The difference between termination and layoffRatapol Teratanavat; Brian H. Kleiner
2005 Management Research News
doi: 10.1108/01409170510785381
Every year a number of employees are dismissed in American companies. Several names have been used to call these circumstances such as dismissal, separation, termination, discharge, firing, or layoff (Paula, 1985). Most people use these words interchangeably even though they are slightly different in the meaning regarding the cause of unemployment. The purpose of this study is to show the distinction between “termination” and “layoff” including the definition, the cause of termination and lay off, and the strategy to handle both the termination and layoff situation more properly and effectively. In addition, the study will demonstrate how the layoff has an impact on the American Corporation.
Managing compensation in the financial service industryChiungman Huang; Brian H. Kleiner
2005 Management Research News
doi: 10.1108/01409170510785200
The US financial services industry, especially banking, has undergone substantial technological change and industry restructuring during the 1990s. A variety of new techniques and services have been introduced in all areas of the financial services sector, and industry restructuring through mergers and consolidation has been a defining feature of the banking industry in recent years. Through the effects on cost, quality and the types of services provided, technological change and industry restructuring are likely to generate gains for stockholders and customers. However, there shaping in this industry also implies that companies are struggling to implement their strategy with antiquated incentive compensation systems.
Effective human resource management in the steel industryKatherine Andresen; Brian H. Kleiner
2005 Management Research News
doi: 10.1108/01409170510785219
Iron preceded steel in the history of the metal industry. It was used for over three thousand years, and when the British settled in North America, the first iron works was set up at James town, Virginia, in 1621. By the time of the American Revolution, the colonies were producing one‐seventh of the world’s supply of pig iron at thirty thousand tons. Steel is made by alloying iron with carbon to produce a hard, strong metal. It was expensive to manufacture and the United States imported most of its steel until after the Civil War. The steam age provided much growth to the iron industry in the 1800s, with enormous demand for iron rails. Pennsylvania, with its large deposits of anthracite coal, was the nation’s leading state in the iron industry. Aided by the great iron ore deposits in the Great Lakes area and cheap water transportation, the production of iron and steel drove the Industrial Revolution, and the Mid west became the centre of American heavy industry. Developments in steel processing during the mid 1800s lowered the cost of steel production and allowed the use of steel for rail roads, construction, and other industrial uses. By 1883, approximately twenty years after the Civil War, the United States produced nearly 115,000 tons of steel and the Iron Age disappeared. The American steel industry continued to grow rapidly and by 1910 it produced more than 24 million tons, which was the greatest of any country. One of the high lights of the steel industry was the establishment of United States Steel Corporation in 1901 led by J. Pierpont Morgan and Elbert H. Gary. The corporation was valued at $1.4 billion and controlled more than 60 percent of the US market. The strength of America’s steel industry continued after World War II and peaked in 1969 at 141,262,000 tons. At this time, competition from steel plants abroad with lower labour costs and newer mills started edging in on the US market. By 1975, US steel production declined to 89 million tons, but rebounded slightly in the late 1980s (Gordon). The American steel industry would not be central to the economy as it had for the previous 100 years.
Effective management of state employeesChris Tilden; Brian H. Kleiner
2005 Management Research News
doi: 10.1108/01409170510785228
Managing state employees is similar to managing private sector employees, although there are many subtle differences. An effective manager will acknowledge these differences, seize them, and use them to their advantage. On the other hand, an ineffective manager will attempt to lead and motivate employees using only techniques from the private sector. This manager will have a harder time obtaining their objectives, or worse, may lose their job because of ineffectiveness. This article organises the differences into two categories: opportunities and concerns. When comparing and contrasting a state organisation to a for‐profit private sector company opportunities are the advantages of a state organisation and concerns are the disadvantages. An effective management style will minimise concerns and capitalise on opportunities.
