Hybrid work has become a central topic in debates about the future of work (FoW). Its rise introduces a dual spatial transformation: employees’ physical workspace extends beyond the office to locations like the home, while work itself shifts from analog to virtual spaces. These spatial changes have the potential to reshape formal organizational structures in ways that are neither planned nor anticipated by organizations. Drawing on a place lens, this study explores how hybrid work influences formal structure, i.e., the prescribed grouping of positions and reporting relationships. We analyzed 49 interviews with employees from two international organizations at two points in time. Our findings reveal an emergent trend toward functional grouping and centralization of previously decentralized HR positions, which may be followed by spatial relocation. We argue that these structural shifts are driven by place re-making activities in both virtual and physical spaces, which redefine employees’ sense of the workplace as being virtual. In this virtual workplace, the spatial manifestation of formal structures dissolves, creating a window of opportunity for organizational decision makers to revise established structural arrangements. At the same time, the virtual workplace falls short in fulfilling employees’ need for social connectedness, prompting a reconstitution of the office as a place of social contact. Spatial relocation then serves a dual function: encouraging social interactions within the newly formed teams and re-manifesting changed formal structures in the physical space.
Navigating the challenges of the future of work requires human resource management (HRM) strategies that take a broader view of employees' needs across different sectors. This includes a thorough understanding of how HR practices promote employees’ well-being. While the relationship between High-Performance Work Practices (HPWP) and job satisfaction is established, with other facets of well-being is less clear and consistent. Considering differentiated bundles of HR practices and overall measures of psychological well-being (e.g., life satisfaction) might help clarify this issue and develop sustainable HRM systems. Examining this relationship across different organizational types will broaden our understanding of how and when HRM contributes to the creation of sustainable organizations. Thus, the aim of this study is twofold: to analyse the relationship between two bundles of HR practices and two dimensions of well-being, life satisfaction and job satisfaction; and to study the generalizability of these relationships across three types of organizations (for-profit, public, and social). Using data from 1568 employees, results show a total mediation between HR practices and life satisfaction for social enterprises and two pathways to life satisfaction for the case of for-profit and public organisations: a negative direct pathway and a mediated path through job satisfaction. We suggest that these differences might be due to the different degrees of employees’ ownership in the implementation of HR practices. We discuss the importance of considering the relationship between HR practices and the two well-being indicators in the context of structural and cultural factors related to the type of organisation.
While prior research has highlighted the mixed effects of artificial intelligence (AI) on human resources (HR) specialists work, most studies are conceptual, leaving the empirical exploration of this relationship largely underexplored. Drawing on the duality of technology view and Self-Determination theory, this study investigates the contrasting effect of AI use in HRM on HR professionals’ adaptive performance through two mechanisms namely decision-making autonomy and data skills, as well as the moderating role of AI transparency. Two studies were conducted. Study 1 assessed the psychometric properties of a 13-item scale measuring AI use in HRM. Study 2 drew on a sample of 658 HR specialists from Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom to test the hypothesized model using Latent Moderated Structural Equation Modeling (LMS). Results show that AI use in HRM is negatively associated with decision-making autonomy and positively associated with data skills. Furthermore, AI use in HRM is indirectly and negatively related to adaptive performance through autonomy, and indirectly and positively related through data skills. However, when considering both direct and indirect pathways, the overall effect of AI use in HRM on adaptive performance remained positive. Furthermore, high AI transparency attenuates the negative indirect effect via autonomy while strengthening the positive indirect effect via data skills. Multigroup analyses indicate no significant differences across countries. This study contributes to the literature by clarifying how AI use reshapes HR specialists work and highlighting the role of transparency in balancing efficiency gains with professional agency.
Bayesian investors, rather than waiting, infer a probability distribution over what will be in the company’s report and re-price the stock based on that probability distribution. To allow for their uncertainty about the report’s content and the resulting stock price, the asset pricing formula includes a risk premium related to the precision or quality of the firm’s future financial reporting. The premium can be positive or negative, meaning that the firm affects its cost of capital up or down by its choice of information system or reporting quality. Conservative accounting or any source of anticipated future information that is predisposed to reveal unfavorable news more efficiently than favorable news adds to the firm’s current cost of capital.
This study examines the determinants of CEO–COB leadership structure, focusing on why firms maintain CEO–COB duality despite widespread regulatory recommendations promoting role separation. Drawing on an international sample of 4600 listed firms across 37 countries over the period 2012–2021, we conceptualize CEO–COB separation as a structural governance outcome shaped by ownership configurations and institutional environments rather than by managerial attributes alone. The results show that ownership heterogeneity plays a central role in explaining CEO–COB separation. Independent institutional investors significantly increase the likelihood of adopting a separated leadership structure, whereas family ownership discourages separation. We further show that blockholder contestability moderates these effects, with the impact of large shareholders depending on both their identity and relative voting power. At the firm level, a higher fraction of independent directors consistently promotes CEO–COB separation, supporting the role of internal governance mechanisms. At the country level, regulatory quality increases the likelihood of separation, while cultural dimensions shape preferences for unified versus separated leadership structures. Overall, the findings demonstrate that CEO–COB separation is not a universally optimal governance arrangement, but rather a context-dependent outcome driven by ownership structures, governance mechanisms, and institutional environments.
