Loading...

he Role of Behavior and Leadership Dynamics in a Health Care Organization

Open Posted By: highheaven1 Date: 26/12/2020 Graduate Homework Writing

 

The purpose of this assignment is to determine how the role of behavior impacts a health care organization.

Reflect on your personal experience working in a health care organization or interacting with a health care organization you are interested in working for, and address the following in an 800-1,000 word paper:

  1. Identify the behavior models and leadership dynamics discussed so far in the course that most closely match the organization you have selected. Provide relevant examples for how these behavior models and leadership dynamics were demonstrated in the organization.
  2. Determine the role that group and team dynamics have in influencing the model of leadership in a health care organization.
  3. Describe the role of conflict theory, power, and politics in the organizational collaboration by providing examples from interdepartmental relationships, chain of command, team building and hierarchy, reporting structures, etc.
  4. Discuss diversity as it is exhibited in the organizational structure through the mission, vision, and goals of the identified organization.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for assistance.

Category: Accounting & Finance Subjects: Behavioral Finance Deadline: 12 Hours Budget: $120 - $180 Pages: 2-3 Pages (Short Assignment)

Attachment 1

Need assistance logging in? Contact Technical Support.

Log In

This is a protected document. Please enter your student or faculty username and password.

Toll Free: 877.428.8447 M-F, 6am MST or Sat-Sun, 7am-12am MST Find us on Facebook and Follow us on Twitter!Doc ID:

joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka

---Healtli · · - - -�- - ........ ,-_

SECOND EDITION

James A. Johnson

Caren C. Rossow

'--

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. 18880

joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka

joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka jokajoka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka

Theory, Behavior, and Development

S E C O N D E D I T I O NHealth Organizations

James A. Johnson, PhD, MPA, MSc Professor, School of Health Sciences

Central Michigan University and

Visiting Professor, St. George’s University Grenada, West Indies

Caren C. Rossow, DHA, MSA, RN, FACHE Assistant Professor, College of Health Sciences

Indiana University

9781284109825_FMxx_Print.indd 1 28/07/17 3:47 PM

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. 18880

joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka

joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka

joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka

joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka

joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka

joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka

joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka

joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka

joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka joka …

Attachment 2

INTRODUCTION TO A SPECIAL ISSUE ON

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND EMPLOYMENT:

CONNECTING LABOR MARKET INSTITUTIONS,

CORPORATE DEMOGRAPHY, AND HUMAN

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

M. DIANE BURTON, ROBERT W. FAIRLIE, AND DONALD SIEGEL*

With the growing attention to entrepreneurship as an engine of job creation and economic development, it is important for social scientists who are broadly interested in labor market and employment topics to focus attention on new firms and the policies and practices that sur- round them. The authors argue that the next generation of scholar- ship should pay particular attention to labor market institutions, the ecosystem of existing employers, and the human resource manage- ment practices that provide the strategic context for entrepreneurs and shape the career opportunities for workers. Remarkable variation occurs across space and time in the prevalence and performance of entrepreneurs. There are also many open questions as to the antece- dents and consequences of entrepreneurship, for entrepreneurs, their communities, and their employees. The availability of new administra- tive data across many countries will allow for comparative cross-national studies and will provide opportunities to bring qualitative and mixed- method approaches to entrepreneurial labor market studies. This introduction and the articles in this special issue offer a path forward.

Three key questions have animated entrepreneurial studies over the pastthree decades: Who becomes an entrepreneur? Who succeeds as an entrepreneur? And more generally: What are the antecedents and

*Thank you to the guest editors of this special issue. M. DIANE BURTON is an Associate Professor at the ILR School, Cornell University. ROBERT W. FAIRLIE is a Professor of Economics at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). DONALD SIEGEL is Foundation Professor and Director at the School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University.

We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University and the Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP) of the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM), which hosted a paper development work- shop in Washington, DC, during October 2016, and where many of the papers included in this volume were presented. This essay benefited from conversations with J. R. Keller, Jesper Sørensen, Olav Sorenson, and Marc J. Ventresca. For more information, please address correspondence to the authors at [email protected] cornell.edu, [email protected], or [email protected]

KEYWORDs: entrepreneurship, employment, labor markets

ILR Review, 72(5), October 2019, pp. 1050–1064 DOI: 10.1177/0019793919866409. � The Author(s) 2019

Journal website: journals.sagepub.com/home/ilr Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

consequences of entrepreneurial success? While early studies sought to understand the distinctive individual traits of entrepreneurs, more recent studies emphasize the broader context that supports and enables the work of entrepreneurial actors and the outcomes of their efforts (Autio et al. 2014). Entrepreneurship scholars have largely ignored employment-related topics, and employment scholars have largely ignored entrepreneurship- related topics. In this special issue, therefore, we focus on the intersection of entrepreneurship and labor market studies by bringing together research from labor economics, management, sociology, finance, strategy, and public policy. The special issue provides a rich set of interdisciplinary and cross- national articles on entrepreneurship and its implications for the manage- ment of people, employment relations, and labor market dynamics.

An important goal for this special issue was to demonstrate how scholars of labor markets and human resource management could advance the entrepreneurship literature using tools from industrial relations research. One key development we observed was the availability of matched employer–employee data in various nations, which could be used to con- duct rigorous empirical analyses. We hoped that availability of these data would enable and encourage studies of entrepreneurship as a labor market process. We saw opportunities to connect ideas and methods from labor economics to insights from regional studies, organization theory, and eco- nomic sociology. Finally, we wanted to sketch out the analytic and policy opportunities for a potential next generation of entrepreneurial labor mar- ket studies within the tradition of the ILR Review that integrates the rigor of empirical economics with comparative industrial relations theory.

