Long‐Term Earnings Inequality,Earnings Instability and Temporary Employment in Spain: 1993–2000

This article provides a longitudinal perspective on changes in Spanish male earnings inequality for the period 1993–2000 by decomposing the earnings covariance structure into its permanent and transitory parts. Cross‐sectional earnings inequality of male full‐time employees falls over the second half of the 1990s. Such decline was determined by a decrease in earnings instability and an increase of the permanent earnings component. Given the marked decline in temporary employment over the sample period, we also examine the effect of the type of contract on earnings variance components and find that workers on a fixed‐term contract face, on average, more instability than workers on a permanent contract. This evidence suggests that the decline in temporary employment is responsible for the decreasing earnings instability.     

The continuing validity of the strategy‐structure nexus: new findings, 1993–2003

This study analyzes whether a diversification strategy facilitates subsequent divisionalization (and hence that ‘structure follows strategy’), and/or whether the multidivisional structure leads to a diversification strategy (and hence that ‘strategy follows structure’). In theoretical terms, this study is original in that it institutes a debate between the Chandler thesis and other perspectives that challenge the generalizability of the strategy‐structure nexus. Interestingly, this new study with contemporaneous data for the period 1993–2003 sheds light on this contested issue and postulates that despite the criticism of Chandler's contribution, it still works. Our results show that strategic diversification affects structural divisionalization, and in turn, structural divisionalization affects strategic diversification. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Context matters: Diversity's short‐ and long‐term effects in fortune's “best companies to work for”

Research summary: Previous research has examined the racial diversity‐productivity relationship in corporations with an evident high commitment to minority programs, Fortune's “Best Companies for Minorities.” To assess generalizability, we replicate this research using a different context of high organizational‐employee value congruence, Fortune's “Best Companies to Work For.” We are not able to find evidence for the curvilinear relationships previously found, but do uncover a linear negative relationship between racial diversity and short‐run performance. Managerial summary: Using Fortune's “Best Companies for Minorities,” previous research found that racial diversity affected both firm productivity and Tobin's q. To see if we could find these results in a different group of firms, we replicate this research using a sample drawn from Fortune's “Best Companies to Work For.” The former sample is distinguished by high commitment to minority programs, while the one used here stresses high congruence of values between the organization and all its employees. We are unable to replicate the relationships previously found, however, but do find that increasing racial diversity had a negative effect on firm productivity. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Perspective: The Stage‐Gate® Idea‐to‐Launch Process—Update,What's New,and NexGen Systems*

Stage‐Gate has become a popular system for driving new products to market, and the benefits of using such a robust idea‐to‐launch system have been well documented. However, there are many misconceptions and challenges in using Stage‐Gate. First, Stage‐Gate is briefly outlined, noting how the system should work and the structure of both stages and gates. Next, some of the misconceptions about Stage‐Gate—it is not a linear process, nor is it a rigid system—are debunked, and explanations of what Stage‐Gate is and is not are provided. The challenges faced in employing Stage‐Gate are identified, including governance issues, overbureaucratizing the process, and misapplying cost‐cutting systems such as Six Sigma and Lean Manufacturing to product innovation. Solutions are offered, including better governance methods such as “gates with teeth,” clearly defined gatekeepers, and gatekeeper rules of engagement, as well as ways to deal with bureaucracy, including leaner gates. Next‐generation versions of Stage‐Gate are introduced, notably a scalable system (to handle many different types and sizes of projects), as well as even more flexible and adaptable versions of Stage‐Gate achieved via spiral development and simultaneous execution. Additionally, Stage‐Gate now incorporates better decision‐making practices including scorecards, success criteria, self‐managed gates, electronic and virtual gates, and integration with portfolio management. Improved accountability and continuous improvement are now built into Stage‐Gate via a rigorous postlaunch review. Finally, progressive companies are reinventing Stage‐Gate for use with “open innovation,” whereas others are applying the principles of value stream analysis to yield a leaner version of Stage‐Gate.