Content uploaded by Moshe Sharabi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Moshe Sharabi on Oct 25, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by:
[MALMAD]
On:
8 November 2008
Access details:
Access Details: [subscription number 902013949]
Publisher
Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Human Resource Development International
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713701210
Promotion according to who or what you know: managers' and workers'
perception of factors influencing promotion
Moshe Sharabi a
a Yezreel Valley College and University of Haifa, Israel
Online Publication Date: 01 November 2008
To cite this Article Sharabi, Moshe(2008)'Promotion according to who or what you know: managers' and workers' perception of factors
influencing promotion',Human Resource Development International,11:5,545 — 554
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13678860802417700
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678860802417700
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
PERSPECTIVES ON PRACTICE
Promotion according to who or what you know: managers’ and workers’
perception of factors influencing promotion
Moshe Sharabi*
Yezreel Valley College and University of Haifa, Israel
This paper presents partial findings of research examining the perceptions of managers
and workers regarding promotions in the Israeli high-tech industry. A questionnaire
containing a series of factors related to promotion was conducted with 95 workers and
36 managers in an international high-tech corporation’s subsidiary located in Israel. The
initial findings indicated a high degree of consent between workers and managers that
the most important factor influencing promotion was success in projects. While workers
and managers gave similar rankings for the most and least important factors influencing
promotions, there were substantial differences in the ranking of the other factors.
Among managers, education and multidisciplinary knowledge were ranked second and
third, whereas among workers, politics and pressure on the supervisor were ranked
second and third. The findings are discussed in terms of HRD in the organization.
Keywords: promotions; high-tech; Israel
Introduction
Many workers claim that promotion is based on who you know and not what you know;
that the impression one makes and playing the promotion ‘game’ can lead you to the top
management. (Singh, Kumra, and Vinnicombe 2002) Thus, they feel that anyone wishing
to advance in the employment world is required to invest great efforts into establishing
interpersonal relationships with the right people rather than investing their efforts in
improving their work performance for the benefit of the organization (Deondra 2006). The
assumption is that organizations operating in a competitive environment will strive to
maximize human potential to survive the business competition. Therefore, promotion
according to who you know is more prominent in public organizations where there is little
or no competition (Vigoda and Drory 2006).
Bore (1997) perceives promotion as one of the most important components of
employer–employee relations. As far as a worker is concerned, a promotion is not only an
expression of gratitude and reward for effort, but also a chance for self-fulfilment and
career advancement, satisfying an individual’s need for achievement and success.
However, for an organization, a promotion is both an expression of gratitude and a
motivational tool. There is no doubt that promotions bring the additional benefit of
‘binding’ the worker to the organization and preventing ‘brain drain’. Promotion (or
*Email: moshes@yvc.ac.il
Human Resource Development International
Vol. 11, No. 5, November 2008, 545–554
ISSN 1367-8868 print/ISSN 1469-8374 online
Ó2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13678860802417700
http://www.informaworld.com
Downloaded By: [MALMAD] At: 11:59 8 November 2008
organizational career management) is a positive necessity for an organization and is one of
the most important tools in HRD planning. Baruch and Rozenstein (1992) suggest that
those responsible for HR planning in an organization should consider the following
points:
.Plan resources for future recruitment according to predicted work load, technology
and managerial needs.
.Create a system for locating potential workers for vacant or new positions.
.Create an evaluation system which will:
.Provide information about worker performance in various divisions.
.Bring attention to areas in need of improvement.
.Predict the future performance of workers.
.Plan the course of careers.
.Create a system that focuses on training managers.
.Create a system for supporting the management and establishing an organizational
policy.
