To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Diversity in organizations is a recurring and increasing reality of vast importance. The diversity management literature describes different types of organizations based on their treatment and management of diversity, including plural and multicultural organizations. However, recent research suggests the added value of considering polycultural organizations in diversity management. Based on a polycultural ideology that sees values, traditions, and norms inherently and dynamically intertwined and mixed, polycultural organizations emphasize the value for and “connectedness” to diversity among organizational members. Contributing to the diversity management literature, this paper conceptually describes and compares polycultural organizations with other types of organizations in the diversity management literature. It argues the potential benefit of including a polycultural ideology to current perspectives in diversity management to further advance our understanding of how diversity can be effectively managed in organizations. Additionally, practice implications and strategies to foster polycultural organizations are provided.
We use the 2015 Chinese stock market crash to study the effects of government stock purchases. The Chinese government purchased stocks to stabilize the markets through state-owned financial institutions known as the “National Team.” We find that the intervention led to reduced volatility and price informativeness. These impacts are driven by the disclosure of government portfolios. Consistent with investors having a stronger incentive to acquire government intervention information instead of fundamental news, we find reduced information production and information asymmetry following intervention disclosure. The article suggests that government stock purchases involve a trade-off between stability and informational efficiency.
By drawing on social exchange theory, we developed a theoretical model to explore the effect of political skill on unethical pro-supervisor behavior (UPSB) via leader–member exchange (LMX) and the way in which immediate supervisor empowering leadership moderates this mediated relationship. A three-wave study (n = 442) provided evidence suggesting that political skill is positively related to UPSB and that LMX partially mediates this relationship. Immediate supervisor empowering leadership moderates the effect of political skill on LMX, and political skill is positively and indirectly related to UPSB via LMX when the level of immediate supervisor empowering leadership is high. Although political skill is beneficial to both employees and organizations in many respects, our study provides empirical evidence that can improve our understanding of how political skills trigger UPSB. The practical and theoretical implications of our findings are discussed.
Retail order imbalance positively predicts returns, but on average retail investor trades lose money. Why? Order imbalance tests equal-weighted stocks, but retail purchases concentrate on attention-grabbing stocks that subsequently underperform. Long–short strategies based on extreme quintiles of retail order imbalance earn dismal annualized returns of −14.8% among stocks with heavy retail trading but earn 6.6% among other stocks. Our results reconcile the literatures on the performance of retail investors, the predictive content of retail order imbalance, and attention-induced trading and returns. Smaller retail trades concentrate more on attention-grabbing stocks and perform worse.