As a whole, this special issue opens a conversation about future studies of entrepreneurship as a labor market and policy topic. The seven empirical papers are creative studies set in different countries and contexts that are rigorous across a range of disciplinary traditions. In addition, a technical research note describes newly available US administrative data from the Census Bureau that we hope will catalyze additional research. The articles in this special issue contribute in several ways to the idea of a next genera- tion of entrepreneurship studies informed by labor market economics and industrial relations theory. First, several of the articles take advantage of pol- icy shocks or contextual variation to make strong inferences about entrepre- neurial behavior and outcomes. The findings highlight the importance of formal labor market institutions that powerfully influence entrepreneurial action and outcomes. These findings reinforce the core insights of labor market economics and animate them in new ways to explain how legacy labor market institutions manifest in entrepreneurial careers. Second, most of the articles construe entrepreneurship as a career choice and examine individual entry into entrepreneurship and/or subsequent firm performance as a function of prior employment choices. This approach recognizes and extends John Freeman’s (1986) insight that people are organizational

A SPECIAL ISSUE ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND EMPLOYMENT 1051

products and that the existing landscape of employers and employment opportunities conditions entrepreneurial action.

In this introduction, we argue that two key factors are central to under- standing entrepreneurship from a labor market perspective: institutions and firm characteristics. In particular, we seek to anchor our understand- ings of entrepreneurship in the context of labor market institutions and firm human resource management practices. Labor market institutions, such as wage-setting policies, social insurance provisions, employment secu- rity, and the enforcement of restrictive covenants, all shape the attractive- ness of becoming an entrepreneur or working for an entrepreneur. Similarly, the practices of existing employers in terms of wages, advance- ment opportunities, training and development investments, and so forth also influence employee career trajectories. The interesting variations in both—across space and time—offer a fertile landscape for developing new theory and empirical insights into the antecedents and consequences of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial employment. Researchers are begin- ning to examine specific entrepreneurial employment-related topics, such as when entrepreneurial firms hire their first employees (Fairlie and Miranda 2017) and the wages (Burton, Dahl, and Sorenson 2018) and the benefits (Litwin and Phan 2013) they provide. But many unexplored topics and many opportunities can expand our current understandings. The arti- cles in this special issue provide examples of how incorporating institutional and firm characteristics extend the scope of entrepreneurship research and yield new insight. We conclude by proposing a research agenda that builds on the articles in this special issue and continues to advance our under- standing of how labor market institutions and established firms interact within a broader legal and regulatory ecosystem to foster (or undermine) new firm formation and survival and to encourage (or discourage) the cre- ation of high-quality jobs.

Institutions and Entrepreneurship

The idea that entrepreneurs create jobs, reduce unemployment, and stimu- late economies has captured the imagination of policymakers around the globe. A great deal of research in economics has long suggested that this policy linkage has empirical merit (Audretsch 2007). For example, a well- developed body of research has shown that small firms account for substan- tial job growth in modern economies (Birch 1979, 1987; Davis, Haltiwanger, and Schuh 1996; Neumark, Wall, and Zhang 2011). Although early studies rarely isolated the effects of entrepreneurial activity from the growth of more established small firms, Haltiwanger, Jarmin, and Miranda (2013) recently demonstrated that young firms—those recently founded— essentially account for all job creation in the United States. Ouimet and Zarutskie (2014) reported that as many as one in five employees works in a firm that has been in existence for fewer than five years. Most other

1052 ILR REVIEW

countries appear to exhibit similar patterns (Malchow-Moller, Schjerning, and Sørensen 2011; Ayyagari, Demirguc-Kunt, and Maksimovic 2014; de Wit and de Kok 2014; Lawless 2014; Anyadike-Danes et al. 2015), lending cre- dence to the idea that entrepreneurial firms are engines for job creation.

Similarly, entrepreneurial firms are often depicted as drivers of new industries, product and process innovations, and overall regional economic development and job growth (Acs and Audretsch 1988; Wennekers and Thurik 1999; Azoulay and Lerner 2013). Moreover, the level of entrepre- neurship varies substantially across regions (Armington and Acs 2002; Sorenson 2017). Regional-level research has been particularly effective in demonstrating the importance of local institutions, firms, and industry clus- ters in shaping entrepreneurial activity (Sorenson 2017). An important example is research on the role of universities in facilitating entrepreneur- ship and innovation (Owen-Smith, Riccaboni, Pammolli, and Powell 2002). Audretsch and co-authors (Audretsch and Feldman 1996; Audretsch and Stephan 1996) hypothesized that universities constitute an important source of knowledge spillovers through such mechanisms as patenting and start-up creation. Others have focused on the role of property-based institutions located on or near universities, such as science/technology parks and incu- bators/accelerators, in the creation of new jobs and firms (Phan, Siegel, and Wright 2005). Still others are assessing the impact of student-based ven- tures, located on or near campus, which have emerged as a potential source of innovation and job growth (Wright, Siegel, and Mustar 2017).

These facts—that entrepreneurship matters for both employment and innovation—have led to an explosion of interest in understanding who becomes an entrepreneur and who succeeds as an entrepreneur. After three decades of intensive study, a consensus has emerged that differences in personality, gender, family background, and family stage are associated with different entrepreneurial propensities. Men show greater tendencies toward entrepreneurship than do women; married people have higher entry rates than do single people; people from entrepreneurial families are more likely to enter and to succeed as entrepreneurs; and successful entre- preneurs are middle-aged as opposed to young (Aldrich and Cliff 2003; Fairlie and Robb 2007a, 2007b; Sørensen 2007; Parker 2008; Nicolauo and Shane 2009; Jennings and Brush 2013; Yang and Aldrich 2014; Azoulay, Jones, Kim, and Miranda 2019). But of note is how much these patterns vary over time and across countries and in ways that suggest the broader context is likely to matter more than individual characteristics for shaping entrepre- neurial activity and performance (e.g., Thomas and Mueller 2000). Indeed, a critical question for individual-level studies is how, and how much, context is taken into account. It is possible, even likely, that ignoring context leads to an overestimation of individual effects. For example, Robb and Watson (2012) debunked the myth that female entrepreneurs are less successful than are male entrepreneurs by controlling for contextual factors.

