Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article aims to focus on how signatories versus nonsignatories in the U.S. pharmaceutical sector compare with respect to the internal and external stakeholders and principles of the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC). We seek to answer the question: Do signatories to the UNGC walk the talk better than nonsignatories as determined by a variety of published rankings and data? This research presents an innovative approach to the evaluation of UNGC signatories. It uses several objective and independent data sources to assess a matched group of signatories versus nonsignatories in the U.S. pharmaceutical sector. Signatory organizations in the same sector as determined by SIC codes were matched with nonsignatories on variables such as size and number of employees in U.S. pharmaceutical companies. Then both types of organizations were compared on the following data sources: Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies ratings, ratings by external stakeholders, ratings by employees, unionization data, financial measures, and annual reports to shareholders. Using nonparametric testing the research found there are differences between signatories and nonsignatories in the U.S. pharmaceutical sector for some of the external stakeholder measures and no differences were found for the internal stakeholder measures.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to empirically examine supervisor-subordinate relationships and their impact on performance appraisal in Croatia. Specifically, we were interested in examining how supervisor-subordinate relationships impact subordinate perceptions of performance evaluation and the subordinate's reactions to the performance evaluation.Design/methodology/approachThis paper uses matched data from a sample of supervisors and subordinates (n = 53) in a leading organization in the hospitality industry in Croatia, as well as objective performance appraisal data to examine the impact of supervisor-subordinate relationships on subordinate reactions to performance appraisal.FindingsThe key findings of this study include (1) supervisor trustworthiness determines the quality of their relationship with subordinates and leads to interpersonal liking, and (2) supervisor-subordinate relationship quality has a significant impact on subordinate reactions to performance appraisal process and outcomes.Research limitations/implicationsThe overall sample size (n = 53) of this study is small, and limits our ability to make generalizations beyond a point. Also, since the sample included only Croatian individuals, the findings maybe an artifact of the fact that they all hold similar values. Future studies should examine these relationships in supervisor-subordinate dyads comprised of individuals of different cultural backgrounds.Practical implicationsSupervisors should attempt to have high quality relationships with most, if not all, subordinates, as this would lead to higher acceptance of the performance appraisal process, which can impact future performance. Also, trustworthiness is closely related to the subordinate's perception of the quality of relationship he/she shares with the supervisor.Originality/valueThis is the first known paper to empirically study performance appraisal processes and relationships in Croatia, which also included both supervisor and subordinate perspectives.