2014
DOI: 10.1093/sf/sou108
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Shareholder Value and Workforce Downsizing, 1981–2006

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
48
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 68 publications
(52 citation statements)
references
References 178 publications
(299 reference statements)
4
48
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A number of important studies have documented factors that have led to fundamental alterations in employment and inequality, including globalization (Alderson and Nielsen 2002), technological change (Acemoglu 2002), financialization Lin and Tomaskovic-Devey 2013), and shareholder pressures (Cobb 2015;Jung 2015). Further, other studies have focused squarely on changes in employment practices, including the decline in ILMs (Cappelli 2001), new wagesetting practices ), the increased use of external hiring (Bidwell 2011), and the rise of nonstandard work arrangements (Ashford, George, and Blatt 2007;Cappelli and Keller 2013).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A number of important studies have documented factors that have led to fundamental alterations in employment and inequality, including globalization (Alderson and Nielsen 2002), technological change (Acemoglu 2002), financialization Lin and Tomaskovic-Devey 2013), and shareholder pressures (Cobb 2015;Jung 2015). Further, other studies have focused squarely on changes in employment practices, including the decline in ILMs (Cappelli 2001), new wagesetting practices ), the increased use of external hiring (Bidwell 2011), and the rise of nonstandard work arrangements (Ashford, George, and Blatt 2007;Cappelli and Keller 2013).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most important was the percentage of shares held by “pressure resistant” institutional investors such as pension funds, as opposed to “pressure sensitive” institutional investors, such as insurance companies, which may do other business with the company. This study reemphasizes power in the study of organizational change and shows “how the influence of institutional investors has contributed to reformulating the prevailing norm of employment relations at large U.S. corporations” (Jung, , p. 1363).…”
Section: Organizational Power At a Distancementioning
confidence: 96%
“…Through their provision of equity to the firm and attendant voting rights, institutional investors have become crucial resource‐providing stakeholders for most firms, and resource dependence research shows that firms engage in specific strategic actions to appease them (e.g., Certo, ; Higgins & Gulati, ; Johnson & Greening, ; Jung, ). Thus, executives intend to actively manage their interdependency with institutional investors by adopting strategies favored by the latter (Connelly et al, ).…”
Section: Theory and Hypothesis Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%