The Experts below are selected from a list of 123195 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Thomas N Hubbard - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
make versus buy in trucking asset ownership Job Design and information
The American Economic Review, 2003Co-Authors: George P Baker, Thomas N HubbardAbstract:Explaining patterns of asset ownership in the economy is a central goal of both organizational economics and industrial organization. We develop a model of asset ownership in trucking, which we test by examining how the adoption of different classes of on-board computers (OBCs) between 1987 and 1997 influenced whether shippers use their own trucks for hauls or contract with for-hire carriers. We find that OBCs' incentive-improving features pushed hauls toward private carriage, but their resource-allocation-improving features pushed them toward for-hire carriage. We conclude that ownership patterns in trucking reflect the importance of both incomplete contracts (Grossman and Hart (1986)) and of Job Design and measurement issues (Holmstrom and Milgrom (1994)).
-
make versus buy in trucking asset ownership Job Design and information
Social Science Research Network, 2002Co-Authors: George P Baker, Thomas N HubbardAbstract:Explaining patterns of asset ownership in the economy is a central goal of both organizational economics and industrial organization. We develop a model of asset ownership in trucking which combines features of both property rights theory and multi-task principal-agent theory. We test the model by examining how the adoption of different classes of on-board computers (OBCs) between 1987 and 1997 influenced whether shippers use their own trucks for hauls or contract with for-hire carriers. We find that OBCs' incentive-improving features pushed hauls toward private carriage, but their resource-allocation-improving features pushed them toward for-hire carriage. We conclude that ownership patterns in trucking reflect the importance of both incomplete contracts (Grossman and Hart (1986)) and of Job Design and measurement issues (Holmstrom and Milgrom (1994)).
George P Baker - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
make versus buy in trucking asset ownership Job Design and information
The American Economic Review, 2003Co-Authors: George P Baker, Thomas N HubbardAbstract:Explaining patterns of asset ownership in the economy is a central goal of both organizational economics and industrial organization. We develop a model of asset ownership in trucking, which we test by examining how the adoption of different classes of on-board computers (OBCs) between 1987 and 1997 influenced whether shippers use their own trucks for hauls or contract with for-hire carriers. We find that OBCs' incentive-improving features pushed hauls toward private carriage, but their resource-allocation-improving features pushed them toward for-hire carriage. We conclude that ownership patterns in trucking reflect the importance of both incomplete contracts (Grossman and Hart (1986)) and of Job Design and measurement issues (Holmstrom and Milgrom (1994)).
-
make versus buy in trucking asset ownership Job Design and information
Social Science Research Network, 2002Co-Authors: George P Baker, Thomas N HubbardAbstract:Explaining patterns of asset ownership in the economy is a central goal of both organizational economics and industrial organization. We develop a model of asset ownership in trucking which combines features of both property rights theory and multi-task principal-agent theory. We test the model by examining how the adoption of different classes of on-board computers (OBCs) between 1987 and 1997 influenced whether shippers use their own trucks for hauls or contract with for-hire carriers. We find that OBCs' incentive-improving features pushed hauls toward private carriage, but their resource-allocation-improving features pushed them toward for-hire carriage. We conclude that ownership patterns in trucking reflect the importance of both incomplete contracts (Grossman and Hart (1986)) and of Job Design and measurement issues (Holmstrom and Milgrom (1994)).
Geert Van Hootegem - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Job Design work engagement and innovative work behavior a multi level study on karasek s learning hypothesis
management revue. Socio-economic Studies, 2015Co-Authors: Stan De Spiegelaere, Hans De Witte, Guy Van Gyes, Geert Van HootegemAbstract:IntroductionFor companies and countries to remain competitive, one of the imperatives is to innovate (Van Hootegem, 2012). The companies' workforce is an essential partner in each innovation process. They are the sources of ideas, responsible for the implementation or can render innovation attempts futile when dissatisfied. The asset of an engaged and innovative workforce is obvious from various innovation management studies (Janssen, 2000; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Robinson & Schroeder, 2004; Teerikangas & Valikangas, 2012) and the academic interest is consequently focused on how to enable employees to innovative and to be engaged in their work (De Spiegelaere, Van Gyes, & Van Hootegem, 2014).For both work engagement and Innovative Work Behaviour (IWB), the Job Design is identified as a crucial factor. In their meta-analysis, Flammond, Neff, Farr, Schwall, and Zhao, (2011) even found the Job Design to be most important factor for explaining employee innovativeness. In the work engagement literature, a ubiquitous amount of studies integrate Job Design in their models. In these last studies, the analysis frequently considers joint effects of Job characteristics. This is not the case in the employee innovation literature. Although Job characteristics have been under reasonable attention (e.g. Axtell, Holman, Unsworth, Wall, Waterson, & Harrington, 2000; Ohly & Fritz, 2009), the focus predominantly lay on the effects of single Job characteristics on outcomes such as IWB. This is surprising as the Job Design literature itself largely