A SPECIAL ISSUE ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND EMPLOYMENT 1053

Given the importance of entrepreneurship to regional economies, entre- preneurship scholars have long sought to explain the substantial cross- national variation in rates and types of entrepreneurship (e.g., Baumol 1990). Most of this work has shown that formal institutions, such as intellec- tual property protections, rule of law, and fluid capital markets, are impor- tant institutional precursors to entrepreneurial activity (Hall and Jones 1999; Lerner 2009; Bjørnskov and Foss 2013), although cultural differences are also widely understood to be relevant (Autio, Pathak, and Wennberg 2013). There has been extensive research, but less consensus, on the role of tax codes (Cullen and Gordon 2007; Bruce and Deskins 2012). These kinds of inquiries stem from a belief that policy and regulatory choices have important consequences for entrepreneurial outcomes. The overall approach to formal institutions has tended to emphasize how they shape individual incentives (van Praag and Versloot 2007), with little attention to who succeeds as an entrepreneur or to collective action and collective wel- fare. Yet, as we know from studies of immigrant entrepreneurs, ethnic ties and community connections are critical to fueling and fostering successful venturing (Saxenian 2007).

With two notable exceptions, entrepreneurship scholars have expressed little interest in labor market institutions. One exception is a small and important literature on institutional features, such as social welfare benefits, health insurance, and retirement provisions (Hombert, Schoar, Sraer, and Thesmar 2017; Gottlieb, Townsend, and Xu 2018). But note that this research is framed as trying to understand individual wealth and liquidity constraints (Evans and Jovanovic 1989; Holtz-Eakin, Joulfaian, and Rosen 1994), as opposed to broader institutional variation across time and space in how benefits are contingent upon employment status and how that might shape entrepreneurial action from a cultural perspective as well as an eco- nomic perspective.

A second important exception is the growing interest in how non- compete policies restrict employee mobility (Marx 2011; Ganco, Ziedonis, and Agarwal 2014) and affect the founding and survival rates of new firms (Starr, Balasubramanian, and Sakakibara 2018). Although still nascent, this literature explicitly links labor market policies, firm behavior, and individual behavior and entrepreneurship. It is notable because it shows why these kinds of institutional labor policy differences are likely to shape the attrac- tiveness of entrepreneurial pursuits; the types of entrepreneurial firms that are founded; the nature of entrepreneurial jobs; and the ways in which eco- nomic value is created, captured, and distributed (Dilli, Elert, and Hermann 2018). Two articles in this special issue, a study of occupational licensing regulations (Albert, Galperin, and Kacperczyk 2019) and a study of intellectual property rights (Åstebro, Braguinsky, Braunerhjelm, and Broström 2019), provide further evidence of how labor market policies and institutions affect entrepreneurship.

1054 ILR REVIEW

Firm Distributions, Employment Opportunity Structure, and Entrepreneurship

Although the decision to become an entrepreneur or to join a start-up as an employee typically is conceptualized as an individual choice, it is neces- sarily influenced by the availability of other employment opportunities and the actions of employing firms (Sørensen and Sharkey 2014). First, most people enter entrepreneurship from prior employment (Klepper and Sleeper 2005; Sørensen and Fassiotto 2011), and the landscape of existing employers varies in the extent to which they retain talent or spawn entrepre- neurial competitors (Burton, Sørensen, and Beckman 2002; Gompers, Lerner, and Scharfstein 2005; Kacperczyk 2012). Local conditions pro- foundly shape propensities for job-hopping and entrepreneurship (Fallick, Fleischman, and Rebitzer 2006; Freedman 2008), particularly because peo- ple are reluctant to relocate (Dahl and Sorenson 2012). More broadly, we know that labor market tightness and looseness affect wage offers and advancement opportunities (Kahn 2010).

Second, considerable evidence demonstrates that human resource manage- ment practices vary across firms and industries (Osterman 1987, 1994; Baron, Burton, and Hannan 1999; Van Reenen and Bloom 2007), and that this varia- tion affects firm performance and survival (MacDuffie 1995; Bartel 2004) as well as employee productivity and tenure (Batt 2002; Ichniowski and Shaw 2009). Empirical evidence, such as Saxenian’s (1994) canonical comparison of Boston and Silicon Valley, also shows that some of this variation is regional.

Finally, we know that most entrepreneurial firms fail and that their former employees experience a spell of involuntary unemployment (Haltiwanger et al. 2013). The stigma of unemployment may partially explain the propen- sity to enter entrepreneurship from unemployment. Thurik, Carree, van Stel, and Audretsch (2008) suggested that people may be attempting to mask their unemployment spell as they seek alternative employment, or they may have exhausted alternatives and become self-employed as a last resort. All of this reinforces the idea that the demography of employers in a region (in terms of age and size) coupled with incumbent firm actions—such as layoffs, restructurings, expansions, mergers, relocations, and firm-level human resource management characteristics such as wage dispersion and career ladders—will powerfully shape the opportunity structure as well as the pool of potential entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial employees. Yet, relatively lit- tle empirical research, beyond the articles in this special issue and a few oth- ers (e.g., Sørensen and Sorenson 2007; Kacperczyk and Marx 2016; Burton et al. 2018), explicitly examines these connections.

Implications and Overview of Special Issue Articles

Our brief review underscores the opportunities to re-engage studies of insti- tutions, organizations, and policy to build a more fully specified understand- ing of how the macro-environmental context affects entrepreneurial entry,

A SPECIAL ISSUE ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND EMPLOYMENT 1055

firm performance, and employee outcomes. We advocate in particular link- ing the well-developed traditions in firm-level and labor market institutional research with a range of entrepreneurial outcomes of interest. Indeed, our ability to explain who engages in entrepreneurship and to predict who suc- ceeds as an entrepreneur will be enhanced by closer examination of institu- tional and corporate demographic variability. Our research agenda proposes four specific improvements to research design and analytic sensi- bilities: 1) more focus on the organizational context that precedes entrepre- neurial entry, both corporate demography and institutional capacity; 2) attention to contextual variation in order to re-specify what may initially appear to be individual propensities, access, and persistence; 3) attention to the cumulative, distributed impacts of policy and institutions in a wider lens; and 4) increased emphasis on worker outcomes. The articles in this special issue are examples of this style of work and begin to consolidate and extend our understanding of labor market institutions, employment opportunity structures, and entrepreneurial vibrancy.