It was found that a lack of promotion opportunities, flawed promotion processes or a
perception of unfairness in the promotion decisions are related to a low level of
performance, a low level of loyalty and commitment (Bonnie-Bei and Carolyn 2005;
Lincoln and Kalleberg 1996; McKay 2004; Williams and O’Reilly 1998) and high turnover
and absenteeism (Chun-Hsien, Mu-Lan, and Nai-Hwa 2006; Eby, Allen, and Brinley 2005;
Fairris 2004; Lincoln and Kalleberg 1996; Saporta and Farjoun 2003). Furthermore, it
negatively affects employees’ wellbeing and performance (Baptiste 2008). Actually
individuals who are more involved and socially integrated, those who perform better at
work, and who are more committed to the organization, will have greater chances of being
offered promotions and vice versa (Williams and O’Reilly 1998).
The high-tech industries are based primarily on the development of new knowledge
and the production and management of new technologies. Therefore, they have among
their employees a relatively high percentage of highly educated technical professionals,
such as scientists, engineers and technicians (Harpaz and Meshoulam 2004; Kunda 2006).
The replacement costs of high-tech workers are high not only due to the HR functional
aspects (e.g. recruiting, selecting, interviewing, staffing, training and development) but
mainly due to the intellectual capital aspect; i.e. departure of workers who are
familiar with processes, work methods, marketing systems, technological developments,
classified information concerning the business and patents, etc. (Sharabi and Harpaz
1998). According to that, maintaining and promoting good workers is the main mission of
HRD.
The effect of demographic variables on worker promotion in organizations
Many studies have focused on the effect of demographic variables, such as ethnicity,
gender and tenure on promotion opportunities (James 2000; Lincoln and Kalleberg 1996;
Powell and Butterfield 1994; Taniguchi 2006; Tharenou 2001). One aspect reported in
various studies is that educational similarities (i.e. level of education, educational
institution attended and type of certification) are also factors considered by supervisors
when making a decision regarding the promotion of employees (Bonnie Bei and Carolyn
2005; Markham, Harlan, and Hackett 1987). This notion is not unfamiliar to the Israeli
organizational culture, for instance, where upper level managers, who were formerly
546 M. Sharabi
Downloaded By: [MALMAD] At: 11:59 8 November 2008
senior military commanders, ensure the addition of newly retired high-ranking
military commanders to their organizations (Tzafrir, Baruch, and Meshoulam 2007).
Although this is not a case of educational similarities, the similar background creates
empathy and may be a factor that should be taken into consideration when making
promotion related decisions (Bonnie Bei and Carolyn 2005; Tzafrir, Baruch, and
Meshoulam 2007).
Another interesting finding reported in the literature is the correlation between
personal similarities between employers and employees and promotion opportunities. The
way in which these similarities may be expressed between workers at the same level, or
between a worker and a supervisor, is through sharing the same perspective, responding in
similar ways, interpersonal trust and personal commitment. The greater the number or
degree of similarities, the more ‘bonus points’ (social capital) are credited to the worker.
Thus, a particular worker becomes a natural candidate for promotion (James 2000; Shore,
Shore, and Thornton 1992; Eagleson, Waldersee, and Simmons 2000). This is typical of
organizational politics and emphasizes the importance of personal connections in
achieving promotions. Organizational political games are one of the tactics workers use
to pursue personal interests, including pay and promotions (Vigoda and Drory 2006;
Deondra 2006). Similarly, Singh, Kumra, and Vinnicombe (2002) and Deondra (2006)
assume that workers, by not using political tactics or ‘impression games’, are limiting
themselves from achieving personal goals such as promotion. In order to survive and
advance in an organization, workers must use political tools such as being familiar with
the organizational culture, identifying the sources of power, nurturing relations with
superiors, cooperating with colleagues and other figures of power, building a positive,
well-liked image, etc. (Vigoda and Drory 2006).
When examining promotion by gender in Israel, it is evident that although women
constituted 48.4% of the workforce in 2002, most of them were employed in traditional
feminine occupations characterized by low wages, such as teaching, secretarial work, sales,
etc. (Pasternak and Zaritzky 2003; Tzafrir, Baruch, and Meshoulam 2007). Data from the
Statistical Abstracts of Israel – 2002 shows that although the percentage of women
managers has doubled over the past 20 years, the percentage of male CEOs is almost four
times higher than female CEOs.
