Explore the vast range of titles available.

The science of taxonomy, albeit being fundamental for all organismic research, has been underfunded and undervalued for about two generations. We analyze how this could happen, particularly in times of a biodiversity crisis, when we have increased awareness amongst the population and decision makers that knowledge about species we share the planet with is indispensable for finding solutions. We identify five major issues: the habit of holding taxonomy in low esteem; the focus on inappropriate publication metrics in evaluating scientific output; the excessive focus on innovative technology in evaluating scientific relevance; shifting priorities in natural history museums away from their traditional strengths; and changing attitudes towards specimen collecting and increasing legislation regulating collecting and international exchange of specimens. To transform taxonomy into a thriving science again, we urgently suggest significantly increasing baseline funding for permanent positions in taxonomy, particularly in natural history museums; reviving taxonomic research and teaching in universities at the tenured professor level; strongly increasing soft money for integrative taxonomy projects; refraining using journal-based metrics for evaluating individual researchers and scientific output and instead focusing on quality; installing governmental support for open access publishing; focusing digitizing efforts to the most useful parts of collections, freeing resources for improving data quality by improving identifications; requiring natural history museums to focus on collection-based research; and ending the trend of prohibitive legislation towards scientific collecting and international exchange of taxonomic specimens, and instead building legal frameworks supportive of biodiversity research.

We focus on the relationships among administrative delay, red tape, and red tape-related organizational performance. We hypothesize that administrative delay leads to more red tape, more complaints from clients about red tape, and makes it more difficult for organizations to serve their clients. We test our hypotheses using data from the National Administrative Studies Project - Citizen, gathered on Amazon Mechanical Turk in late 2014 (n = 1,254). The results support each of the hypotheses. The findings imply that managers may improve organizational performance by identifying and addressing the specific sources of administrative delay, rather than focusing on general perceptions of organizational red tape.

Drawing on job demands-resources theory, we propose that perceived red tape, as a hindrance job demand, triggers attitudinal and behavioral precursors of turnover in employees (turnover intentions and job search behaviors) by reducing their work engagement. In addition, we hypothesize that career adaptability, as a personal resource, buffers the detrimental effects of perceived red tape. In Study 1, three-wave data collected from employees (N = 202) working in Tanzanian public sector organizations supports the finding that work engagement mediates the effect of red tape on turnover intentions. Study 2 confirms this mediation, using data (N = 405) collected at three time points from a Chinese private organization, further verifying the mediating role of work engagement in the effect of red tape on job search behaviors. Supporting the moderating role of career adaptability, Study 2 also found that career adaptability attenuated the influence of red tape on work engagement and, subsequently, on turnover intentions and job search behaviors. Our article theoretically and empirically contributes to the understanding of how and when perceived red tape in organizations leads employees to consider leaving and prepare to leave.

Procrastination is a prevalent phenomenon in organizations, yet limited knowledge is available on how situational antecedents influence it. Based on the conservation of resource theory, we explore how and when perceived red tape influences public sector employees’ procrastination behavior. Using survey data of 751 public sector employees from China, we revealed that perceived red tape is positively associated with procrastination behavior, and role overload partially mediates the relationship between perceived red tape and procrastination behavior. Employees’ perceived overqualification augments the relationship between role overload and procrastination. Further, the moderated mediation model test illuminates that the indirect effect of perceived red tape on procrastination through role overload depends on perceived overqualification, which means that higher perceived overqualification amplifies the indirect effect. Our research enriches the literature on public sector employees’ procrastination behavior.

Digital transformation is expected to improve the sustainability, efficiency, and transparency of public organizations. Yet, it also entails unintended consequences by generating digital red tape, defined as dysfunctional rules that impose compliance burdens through their integration with digital technologies. This study examines how organizational structure shapes the emergence of digital red tape and how these patterns affect the sustainability of digital transformation. Using two-wave survey data from public employees, digital red tape was measured as digital compliance burden and digital functionality deficiency, while formalization and centralization captured key structural dimensions. Group comparisons were conducted to assess differences in digital red tape and its two dimensions across demographic and organizational categories, followed by robust OLS regressions estimated for upper, middle, and lower bureaucratic echelons. The results show that younger employees and those in lower-echelon organizations perceive higher levels of digital red tape. Across the full sample, both formalization and centralization are positively and significantly associated with digital red tape, with centralization displaying the strongest and most consistent relationships. Echelon-specific regressions further indicate that these structural associations vary in magnitude across hierarchical levels. Centralization remains positively related to digital red tape in all echelons, while the association between formalization and digital red tape appears most pronounced in the middle echelon. Ultimately, sustainable digital transformation requires recognizing both the existence of digital red tape and the ways in which organizational structures shape its emergence and distribution, potentially constraining organizational innovation and diminishing public value.