The first three articles examine labor market institutions, policy, and employment. Albert, Galperin, and Kacperczyk (2019) examine state-level variation in licensing requirements for tax preparation professionals. In contrast to most of the literature on this topic, which emphasizes the ways that costly licensing regulations dampen entrepreneurial entry and harm firm performance and survival (e.g., Kleiner and Krueger 2013), Albert and colleagues argue that in some cases the signaling benefits afforded by licen- sure outweigh the costs and thereby encourage new firm formation and facilitate entrepreneurial survival. They take advantage of a threatened national-level policy change that would have mandated licensure for all tax preparers. The licensing requirement was phased in over a two-year period and, although it was canceled just prior to the mandatory period, the researchers were able to observe tax preparers (both incumbents and new entrants) obtaining the license in anticipation of the regulatory change. The authors demonstrate that entrepreneurs voluntarily adopt licenses and that those who do so have enhanced survival chances.

Åstebro, Braguinsky, Braunerhjelm, and Broström (2019) contrast two policy regimes that govern academic entrepreneurship: the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 in the United States, which assigns intellectual property rights to the university, and the Professor’s Privilege, which prevails in most European countries and assigns intellectual property rights to the individual inventor. In an effort to discern which approach to intellectual property rights is associated with successful academic entrepreneurship, they com- pare entrepreneurial entry and the returns to entrepreneurship for aca- demic and non-academic entrepreneurs in the United States and Sweden. Åstebro et al. find, perhaps surprisingly, that the differences in overall entrepreneurship levels between the regimes are small and that, on average, academics who become entrepreneurs suffer wage loss as opposed to wage gain. As such, the authors highlight the risks associated with academic

1056 ILR REVIEW

entrepreneurship, which are not mitigated by more or less generous intel- lectual property rights, and contribute to a growing stream of research on academic entrepreneurs (e.g., Balven, Fenters, Siegel, and Waldman 2018).

Fackler, Fuchs, Hölscher, and Schnabel (2019) tackle a different kind of policy topic, the employment of disadvantaged workers, and provide descriptive evidence based on German matched employer–employee data that entrepreneurial firms create jobs for workers who might otherwise be excluded from the labor market. They show that disadvantaged workers, such as those who are older, foreign, unemployed or with unstable employ- ment histories, or low qualifications, are more likely to be employed by young firms. But they also show that these workers suffer a wage penalty compared to similar counterparts who are employed by established firms. The findings suggest a trade-off: The higher level of employment growth from entrepreneurial firms may come at the price of lower-quality jobs and may exacerbate inequality.

The next four articles broadly consider career aspects of entrepreneur- ship (see Burton, Sørensen, and Dobrev 2016 for a recent review). Rider, Thompson, Kacperczyk, and Tåg (2019) consider three possible career choices: staying with a current employer, changing employers, or engaging in entrepreneurship. Using the legal industry as context, they first focus on the mobility decision—choosing to leave a current employer—and then on the choice of whether to move to a different employer or to engage in entrepreneurship. By framing entry into entrepreneurship as a broader labor market choice and then taking advantage of an interesting empirical event—firm failure that forces the choice—the authors begin to shed light on who chooses entrepreneurship over employment. Rider et al. then expand their inquiry to matched employer–employee data to compare vol- untary and involuntary movers across multiple industries. Their empirical work in both settings suggests an inverted U-shaped relationship between experience and entrepreneurship, which they then formalize into a model that differentiates specific from general human capital accumulation and varying costs associated with entrepreneurship versus employee mobility. By carefully looking across different industries, this work illustrates a general pattern but also illustrates how the costs and benefits of career choices vary by context.

Clayton, Donegan, Feldman, Forbes, Lowe, and Polly (2019) analyze a specific context—the regional economy of North Carolina’s Research Triangle—to construct a rich data set and narrative about the interaction between incumbent employers, entrepreneurial firms born in different eras, and the careers of life scientists. They make vivid how the local opportunity structure, as defined by the base of local versus multinational employers, academic institutions, and large and small entrepreneurial firms, provides different kinds of experiences over time.

The final two articles rely on country-level administrative data. Sarada and Tocoian (2019) use matched employer–employee data from Brazil to

A SPECIAL ISSUE ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND EMPLOYMENT 1057

study how the networks of former co-workers are a resource for start-up per- formance. They categorize entrepreneurial firms according to the ties that current employees have through their prior employers and find that denser networks enhance the survival prospects of new firms, but slow the growth rate. Their work reveals the advantages and disadvantages to network-based early hiring. Shaw and Sørensen (2019) use matched employer–employee data from Denmark to study serial entrepreneurs. Consistent with prior lit- erature that shows that entrepreneurial experience is associated with subse- quent performance, they find that serial entrepreneurs strongly outperform novice entrepreneurs. They then carefully explore the factors that might drive these differences and identify sub-types among serial entrepreneurs who seem to be particularly successful. Both articles are in the broad tradi- tion of considering career histories and rely on extensive empirical work to explain both main effects and variation across individuals.

We conclude the article section with a report by Fairlie, Miranda, and Zolas (2019) that presents newly available administrative data from the U.S. Census Bureau that will allow for new kinds of empirical research related to entrepreneurship and the labor market, particularly job creation and growth.

A Call to Action for an Industrial Relations Approach to Entrepreneurial Labor Market Studies

The articles in this volume illustrate a growing interest in treating entrepre- neurship as a labor market phenomenon. As we described above, recogni- tion is growing that individual entrepreneurial propensities and new firm survival and growth depend on two broad aspects of the environment: 1) the features of local labor market institutions, such as job permanence, wel- fare benefits, labor and employment protections, wage-setting policies, and restrictive covenants, and 2) the composition and characteristics of existing employers, including wages, advancement opportunities, and working con- ditions. We contend that considering both of these features in concert to analyze variation in entrepreneurial firms is a promising path for future scholarship and one that plays to the strength of industrial relations scholars in particular.

Some promising initial steps have been taken in this direction. For exam- ple, Dilli et al. (2018) drew upon and extended the varieties of capitalism literature (Hall and Soskice 2001) and clustered countries in Europe into four types based on institutions related to finance, labor, education and training, and inter-firm relations. They then documented the relationship between the institutional types and various aspects of entrepreneurship. They found that coordinated market economies such as in Scandinavia (characterized by moderately constraining financial institutions, moderately regulated labor market institutions, combined basic and vocational educa- tion and training institutions, and strong legal institutions) are associated

1058 ILR REVIEW

with high rates of both high-tech and low-tech entrepreneurship. By con- trast, liberal market economies such as the United States and the United Kingdom (with flexible financial and labor market institutions, scientifically oriented educational systems, and reliable legal institutions) have the highest rates of innovative and high-growth entrepreneurship. This work is notable for situating labor market institutions in a broader array of comple- mentary institutions. It is also unusual in differentiating various types of entrepreneurship—high- and low-tech start-ups and those with varying growth rates (Friederike, Baker, Audretsch, and Gartner 2016). Dilli (2019) advanced this line of research by examining the complementarities between labor market institutions and entrepreneurial activity and demonstrated how specific policies interact with the overall institutional regime to enable or limit entrepreneurial activity.

