Suchergebnisse

Evidence-based policymaking (EBP) contends that policy decisions are successful when informed by evidence. However, where policy problems are "wicked" (systemic, ambiguous, complex, and conflictual), politics trumps evidence and solutions are never first best or permanent. Applying an EBP approach to solving wicked problems (WPs) therefore appears to be a daunting, impossible task. Despite the difficulties, we contend that blending insights from the EBP and WP literatures can provide actionable and practical policy advice to governments and MNEs for dealing with the WPs of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We support our thesis with a case study applying EBP to the WP of SDG 5 Gender Equality. We compare the statistical evidence from gender inequality indexes to SDG 5's targets and indicators. We provide five insights from the EBP and WP literatures into why and how good evidence is necessary but not sufficient for progress on SDG 5. Building on these insights, we recommend that governments adopt an EBP approach employing public–private partnerships to address SDG 5. We also recommend that MNE executives use our new SDG Materiality Matrix, designed on EBP principles, to build SDG 5 into their global corporate social responsibility strategies.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine alleged perpetrators' reactions to being accused of discrimination.Design/methodology/approachThe paper examines how the mode of confrontation as well as the perpetrator's status relate to the alleged perpetrator's state of anger and the likelihood of providing a justification to the victim. To test the hypotheses, the authors conducted an experimental design using an organizational scenario.FindingsThe mode of confrontation predicts the likelihood of providing a justification to the victim. The paper also found that both anger and the likelihood of providing a justification for a charge of discrimination are higher when the mode of confrontation is indirect and the alleged perpetrator is the supervisor.Research limitations/implicationsAn organizational scenario limits the realism of the study such that results may not generalize to actual organizational settings (Stone, Hosoda, Lukaszewski and Phillips). In addition, the response rate was low. Nevertheless, a full understanding of issues related to reactions to alleged discrimination will depend upon research conducted in a variety of settings under a variety of conditions.Practical implicationsIt is unlikely that direct confrontations will be instrumental in correcting misperceptions of discriminatory behavior. Organizations need to provide training on how to manage confrontation episodes as an opportunity to mitigate perceived mistreatment.Originality/valueWhich mode of confrontation is best? Indirect confrontation is associated with a higher likelihood of the alleged perpetrator providing a justification for a charge of discrimination, particularly when the alleged perpetrator is the supervisor. However, anger is also higher when supervisors are confronted indirectly about allegations of discrimination.

Purpose– Drawing from social dominance theories and conceptualizations of paternalism, the purpose of this paper is to define and develop a measure of subordinates' perceptions of supervisor paternalism (SPSP).Design/methodology/approach– The authors assess the validity of the measure using Hinkin's (1998) scale development steps.Findings– The authors found evidence of the convergent and discriminant validity of the measure of subordinates' perceptions of supervisor paternalism drawing from three different samples. Participants in the study were also able to differentiate a low from a high paternalism condition using the measure of paternalism. Finally, as expected, the interaction between a supervisor's benevolence and control was significantly associated with subordinates' perceptions of supervisor paternalism.Research limitations/implications– The authors provide evidence for the validity of a measure of subordinates' perceptions of supervisor paternalism while controlling for various status signals represented by demographic variables. Results may have been influenced by common method variance. However, there is no theoretical reason to expect any such interactions. Additionally, as the authors limited the data collection to the USA, the authors caution against generalizing beyond that context.Practical implications– The authors provide validity and reliability evidence for a unidimensional measure that is short and easy to administer in future research to further examine the consequences of perceptions of supervisor paternalism.Social implications– Defining and measuring subordinates' perceptions of supervisor paternalism is important to society given the potential adverse consequences of these perceptions. Because paternalistic relationships pervade many supervisor-subordinate interactions, both subordinates and supervisors can become more sensitive to the consequences of such interactions by understanding the conditions under which supervisor paternalism manifests itself.Originality/value– Conceptually, in this study, the authors build on prior research and define supervisor paternalism from a social dominance perspective. Empirically, the authors contribute a statistically valid and reliable unidimensional measure.