picture for the long-term unemployed—suggesting the need for customized government policies for formerly unemployed entrepreneurs.

New firms are endowed with knowledge and experience at birth through the human capital of their founder(s). Existing empirical research suggests that this pre-entry knowledge and experience will influence the firm's chances of survival; however, the mechanisms underlying this relationship have yet to be investigated. We seek to better understand and unpack this relationship. Specifically, we study the extent to which a founder's pre-entry knowledge of the business activity and pre-entry management experience influence the effectiveness of two subsequent learning activities—namely, early-stage business planning and product-line change. Our findings suggest that pre-entry knowledge and management experience increase firm survival through moderating the effects of these subsequent learning activities. We also find that learning activities are not always beneficial; in our sample, early-stage business planning is associated with decreased firm survival, and product line change is associated with increased firm survival. We examine these patterns using survey data collected from 436 individuals in the Munich region who founded their own firms as an alternative to continued unemployment. Our results have theoretical implications for the entrepreneurship, evolutionary economics, and organizational learning literatures.