Thébaud (2015) offered a compelling example of context-sensitive insti- tutional research by studying gender and entrepreneurship. She developed a set of novel predictions about how the gender gap in entrepreneurship can be explained by institutional differences in work–family policies such as government-paid leave, investments …

Attachment 3

S P E C I A L I S S U E A R T I C L E

All for one and one for all: A mechanism through which broad- based employee stock ownership and employee-perceived involvement practice create a productive workforce

Andrea Kim1 | Kyongji Han2

1SKK Business School, Sungkyunkwan (SKK)

University, Seoul, South Korea

2Hankamer School of Business, Baylor

University, Waco, Texas

Correspondence

Andrea Kim, SKK Business School, #33515

Business Bldg. 25-2 Sungkyunkwan-ro,

Jongno-gu, Seoul 03063, South Korea.

Email: [email protected]

Funding information

The Employee Ownership Foundation; The

Rosen Ownership Opportunity Fund

Drawing on social identity theory, this research frames a multimediational model that delineates

how broad-based employee stock ownership (BESO) and employee-perceived involvement prac-

tice in tandem yield a productive workforce at the organization level. In our theoretical model, we

propose that social cohesion and voluntary turnover are collective attitudinal and behavioral out-

comes resulting from the shared perception of we-ness that employees experience through both

participatory practices. Our path analysis of a multisource, time-lagged dataset from 176 large

U.S. companies revealed the sequential mediating roles of social cohesion and voluntary turnover

between these organizational practices and labor productivity. Our theoretical claims and empirical

evidence will contribute to a systematic understanding of how and why BESO and employee

involvement leverage greater organizational productivity from employees.

KEYWORDS

cohesion, employee involvement, employee participation, internal fit, labor productivity, stock

ownership, turnover

1 | INTRODUCTION

Broad-based employee stock ownership (BESO), in which equity

shares are offered to employees (Frye, 2004), has been widely utilized

by many organizations worldwide since the early 20th century

(Carberry, 2011) and in particular has been applied to approximately

28 million U.S. workers according to 2015 statistics from the National

Center for Employee Ownership. In accordance with its prevalence,

researchers have examined the effects of BESO on diverse outcomes

at the individual and organization levels, with compelling evidence for

performance effects (Mullins, 2018) such as positive attitudes and

behaviors of employees, improved labor productivity, greater financial

performance, and higher survival rates (Kruse, 2002; Kruse, Free-

man, & Blasi, 2010; Park, Kruse, & Sesil, 2004).

Although these favorable results indicate that BESO confers sus-

tained competitive advantages to organizations, several limitations are

present in the existing literature. For example, prior research is pre-

dominantly fragmented as a result of efforts to connect the effects of

BESO to only a particular facet of performance (e.g., employee, opera-

tional, or financial) outcomes. In the field of strategic human resource

(HR) management, researchers have long agreed that organizational

performance does not directly stem from HR practices, but instead

from the HR outcomes that these practices are designed to coherently

induce (Dyer & Reeve, 1995; Gerhart, 2005; Guest, 1997). In this vein,

it is essential to determine attitudinal and behavioral outcomes medi-

ating the effect of BESO on labor productivity at the organization

level. Furthermore, BESO has often been examined in isolation with-

out considering its relationships with other HR practices. Given that

employees in large organizations are typically exposed to BESO as

well as other relevant HR practices (Kim, Han, & Kim, 2017) such as

employee involvement (Kruse et al., 2010), it is imperative to investi-

gate the performance impact of BESO in relation to other HR

practices.

This research seeks to fill these gaps using a multimediational

model that delineates the mechanism through which BESO affects

organizational performance in relation to another HR practice. First,

based on social identity theory (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Tajfel &

Turner, 1985), we propose that social cohesion and voluntary turn-

over are collective workforce outcomes mediating the link between

BESO and labor productivity. Second, we derive employee involve-

ment, which functions to empower employees as well as facilitate

their participation in decision-making and information sharing (Cotton,

1993; Lawler, 1986), as a “partner” HR practice of BESO from existing

ownership research (Milgrom & Roberts, 1992; Pendleton, Wilson, &

DOI: 10.1002/hrm.21958

Hum Resour Manage. 2019;58:571–584. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrm © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 571

Wright, 1998; Pierce, Rubenfeld, & Morgan, 1991). Extending social

identity theory to the common goal of these participatory practices,

we suggest that BESO and employee-perceived involvement practice

jointly foster the shared perception of we-ness among employees,

promoting an array of organizational outcomes of interest. Finally, we

test our research model by conducting a path analysis using a

multisource- (i.e., supervisors, employees, and objective data) lagged

dataset for 176 large U.S. companies, combining the 2010 and 2011

Great Place to Work (GPTW) datasets.

Our findings provide significant insights into the employee own-

ership literature. They shed new light on the link between BESO and

labor productivity by illuminating intermediate outcomes such as

social cohesion and voluntary turnover. Although positive associations

between employee ownership and organizational outcomes have

been demonstrated in more than 100 studies at the organization level,

much less is known about the factors that mediate these associations

(Arthur & Aiman-Smith, 2001; Gerhart, Rynes, & Fulmer, 2009). Most

macro studies focusing on organizational outcomes have assumed

that shared ownership plans elicit productive attitudes and behaviors

from employees, while micro studies delving into individual attitude

and/or behavior at work have not been extended to organizational

performance. Given that participatory practices (i.e., BESO and

employee involvement) have long been acknowledged as ways to effi-

ciently produce organizational outputs (Y. Jiang, Colakoglu, Lepak,

Blasi, & Kruse, 2015) and are thereby a noteworthy feature of highly

productive organizations (J. A. Wagner, 1994), we focus on identifying

collective attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, such as social cohesion

and voluntary turnover, which eventually affect labor productivity.

