The Effects of Departmental and Positional Power on Job Evaluation Outcomes: A Dual-Level Analysis of Power and Resource Allocation

We replicate research from two separate power and resource allocation research streams to test whether job evaluation outcomes at a university are simultaneously susceptible to effects of power held at both the group (i.e., academic department) and individual (i.e., a job\u27s hierarchical position) levels. In doing so, we illustrate limitations of the dominant rational model of research in job evaluation and, more generally, how dual levels of analysis can illuminate the relationship between power and resource allocation. We then investigate whether departmental and positional power interact in the allocation of resources at both levels. Results from six years of job evaluation data indicate that job evaluation outcomes are highly susceptible to both departmental and positional power. Moreover, our results suggest that positional power moderated the effect of departmental power on group level job evaluation successes. Drawing on our dual-level analysis, we propose a new model of power, resource allocation, and the perpetuation of power

Predicting Performance Of Initial Public Offering (IPO) Firms: Should Human Resource Management (HRM) Be In The Equation?

Population ecology is utilized to understand the role of human resource management (HRM) in enhancing the performance of initial public offering (IPO) companies. This is done by examining the determinants of structural inertia and developing hypotheses on the relationship between HRM and organizational performance. The results indicate that two human resource variables (human resource value and organization-based rewards) predict initial investor reaction and long-term survival. The rewards variable negatively affects initial performance while positively impacting survival

Rational and Coalition Models of Job Evaluation: Do More Powerful University Departments Have an Advantage?

Job evaluation research has, to date, focused on the individual as the unit of analysis. After approximately 50 years of study, evidence on the basic assumptions supporting job evaluation is still inconclusive. This study expands the research by employing organizational theory to the topic and studying job evaluation at the group level. Prior work on rational and coalition models of resource allocation is used to develop hypotheses that are tested with six years of job evaluation data from a university. The results support the coalition model and the conclusion that departmental power can affect job evaluation outcomes

The Isaqueena - 1911, May-June

Contributors include: Sophia Brunson, Sue Byrd, Hon. B. M. Shuman, Hon. M. F. Ansel, Mr. Chas. M. McGee, Rev. C. C. Brown, Rev. W. T. Derieux, Rev. John J. Wicker, Rev. O. L. Stringfield, Rev. E. P. Easterling, Dr. S. C. Byrd, Mrs. Kate Hyde Sloan, Mrs. C. E. Watson, Charles E. Poston, Hon. Jno. B. Marshall, Dr. H. T. Cook, Nina Entzminger, Fannie Herren, Annie Brown, Miss Elizabeth Robertson, Leila Mai McKenzie, Ethel Black, Cora Long, Emma Wright, Elsie Barton, Kate V. Jones, Nellie Whitten, Violet Askins, Lucile Cox, Gladys McGee, Marguerite Marshall, Pearl Brasington, Drucie Smith, Theresa Sandershttps://scholarexchange.furman.edu/isaqueena/1026/thumbnail.jp

Harmonic word order constraints are not created equal: the final-over-final constraint as an epiphenomenon

The Final-over-Final Constraint (FOFC, Holmberg 2000, Biberauer et al 2007, 2008) is a descriptive generalisation stating that a head-initial phrase cannot be dominated by a head-final phrase. The empirical support for this observation is robust in certain clausal contexts, but elsewhere shows that the FOFC-violating order is simply dispreferred. There is therefore some confusion as to whether the FOFC is an invariant principle, or a non-absolute trend. This paper provides evidence that the FOFC acts as a robust principle only as regards the leftright asymmetry in the distribution of subordinating complementisers. For any other category, there are examples of FOFC-violating structures, including the categories Aux and T, contra previous claims (cf. Julien 2002, 2007, Biberauer et al 2007, 2008). The key contribution of the paper is to show that the only data directly supporting the FOFC—the distribution of subordinating complementisers—can be derived independently of it. It is shown that the attested distribution is fully captured by the interaction of three independently motivated harmonic word order principles: Head Proximity (Rijkhoff 1984, 1986, 1990, 1992), the Head Parameter (inter alia Chomsky 1981) and the preference for complement clauses to appear in sentence-final position (Dryer 1980). Where there is competition among these principles, it is Head Proximity that takes precedence. The disharmonic orders that occur elsewhere are explained by specific linearisation rules within a language pertaining to the semantics of a head. Such rules require a head with specified semantics to appear in a prominent position. The presence of such rules may result in either a FOFC violation or its inverse, whereby a head-initial phrase dominates a head-final one. The comparative rarity of the former over the latter can be attributed to two factors: firstly, linearisation rules targeting a prominent position more often target an initial, than final, position (Dik 1978, Siewierska 1991); secondly, there is a cross-linguistic preference to place shorter material before longer, such as heads before phrases (Siewierska 1988). Finally, the fact that subordinating complementisers always obey the optimal word order, and are therefore immune to more specific linearisation rules, is predicted by their lack of semantics