As for managers in the high-tech industry, there has been some progress. In 1978,
women filled only 9% of managerial positions; 22% of all managers were women by 2000,
even though women comprise only 34% of the high-tech workforce. However, when
taking a closer look at these female managers, it becomes apparent that they are
concentrated mainly in the field of human resources, which is considered more feminine,
and thus they are discriminated with regards to working conditions – basic wages, benefits
and stock options (Wertzberger 2001).
This literature review raises questions regarding the effect of a worker’s gender,
education, political skills and personal relations on promotion opportunities in the high-
tech industry. In order to set the research context, we will describe in brief the main HRD
issues in Israeli organizations, particularly in the high-tech sector.
HRD and the high-tech industry in Israel
Since the establishment of the state of Israel (1948), the society has undergone dramatic
social, political and economic changes. Until the worldwide economic recession in the
1970s, the economy grew at a rapid rate of 10% per year (Tzafrir, Baruch, and Meshoulam
2007). Since the 1970s, the Israeli economy has shifted from a centralized socialistic
Human Resource Development International 547
Downloaded By: [MALMAD] At: 11:59 8 November 2008
economy, with employment virtually guaranteed for almost all, to a capitalist market
economy characterized by an uncertainty of employment (Sharabi and Harpaz 2002). The
most notable change in HRM has been the reduction in the Histadrut’s influence as a
professional trade union, especially in wage determination. This was in addition to a shift
of approximately 40% of the Israeli labour force to personal contracts (Sharabi and
Harpaz 2007; Tzafrir, Baruch, and Meshoulam 2007). Moreover, mass layoffs initiated by
large organizations in the 1980s and the early 1990s, which were a result of the economic
crisis, in addition to the privatization of state-controlled organizations, led to the almost
complete annihilation of the sacred institution of ‘work tenure’. It also led to an increase in
the unemployment rate and employment uncertainty in the labour force (Sharabi and
Harpaz 2007).
The trend of global high-tech growth has made a major impact on the Israeli economy
and society. The first high tech organizations were founded at the end of the 1960s but
only at the beginning of the 1980s was there prosperity of Israeli high tech organizations
occurring simultaneously with the opening of subsidiaries by large multinational
corporations (Blumen and Hareli 2006; Tzafrir, Baruch, and Meshoulam 2007). The
development of the high-tech industry has particularly influenced managerial
philosophy, attitudes and behaviour in the workplace (Harpaz and Meshoulam 2004).
HRD faced the new challenges of managing a multicultural, multivalue workforce.
The HRD and management practices applied by the private sector (especially the high
tech), such as flexible work agreements, ‘high performance work systems’ and
organizational career systems, permeated into the public sector (Tzafrir, Baruch, and
Meshoulam 2007).
The significance of the high-tech sector in the Israeli economy goes far beyond its sheer
size or the number of its employees. For example, in 1999, more than 52% of all
investments in industry, 41% of all exports and over 23% of all industrial revenues (the
highest of all the segments in industry) came from the high-tech sector (Harpaz and
Meshoulam 2004). Today, many multinational corporations have invested in Israeli
technology and have opened subsidiaries in Israel (e.g. Motorola, Cisco, Intel, IBM,
Google, Microsoft and Philips) (Invest in Israel 2008). This research was conducted in one
of the corporation’s subsidiaries.
The questionnaire and the sample
A questionnaire containing several demographical questions (age, sex, educational level,
etc.) and a series of factors related to promotion was conducted with employees in an
Israeli high-tech subsidiary belonging to an international organization. Our partial sample
includes 95 workers and 36 managers in the R&D area; 85.5% men and 14.5% women;
58% have a first degree, 36.7% have a second degree and 5.3% have a third degree.
Respondents were asked to rate the degree to which they agree with the next statement,
ranging from 1 ‘very little’ to 7 ‘very much’.