Corresponding to the growing awareness of the need to explore the

psychological foundations of organizational effectiveness (Ployhart &

Hale, 2014), our integrative framework goes beyond prior research by

investigating how BESO in tandem with employee involvement con-

tributes to the intraorganizational environment, where employees

consort with each other and work together to improve organizational

labor productivity.

2 | THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES

2.1 | “We-ness” emanating from BESO and employee-perceived involvement practice: Social identity theory

Our argument that BESO immediately leads to collective attitudinal

and behavioral outcomes for labor productivity is underpinned by

social identity theory, which explains how individuals identify the self

with their social group and how their social identity affects their atti-

tudes and behaviors in the social group (Ashforth & Mael, 1989;

Tajfel & Turner, 1985). Social identity is defined as an individual's self-

concept (i.e., the way an individual perceives the self) deriving from

his or her knowledge of group membership (Tajfel, 1978) and shaped

by the social identification, which refers to a psychological state

reflecting an individual's readiness to define the self as a member of

his or her social group (Haslam, 2004) or the perception that “I

becomes we” (Brewer, 1991, p. 476). Social identity serves as a promi-

nent precursor for heightened commitment to the social group

(Meyer, Becker, & van Dick, 2006), as the identification process

engenders an individual's sense of sharing his or her fate with the

social group (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). In this vein, employees' social

identities are formed by their perceived one-ness with their organiza-

tions, which in turn motivates attitudinal and behavioral reactions

among employees benefiting their organizations rather than their self-

interest (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Hogg & Terry, 2000; van Knippen-

berg, 2000). Furthermore, because group members share their social

identities with the social group and thereby perceive a collective

sense of similarity (Lee, Park, & Koo, 2015), the overall social identity

of the workforce shapes organizational membership, which both

describes and prescribes organizationally based attitudes and behav-

iors (Hogg & Terry, 2000).

Social identity theory catalyzes our understanding of the effec-

tiveness of BESO in two ways. First, it supports the consensus that

employee attitudes and behaviors may intervene between organiza-

tional practices and performance in the strategic HR management lit-

erature (Dyer & Reeve, 1995; Guest, 1997). From this standpoint,

organizational performance does not fully stem from the use of BESO

per se, but rather at least partially from the workforce attitude and

behavior intended by the practice (Schuler & Jackson, 1987). Second,

implementing BESO in broader groups of employees is effective for

inducing more employees to exhibit the attitudes and behaviors

required by BESO, because this can enlarge the group of employees

experiencing BESO and thereby foster the organizational identifica-

tion process (i.e., perceiving a sense of we-ness) among more

employees.

We extend social identity theory to determine some of the collec-

tive attitudinal and behavioral outcomes that may link the extensive

use of BESO to improved labor productivity at the organization level.

Specifically, we conjecture that social cohesion and voluntary turn-

over are the two outcomes connoting “we-ness” perceived through

the organizational identification enacted by BESO. We-ness generally

refers to closeness among members in social groups, which is built on

proximity and mutuality (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). That is,

employees who intimately interact with others (Weisband & Atwater,

1999) and perceive interdependence (Brewer & Gardner, 1996) tend

to like, and stick with, one another. Given that social identity arises

when an individual shares interests with his or her social group

(Meyer et al., 2006; Rousseau, 1989), BESO generates a situational

cue indicating that employees' interests (i.e., equity) are shared with

others in their organizations, which guides them to perceive the posi-

tive self as a share owner and mutual interdependence.

In addition to BESO, social identity theory also compels us to

regard employee involvement as another organizational practice

enhancing situational cues fostering social identity in the workforce.

According to social identity theory, employees estimate their relation-

ships with their organizations in terms of their roles and status, which

implies that employees perceiving themselves to have high status are

likely to sense a positive social identity (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner,

1979). Employee involvement is an organizational practice intended

to facilitate communication and codetermination between employers

and employees (Kim et al., 2017). Employee involvement is grounded

572 KIM AND HAN

on “a conscious and intended effort by individuals at a higher level in

an organization,” and provides “opportunities for individuals or groups

at a lower level in the organization to have greater voice in one or

more areas of organizational performance” (Glew, O'Leary-Kelly, Grif-

fin, & VanFleet, 1995, p. 402). Thus, in decentralized organizations,

similar to high-status management, employees are formally encour-

aged to influence their organizational decision-making on diverse

proximal (e.g., work-related) and distal (e.g., firm level) issues

(Joensson, 2008), through information shared by the organizational

authority as well as communication between employees and manage-

ment (Cotton, 1993; Lawler, 1986). In fact, past studies (e.g., Fuller

et al., 2006; Joensson, 2008) have revealed that employee involve-

ment leads employees to identify themselves with their organizations.

This positive association between employee involvement and social

identity makes sense, because employee involvement signals that

employees are included in their organizations and that their opinions

are valued by the organizational authority (Fuller et al., 2006). These

findings are also attributed to a climate of open and participative com-

munication (Smidts, Pruyn, & Riel, 2001) and procedural justice

(Tyler & Blader, 2003), which promote organizational identification

that affirms employees' acceptance and worth as organizational mem-

bers. Taken together, in line with BESO sharing return rights or equity,

we suggest that employee involvement sharing control rights

(Milgrom & Roberts, 1992) or information and influence with

employees (Pierce et al., 1991) is another component fostering a par-

ticipative and shared work structure (Ben-Ner & Jones, 1995; Kruse,

2002; Pendleton et al., 1998), in which employees are likely to feel

we-ness. As such, although other theoretical views may support the

inclusion of different HR practices, social identity theory supports that

employee-perceived involvement practice is incorporated into our

multimediational model of BESO.

In particular, in line with prior research (e.g., Conyon & Freeman,

2004), we predict that BESO and employee-perceived involvement

practice have independent effects on organizational outcomes of

interest. K. Jiang et al. (2012) asserted that to improve work out-

comes, multiple HR practices pursuing a common goal have additive

relationships, in which practices independently affect desired out-

comes and the total effects of utilizing such practices are greater than

the effects of utilizing any single practice alone. As discussed above

based on social identity theory, BESO and employee-perceived

involvement practice facilitate the common goal of promoting the per-

ceived we-ness of the workforce. However, each practice has a sepa-

rate path to the desired goal: BESO allows employees to participate in

financial distribution, whereas employee involvement encourages

them to participate in other forms of decision-making at work. Hence,

both participatory practices exert their own effects on organizational

outcomes in an additive fashion.