Effective human resource management of county employeesJeremy Huntley; Brian H. Kleiner
2005 Management Research News
doi: 10.1108/01409170510785237
Government is a very labour intensive enterprise. Public organisations provide services, enforce laws and regulations, solve problems, and have varied missions. Their varied missions include protection of the environment, food safety, elderly and disabled assistance, education of our children, and civil rights enforcement. All of these activities require the use of human resources. The quality of employees in the county directly relates to how well the county performs. Essential tasks of human resource managers are to find qualified employees for these government positions, as well as to promote an attractive work environment for these employees. Failure to use effective human resource management risks low productivity and a lack of commitment to the community. County managers have the challenge of meeting multiple objectives including productivity, staffing and many more.
How to recognise and handle potentially violent employeesVick Gupta; Brian H. Kleiner
2005 Management Research News
doi: 10.1108/01409170510785246
Employees are an integral part of an organisation. They are important assets for a company. Employees with their hard work and sincerity can either make a company or break a company with their insincerity or disruptive behaviour. Employees should be treated like a family. It is important for an organisation to keep employees happy. If employees are satisfied and feel part of the organisation, they will work harder and ultimately the organisation will grow by leaps and bounds. On the other hand, if they are not happy, it could adversely affect company’s growth. If employees are dissatisfied or frustrated, there is a potential that they can turn violent. Companies should take appropriate measures to make sure that the employees are free from any kind of harm.
How to manage independent contractors effectivelyHenry Gunawan; Brian H. Kleiner
2005 Management Research News
doi: 10.1108/01409170510785255
Whether a worker is an employee of a business or an independent contractor with that business is an issue that can have many significant problems. Generally, an employee is someone who works for an employer. An employee is controlled by the employer and has little discretion in the timing and performance of his tasks. According to Wilson, on the other hand, “independent contractors contract to do work and have the ability to perform the work without being subject to the control of the employer as long as they meet the expected results required by the contract (Wilson, 1999).” In short, independent contractors are independent business people who are hired to perform specific tasks. They are just like any other vendor, except they perform services rather than provide tangible goods and basically are in the business for themselves. Thus, they are not the hiring firm’s employees. They are not eligible for unemployment, disability, or workers compensation benefits (California Chamber of Commerce, 1991). There is no certain and consistent definition to distinguish an employee and an independent contractor. However, there are a number of rules that govern whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor; and each of the rules has its own characteristic in determining the issue.
To blow or not to blow the whistle? That is the questionEster Rocha; Brian H. Kleiner
2005 Management Research News
doi: 10.1108/01409170510785264
Whistle blower was a word created in the 70s to specifically differentiate allegations from somebody from inside the company as opposed to allegations of a wrong doing by someone from outside the company. The agreed‐upon definition of whistle‐blowing has four components: 1) A person acts with the intention of making information public; 2) The information is transmitted to people outside the organisation who make it public and a part of the public record; 3) The information has to do with possible or actual nontrivial wrong doing in a company; and 4) The individual exposing the organisation is not a journalist or ordinary citizen, but an employee or former employee of the organisation. (Johnson, 2003:3‐4).
The evolution of R&D managementJincao Wang; Brian H. Kleiner
2005 Management Research News
doi: 10.1108/01409170510785273
R&D has been studied for a long time within different contexts, economies, and environmental demands throughout the years. The transition from early days’ booming markets and economic growth in the 1950s to today’s highly competitive and global market place is reflected in the way R&D has been managed. Early success stories such as the industrial research laboratories Bell Labs, Xerox Park and Lockheed Martin Skunkworks have been replaced by companies like the more market‐focused 3M, the rapid introductions of new product ranges from Japanese manufacturers like Toyota and Sony, and R&D collaborations like Ericsson’s network of companies around the “Bluetooth” technology and standard. The perspective on R&D processes has been different throughout the years, since the structure and prerequisites of the economy have changed and so has the presumption of best practice. One attempt at describing the last 50 years of evolution within the R&D field is introduced below according to many researchers.