Geralyn McClure Franklin

The Internet as an Information Conduit A Transaction Cost Analysis Model of US SME Internet Use

Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) can use the internet to establish direct customer contact, thereby reducing reliance on channel intermediaries for customer support. Based on transaction cost analysis, this study examined whether SMEs facing high asset specificity in product information transmitted to and received from customers employed the internet to a greater degree than those facing lower information specificity. Results based on a survey of 42 US SMEs generally supported this relationship. Moreover, results were generally stronger for firm- than industry-level factors impacting information specificity. Overall, these findings highlight the important benefit that internet use can provide in reducing an SMEs transaction costs.

Entrepreneurial Service Performance and Technology Management: A Study of China and Japan

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the utility of a selection instrument in predicting service and technologically oriented performance in technologically oriented businesses in mainland China and Japan.Design/methodology/approach – Data was collected from 262 employees in mainland China and 236 employees in Japan pertaining to their service and technology orientations with regard to on‐the‐job performance in a high technology management environment. Employees completed a personality‐oriented employment questionnaire that has been previously examined.Findings – Each dimension predicted performance in both samples, although the structures were not consistent across the two countries. In China, the seven dimensions consist of extroversion, emotional stability, the desire to make good impressions on others, conscientiousness, life satisfaction, performance orientation, and helpfulness. In Japan, the seven dimensions consisted of extroversion, emotional stability, the desire to make good impres...

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: A Review of the Legal Rights and Responsibilities of All Parties:

In recent years, no area of employment law has generated as much concern and controversy as sexual harassment. Employers have gained a keen, and often painful, awareness of the consequences of sexual harassment in the workplace. This article addresses the issue of sexual harassment from the perspective of the rights and responsibilities of all parties involved, including the employer, employee, coworker, nonemployee, charging party (alleged harassee), and accused (alleged harasser).

The Supreme Court Rulings in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger: The Brave New World of Affirmative Action in the 21st Century

On June 23, 2003, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a five to four decision, substantially altered the nature of state imposed affirmative action permissible under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it held that diversity could serve as a compelling government interest, thus justifying public sector preferential programs. Though this ruling pertained specifically to race-based preferential university admissions, it is likely to have wide ranging implications for all public sector affirmative action programs. One implication may include making it easier to justify state initiated affirmative action by diminishing the requirement to demonstrate the remedial motive behind such action. This article discusses the impact that the Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger decisions are likely to have on preferential admissions policies in public higher education.

THE SLAP-IN-THE-FACE STANDARD AND EMPLOYER PRETEXT: PLACING LIMITS ON COURT EVALUATION OF EMPLOYEE QUALIFICATIONS

This article discusses and evaluates the standard that has developed in at least five Circuit Courts of Appeal to resolve disputes between employers and employees (or applicants) over qualifications for specific jobs. The standard has become popularly known as the “slap-in-the-face” standard. Following this approach, courts operate under the assumption that, absent clear proof to the contrary, the employer is better suited to evaluate candidate qualifications than the courts, thereby removing the courts from the position of being an ad hoc personnel committee. When an employee or applicant files a claim of unlawful discrimination based on disparate treatment, one of the claims that he or she is likely to proffer as proof of this discrimination is the “fact” that he or she was the most-qualified candidate. In such instances, the employer usually counters that the successful candidate was actually more qualified. When two views of qualifications are presented to a court, is it up to the court to determine which party truly is the most qualified for the job? Does this mean that a jury (or a judge in a bench trial) is expected to sit as an ad hoc personnel review committee and second guess an