Statement: Promotions in your organization are based on:
(1) Education
(2) Tenure in the organization
(3) Professional experience
(4) Success in projects
(5) Politics – social relations with the ‘right’ people
(6) Multidisciplinary professional knowledge
548 M. Sharabi
Downloaded By: [MALMAD] At: 11:59 8 November 2008
(7) Constant pressure by worker on the supervisor (including presenting letters of
recognition, certificates of excellence, etc.)
(8) Age
(9) Gender
(10) Luck (or ‘being the right person at the right time’)
The initial findings
The general findings presented in Figure 1 indicate that all the participants (both workers
and managers) believe that success in projects at work is the most important factor
influencing promotion, followed by education and multi-disciplinary knowledge.
Organizational politics, experience, pressure on the supervisor and luck (ranked 4–7
respectively) are all considered to have similar influence on promotions.
The variables of gender, age and tenure received the lowest scores. This reflects the
perceived importance of achievement and success in various projects, regardless of
demographic variables, in an organization that operates in a competitive market. On the
other hand, it is possible that tenure and age received the lowest scores since most of the
workers in the company were young.
A comparison between workers and managers’ perceptions shows significant
differences in most of the factors relating to promotion (except for multidisciplinary
knowledge, professional experience and age). In Figure 2, we can see there is a high degree
of consent between workers and managers demonstrating that the most important factor
influencing promotion is success in projects. Both workers and managers believed that
gender, age and tenure had the least influence on promotions, although workers gave
higher scores than managers to the importance of tenure.
Figure 1. Average and ranking of factors affecting promotion – all participants.
Human Resource Development International 549
Downloaded By: [MALMAD] At: 11:59 8 November 2008
While workers and managers gave similar rankings for the most and least important
factors influencing promotions, there were substantial differences in the ranking of the
other factors. Among managers, education and multidisciplinary knowledge were ranked
second and third, while among workers, politics and pressure on the supervisor were
ranked second and third.
Discussion
The key to high-tech organizational survival is to stay on the ‘cutting edge’ of technological
advances by operating in technology-driven markets. Therefore, they are more exposed to
the external environment, which is characterized by complex and global markets. In fact,
the business environment directs them to competition and achievement. Additional
characteristics of high-tech industries include a high growth rate (Harpaz and Meshoulam
2004; Kunda 2006), hence there are rapid promotions (Kunda 2006). When examining a
continuum based on a degree of environment stability and an organization’s chances of
survival, high-tech companies are at one end of the spectrum and public monopolies,
operating in a secure stable environment, are at the other end (based on the continuum of
organic-mechanistic organizations by Barnes and Stalker) (Jackson and Schuler 2000).
Clearly, the latter types of organizations, are more internally focused, less exposed to a
turbulent environment and usually do not face a high level of uncertainty (Harpaz and
Meshoulam 2004). Therefore they are more prone to considerations based on personal
relations, organizational politics, tenure and gender when granting promotion, and less
prone to rational business considerations (Jackson and Schuler 2000; Vigoda 2002).
The high-tech highly skilled workforce must be able to adapt to the demands of an
ever-changing and uncertain industry; hence, promoting the suitable workers for achieving
the organizational business goals, have to be based mainly on success in projects and on
Figure 2. Promotion factors as perceived by managers vs. workers (averages).
550 M. Sharabi
Downloaded By: [MALMAD] At: 11:59 8 November 2008
professional experience, multidisciplinary professional knowledge and education (Kunda
2006).
Some of our findings were to be expected in the high-tech company examined, but
others were surprising. The most important factor influencing promotion is success in
projects, which complies with one of the stated goals of the organization, namely ‘results
orientation’. Organizational goals are achieved mainly through the success ratio of
workers in various projects. The low ranking given to tenure in promotion decisions
reflects the belief that tenure in the organization does not guarantee successful
performance. This belief, typical of the high-tech sector, exemplifies a major difference
between the private sector as a whole and public organizations where tenure is a major
factor in promotion (Vigoda 2002).