On balance, BESO and employee-perceived involvement practice

independently contribute to a social context in which employees per-

ceive we-ness by experiencing managerial principles for common

prosperity based on sharing equity and joint decision-making. In this

sense, social cohesion and voluntary turnover constitute collective

attitudes and behaviors manifested by the social identity of the work-

force under BESO and employee involvement, and further result in

increased labor productivity.

2.2 | A collective attitudinal outcome: Organizational social cohesion

In this research, we define organizational social cohesion as the aggre-

gate of shared senses of friendship, family, teamwork, and loyalty to

one another among employees at the organization level. Social cohe-

sion is a unit level variable (Friedkin, 2004) that captures shared

attraction and mutual liking among individuals based on their social

relations (Seashore, 1954; M. E. Shaw, 1981) and desire to maintain

social relationships (Brawley, Carron, & Widmeyer, 1993) and mem-

bership (Lott & Lott, 1965). Social cohesion is an essential element of

social integration (O'Reilly, Caldwell, & Barnett, 1989; Webber &

Donahue, 2001). Employees can be socially integrated at the organiza-

tion level (Hogg & Terry, 2000), and, therefore, organizational social

cohesion signifies how well employees in various units or departments

are integrated within an organization. Just as groups may possess

group level characteristics equivalent to individual characteristics

(Cohen & Bailey, 1997), organizations may possess organization level

characteristics analogous to group characteristics, such as justice per-

ceptions (Konovsky, 2000) and learning (Crossan, Lane, & White,

1999). In addition, since social cohesion can be understood in the mul-

tilevel nature of organizations, in which employees can be attracted

individually or collectively (Gully, Devine, & Whitney, 1995),

employees should have a collective identity and stick together in

socially cohesive organizations.

Given that sharing is an endeavor for building social relationships

(Gottman & DeClaire, 2001), BESO and employee involvement can

promote unity within organizations through a sense of we-ness and

strong psychological bonds. According to social identity theory, peo-

ple identify the self with their organization to enhance their self-

esteem (Ashforth & Mael, 1989) and thus have positive social identity

with enhanced self-esteem (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). People also recog-

nize their organizational memberships based on their social relation-

ships and roles (Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995). That is, they generally

have strong desires for positive sense of self and thereby seek to

maintain positive self-image by engaging in socially important and

salient roles (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999). These key principles of social

identity theory imply that organizational social cohesion may be inten-

sified by HR practices that enable employees to define themselves

and others as constituents of the organization's positive identity.

Employee ownership and involvement are also positively related to

the organizational identification process (Long, 1980), and so the per-

ceived we-ness emanating from these HR practices can stimulate the

self-enhancement of organizational members. Furthermore, BESO and

employee involvement can pave pathways of interpersonal influence

among organizational members, which are essential to establish a

socially cohesive organization (Friedkin, 2004).

Specifically, BESO may enable employees to view their roles as

significant, and their coworkers as valuable partners. The financial

benefits of BESO, determined by stock prices reflecting entire busi-

ness outcomes at the organization level, are shared among employee

owners. BESO, in which the financial benefits of employees are posi-

tively correlated (Deutsch, 1949) and interdependent (Wageman &

Baker, 1997), can be described as a positive-sum game, providing

extrinsic rewards that prevent factionalism among eligible employees,

KIM AND HAN 573

as opposed to competition for limited valuable resources (as it occurs

when there is a single fixed pool of financial benefits).

In the case of employee involvement, such HR practices construct

a decentralized situation in which authority for decision-making and

access to organizational information are shared widely among organi-

zational members (Jackson, 1983). In such context, employees can

perceive enhanced self-esteem and the significance of their roles, as

they participate in making decisions with high-status managers

(Mitchell, 1973) and gain a better understanding about their jobs and

their organization's operations through communication and informa-

tion sharing with management (Schuler, 1979). Employees can also

acknowledge that their coworkers are important partners to achieve

common goals because they make decisions about work-related issues

together through a process of information and knowledge sharing

(Wright, Gardner, & Moynihan, 2003).

BESO and employee involvement for sharing equity and control

are hypothesized to imbue positive social identity among organiza-

tional members and provide the “glue” to unify their interests in a way

that fosters perceptions of we-ness. The extensive use of these HR

practices may create strong social cohesion in which employees feel a

sense of kinship with colleagues because everyone's roles are per-

ceived as more valuable, salient, and visible in their daily work rou-

tines. Thus, we propose:

Hypothesis 1 BESO (a) and employee-perceived involve-

ment practice (b) are positively related to social cohesion

at the organization level.

2.3 | A collective behavioral outcome: Organizational voluntary turnover

In this research, we define organizational voluntary turnover as the

aggregate rate of voluntary employee separations within organizations

during a certain period. Voluntary turnover refers to employee-

initiated departures requiring replacement (McElroy, Morrow, & Rude,

2001) and has consistently been indicated to have a strong negative

relationship with organizational performance (Holtom, Mitchell, Lee, &

Eberly, 2008). Collective voluntary turnover is a collective emergent

phenomenon (Nyberg & Ployhart, 2013) that not only originates from

the behavior of individuals (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000) but also depends

on their social contexts and relationships (J. D. Shaw, 2011), including

supervisor turnover (Kacmar, Andrews, Van Rooy, Steilberg, & Cer-

rone, 2006) and colleagues' job search behaviors (Felps et al., 2009).