stresses the importance of combined effects (interaction effects) of Job characteristics. Already some decades ago, Karasek and Theorell (1990) developed an argument that the magic of the Job Design is to be found in the combination of sufficient demands and control. According to the learning hypothesis of the Karasek model, the combination of high demands and control would result in highly motivated and innovative employees. In this article, we will test this essential learning hypothesis by looking at the combined effect of Job autonomy and time pressure on innovative work behaviour on the one hand and work engagement on the other.In doing so, this paper uses multilevel regression models as an analysis technique. The bulk of the studies into IWB focus on a single, individual level and consequently use single level regression analyses. Such techniques are appropriate when all observations are independent of each other regarding the variables of interest. In the case of IWB, one can nevertheless suspect a company level effect on the prevalence of innovative activities of employees. In this case, using normal regression on multi-company data can lead to a misspecification of the estimate of the standard errors (Goldstein, 2010; Snijders & Bosker, 2011). As a consequence, multiple authors of the field have made calls for the use of multi-level research Designs (Anderson, Dreu, & Nijstad, 2004; Janssen, Van de Vliert, & West, 2004; Zhou & Shalley, 2003) and others actually applied multilevel techniques in their data analysis such as Reuvers, van Engen, Vinkenburg, and Wilson-Evered (2008), De Jong and Den Hartog (2010) or Baer and Frese (2003). However, in their review of the innovation literature Anderson, Dreu, and Nijstad (2004) conclude that much work is to be done on the field of using multilevel analysis in innovation research.This paper focuses on the effect of Job Design on Innovative Work Behaviour (IWB) in a test of the famous Job Demands-Control (JD-C) model of Karasek and Theorell (1990). The focus is primarily on so-called 'learning hypothesis' of the Karasek model which assumes that the combination of high demands and control will result in engaged and innovative staff. In doing so, this paper contributes to the literature in several ways. First, it answers to frequent calls to perform more multi-level research in organizational behaviour analysis by taking into account the company effect on individual outcomes. …
-
Job Design and innovative work behavior one size does not fit all types of employees
Social Science Research Network, 2012Co-Authors: Stan De Spiegelaere, Guy Van Gyes, Geert Van HootegemAbstract:As innovative employees become imperative for an organizations’ success, research identified Job Design as a crucial variable in promoting innovative work behavior (IWB) (Hammond et al., 2011). Using the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model of Bakker & Demerouti (2007), this article contributes to the literature as it uses recent insights on the distinction between Job challenges and Job hindrances (Van den Broeck et al., 2010) and distinguishes between blue- and white-collar employees. Using survey data of 893 employees of various organizations the findings generally confirm the JD-R model, although important differences were found between blue-collar and white-collar employees regarding the relation of organizing and routine tasks with IWB. Job content insecurity further was found to be very detrimental for blue-collar IWB. These findings have important HR and political implications as they show that there is no ‘one size fits all’ HR solution for innovation.
John Antonakis - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
could lean production Job Design be intrinsically motivating contextual configurational and levels of analysis issues
Journal of Operations Management, 2006Co-Authors: Suzanne De Treville, John AntonakisAbstract:Abstract Are lean production Jobs intrinsically motivating? More than 20 years after the arrival of lean production, this question remains unresolved. Generally accepted models of Job Design such as the Job Characteristics Model (JCM, (Hackman, J.R., Oldham, G.R. 1976. Motivation through the Design of work: test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16, 250–279.)) cannot explain the occurrence of worker intrinsic motivation in the context of lean production. In this paper, we extend the JCM to the lean production context to explain the theoretical relationship between Job characteristics and motivational outcomes in lean production. We suggest that a configuration of lean production practices is more important for worker intrinsic motivation than are independent main effects, and that motivation may be limited by excessive leanness. We conclude that lean production Job Design may engender worker intrinsic motivation; however, there are likely to be substantial differences in intrinsic motivation under differing lean production configurations.
Mark Harniss - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
working in special education factors that enhance special educators intent to stay
Exceptional Children, 2001Co-Authors: Russell Gersten, Thomas Keating, Paul Yovanoff, Mark HarnissAbstract:This article presents findings from a study of factors that lead to special education teacher attrition and retention involving 887 special educators in three large urban school districts. We focus on a path analysis of the relationship between intent to stay in the field and factors such as Job satisfaction, commitment to special education teaching, and various aspects of Job Design. Findings suggest several critical factors to consider in order to increase retention and commitment. A leading negative factor was stress due to Job Design. Perceived support by principals or other teachers in the school helped alleviate this stress. Another key factor was the sense that special educators were learning on the Job, either formally or informally, through collegial networks.