PurposeOur study investigates the role of the Human Resources Management (HRM) system strength in supporting Italian healthcare managers during times of uncertainty and change. The perceived HRM system strength and its relationship with managers’ taking charge behaviors, perceived procedural constraints, and work engagement were examined.Design/methodology/approachTwo surveys were conducted to gather empirical data from a pooled sample of 121 healthcare managers located in hospitals across Italy. We use regression analysis to test our hypotheses.FindingsThe data show that strong HRM systems facilitate managers taking charge behaviors and work engagement. Additionally, the findings highlight the mitigating effect of a strong HRM system on procedural constraints, such as red tape, in public healthcare organizations.Practical implicationsEmphasizing the positive outcomes associated with strong HRM systems, the findings suggest that public health organizations should make efforts to put in place robust HR practices to bolster engagement and proactive behaviors among healthcare managers in times of uncertainty and change.Originality/valueAnalyzing a unique data set, the study extends the understanding of HRM system strength in the public sector, specifically in post-pandemic healthcare organizations. Overall, the study contributes to the growing literature on HRM system strength by offering novel insights into its nomological network.

This paper investigates the mechanisms that lead organizations to impose unnecessary burdens on their actors. The prevailing narrative in the literature is that unnecessary organizational burden (UOB) is created either on purpose—as a way for an organizational actor to assert control—or inadvertently through the passage of time as layers of policies, rules, and processes accumulate. Based on a wide review of relevant literature, we propose a different explanation: in our conceptual framework, the onset and mitigation of unnecessary burdens are explained, respectively, by organizational decision-makers’ weaknesses and strengths. Our framework combines (1) a typology of unnecessary burdens with (2) a typology of factors influencing the likelihood of UOB mitigation, and (3) a typology of managerial mitigation responses to such burdens. The conceptual framework, and a series of 12 propositions, aim to offer researchers and practitioners a shared language to empirically investigate unnecessary organizational burden, and implement effective solutions.

This study examines the interrelationship between external political support, internal organizational factors, and red tape, using a sample of information managers from state health and human service agencies. The study defines a red tape model and tests the model by structural equation modeling method. The study finds that political support has a direct effect on red tape. The higher the political support, the lower the level of red tape. The study also confirms an indirect effect of political support on red tape, mediated by developmental culture. Indirect effect through goal clarity has the correct sign but is not statistically significant. Practical recommendations are made for the political environment to provide the opportunity for managerial reforms that are often advocated.

Do small but wealthy interest groups influence referendums, ballot initiatives, and other forms of direct legislation at the expense of the broader public interest? Many observers argue that they do, often lamenting that direct legislation has, paradoxically, been captured by the very same wealthy interests whose power it was designed to curb. Elisabeth Gerber, however, challenges that argument. In this first systematic study of how money and interest group power actually affect direct legislation, she reveals that big spending does not necessarily mean big influence. Gerber bases her findings on extensive surveys of the activities and motivations of interest groups and on close examination of campaign finance records from 168 direct legislation campaigns in eight states. Her research confirms what such wealthy interests as the insurance industry, trial lawyer associations, and tobacco companies have learned by defeats at the ballot box: if citizens do not like a proposed new law, even an expensive, high-profile campaign will not make them change their mind. She demonstrates, however, that these economic interest groups have considerable success in using direct legislation to block initiatives that others are proposing and to exert pressure on politicians. By contrast, citizen interest groups with broad-based support and significant organizational resources have proven to be extremely effective in using direct legislation to pass new laws. Clearly written and argued, this is a major theoretical and empirical contribution to our understanding of the role of citizens and organized interests in the American legislative process.

Bureaucracy is a much-maligned feature of contemporary government. And yet the aftermath of September 11 has opened the door to a reassessment of the role of a skilled civil service in the survival and viability of democratic society. Here, Ezra Suleiman offers a timely and powerful corrective to the widespread view that bureaucracy is the source of democracy's ills. This is a book as much about good governance as it is about bureaucratic organizations. Suleiman asks: Is democratic governance hindered without an effective instrument in the hands of the legitimately elected political leadership? Is a professional bureaucracy required for developing but not for maintaining a democratic state? Why has a reform movement arisen in recent years championing the gradual dismantling of bureaucracy, and what are the consequences? Suleiman undertakes a comparative analysis of the drive toward a civil service grounded in the New Public Management. He argues that \"government reinvention\" has limited bureaucracy's capacity to adequately serve the public good. All bureaucracies have been under political pressure in recent years to reduce not only their size but also their effectiveness, and all have experienced growing deprofessionalism and politicization. He compares the impact of this evolution in both democratic societies and societies struggling to consolidate democratic institutions.Dismantling Democratic Statescautions that our failure to acknowledge the role of an effective bureaucracy in building and preserving democratic political systems threatens the survival of democracy itself.