In line with a contextual view challenging the conventional

assumption that voluntary turnover is an individual level construct

(Hausknecht & Holwerda, 2013), we examine whether social cohesion

shaped by BESO and employee-perceived involvement practice

reduces voluntary turnover at the organization level. As proposed by

social identity theorists, employees maintain social identity by retain-

ing social memberships (Tajfel, 1974). Employees are more likely to

want to stay with colleagues in an organization where social identity

is positive and satisfactory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Socially cohesive

organizations established by BESO and employee involvement are

places where employees wish to stay to sustain their self-esteem and

thereby maintain positive social identity. As Harrison, Newman, and

Roth (2006, p. 307) noted, “the depth and breadth of interpersonal

relationships” are a major driver of retention (Mitchell, Holtom, Lee,

Syblynski, & Erez, 2001), such that employees with strong (i.e., deep

and broad) relationships with their colleagues are less likely to quit

their jobs and move to another employer (Mossholder, Settoon, &

Henagan, 2005). Organizational social cohesion is a reflection of

strong social bonds tying individuals together. In socially cohesive

organizations, employees can have not only affective benefits such as

increased morale and job satisfaction (Locke & Schweiger, 1979), but

also positive social identity. Consequently, cohesion resulting from

BESO and employee involvement leads to employee retention

(Gardner, Wright, & Moynihan, 2011).

In summary, if effectively and widely implemented, BESO and

employee involvement may benefit employees by providing enhanced

social relationships with other colleagues in the organization. Due to

the benefits (e.g., positive identity, increased morale, and satisfactory

relationships) engendered by teamwork, social interactions, and inclu-

sion in group communication inherent in BESO and employee involve-

ment, employees are likely to intensify social cohesion among

organizational members (Osterman, 1995) and subsequently deter

their voluntary turnover (Krackhardt & Porter, 1986). This leads to:

Hypothesis 2 BESO (a) and employee-perceived involve-

ment practice (b) are negatively related to voluntary turn-

over through social cohesion at the organization level.

2.4 | The sequential mediation of social cohesion and voluntary turnover

Finally, in this study, we incorporate social cohesion and voluntary

turnover as two intermediate outcomes into a black box through

which BESO and employee-perceived involvement practice affect

labor productivity at the organization level. Stronger social cohesion

and lower voluntary turnover are potential advantages helping organi-

zations that extensively implement BESO and employee involvement

become more productive.

Social cohesion may be an immediate psychological outcome

enabling organizations to realize the productivity effects of BESO and

employee involvement. Previous research has identified that strong

social cohesion is a key feature of highly productive groups (Darley,

Gross, & Martin, 1952), due to the fact that the members of such

groups tend to be more oriented toward group goal attainment

(H. J. Klein & Mulvey, 1995), to be more responsible in their roles

(M. E. Shaw, 1981), and to engage in extra-role behaviors (Kidwell,

Mossholder, & Bennett, 1997). In addition, the members of strongly

cohesive groups tend to work as hard collectively as they do individu-

ally (Karau & Hart, 1998) and to perceive that other group members

also work as well as they can (Mulvey & Klein, 1998). Indeed, Liden,

Wayne, Jaworski, and Bennett's (2004) field study confirmed that

social cohesion is negatively related to social loafing by group mem-

bers in organizational settings. In socially cohesive groups, employees

are psychologically attracted to and attached to their colleagues. To

fulfill their need to sustain social affiliations with their favorite

574 KIM AND HAN

colleagues, they work harder and contribute to group goals

(M. E. Shaw, 1981). Likewise, employees who work in socially cohe-

sive organizations are more likely to perform their jobs in a productive

manner. Organizational social cohesion helps to establish and enforce

norms that encourage hard collaborative working while alienating free

riders. Employees who are strongly attracted and attached to other

members in their organizations are likely to maintain organizational

membership to work within a cooperative community of workers, as

well as to have work motivation that helps sustain their organizations.

Voluntary turnover may be an intermediate behavioral outcome

activating the productivity effects of BESO and employee involve-

ment in socially cohesive organizations. It has widely been recognized

that voluntary turnover is more disruptive and costly to organizations

than other types of turnover (Holtom et al., 2008). The negative con-

sequences of voluntary turnover are attributed to depletion of human

capital resources (e.g., employee knowledge, skills, abilities, and per-

sonality traits; Nyberg & Ployhart, 2013) and subsequent fracturing of

social capital (Dess & Shaw, 2001). Organizational voluntary turnover

also leads to disruptions in the collective functioning of the workforce

and entails extra costs of recruitment, selection, newcomer socializa-

tion, and training (Bluedorn, 1982; Hausknecht & Trevor, 2011; Mob-

ley, 1982; Staw, 1980). Due to such inefficiency in cooperation and

coordination, aggregate voluntary turnover is detrimental to labor pro-

ductivity at the organization level (Osterman, 1987), as confirmed by

meta-analytical reviews (e.g., Heavey, Holwerda, & Hausknecht, 2013;

T.-Y. Park & Shaw, 2013). As such, lower voluntary turnover due to

social cohesion in organizations that effectively and widely implement

BESO and employee involvement is likely to result in better labor

productivity.

In conclusion, all aforementioned theoretical reasoning and dis-

cussions suggest that social cohesion and voluntary turnover lead to

sequential mediating effects between participatory practices and labor

productivity. That is, the extensive use of BESO and employee

involvement encourages wider groups of employees to perceive we-

ness. This in turn fosters social cohesion, which is an important social

mechanism that suppresses collective voluntary turnover (Nyberg &

Ployhart, 2013), ultimately leading to improved labor productivity.

Hence, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 3 BESO (a) and employee-perceived involve-

ment practice (b) are positively related to labor produc-

tivity through social cohesion and voluntary turnover at

the organization level.

3 | METHODS

3.1 | Sample and data

In this research, we combined and analyzed 2010 and 2011 datasets

from the GPTW Institute (www.greatplacetowork.com), which has

been administering surveys since 1998 to create a list of the “100

Best Companies to Work for in America” that is published by Fortune

magazine every January. To test our theoretical model, we used the

2010 GPTW dataset for BESO, employee-perceived involvement

practice, organizational social cohesion, and collective voluntary turn-

over, as well as the 2011 GPTW dataset for organizational labor pro-

ductivity. The GPTW Institute provided access to data from

companies included in the “100 Best Companies to Work for in Amer-

ica” list, as well as those that applied but were not ranked in the list,

under a confidentiality agreement that allowed data analysis on a

GPTW Institute server. After excluding some outliers and matching

participant companies during the period of 2010–2011, we analyzed

information for 176 companies and 73,195 full-time employees (aver-

age 415.88 full-time employees per company).

The GPTW dataset …