The greatest and most significant gaps between managers and workers were in the
scores given to politics and pressure on the supervisor. Managers gave low scores to these
factors, possibly because they did not want to reveal their weakness and lack of objectivity
in promotion decisions or because they were actually unaware of how much they were
affected by these pressures or perhaps this is indeed what they believe in.
These gaps raise the question of whether workers’ perceptions are unsubstantiated, or
whether workers in a competitive environment try to maximize their chances of promotion
beyond being successful in projects. From their experience in the organizational milieu,
workers feel that promotion can be achieved via politics (having the right ‘connections’,
lobbying, ‘advertising’ themselves in one way or another) and by applying pressure, directly
or indirectly, on their managers to promote them (Deondra 2006; Singh, Kumra, and
Vinnicombe 2002; Vigoda and Drory 2006). Workers who do not apply these tactics
jeopardize both their chances of promotion and their long-term survival in the organization.
These findings also indicate that there is a lack of transparency in the processes of
evaluating and promoting workers, as using clear criteria for promotion and applying them
should have prevented this discrepancy between managers and workers. A situation in
which only partial information is available, together with many rumours about what
influences promotions, would cause differences between the perceptions of workers and
managers especially concerning politics and pressure on the supervisor, as promotional
factors.
It is interesting to see that both managers and workers ranked luck, ‘being the right
person at the right time’, higher than tenure, with workers giving this factor higher scores
than managers. Among managers, luck was also ranked higher than politics and pressure
on the supervisor. It is not certain whether this is coincidental or not. As noted previously,
the low ranking of politics and pressure on the supervisor are understandable (even if they
are, indeed, part of the considerations). Managers are expected to base promotion decisions
on extensive objective considerations. Perhaps the notion that a promotion is based on
‘luck’ is a way of avoiding criticism that these decisions are affected by subjective
considerations. It might be better perceived if a manager claims that a worker was
promoted because of luck rather than politics or personal relations. The high ranking of
luck among managers warrants further investigation. Given this finding, it is interesting to
note that there does not appear to be any research dealing with the affect of luck in the
promotions process.
The implications of the research
HRD practitioners’ mission is to insure that the career paths planning will comply with the
organization strategy and needs and to set objective requirements for each promotion.
Human Resource Development International 551
Downloaded By: [MALMAD] At: 11:59 8 November 2008
Hence, to assure that those workers who contribute the most to the organization success
will be promoted, by developing and using relevant criterions for promotions. In addition,
more and more HRD managers today consider the promotion processes as a main issue in
corporate social responsibility (Fenwick and Bierema 2008).
The findings of this survey reveal that workers perceive organizational politics as
second only to success in projects itself in influencing promotion decisions. They also
regard constant pressure on the supervisor as an important factor (which also
characterizes partially organizational politics). Organizational politics based on personal
relations, cooperation, interests, etc. create a preference for promoting workers similar to
managers in their personal traits, gender, ethnicity, academic institution, place of
residence, membership in various organizations and so forth. Using these characteristics in
the promotion process does not support diversity management and legal norms, or the
corporate social responsibility. HRD professionals have to assimilate equal opportunity
policy on the promotion decisions, and support the advancement of discriminated groups
(see suggestions by Woodhams and Lupton 2006).
Additional findings in the research reveals that experience, multidisciplinary knowl-
edge and education are not perceived by workers as having great weight in promotion
decisions, though one might regard these factors to be more important than organizational
politics and pressure on superiors.
It is likely that workers act according to how they are measured, appreciated and
rewarded. Therefore, in addition to succeeding in projects, they will prefer to devote their
time and energy to organizational politics, as well as putting pressure on superiors, rather
than acquiring more knowledge, education and experience. Hence, workers focus on
activities that they perceive are crucial to their personal success, but which do not
necessarily contribute to the organization’s success, thus reducing organizational
effectiveness.
In international high-tech companies, supporting an organizational culture of
innovation, diversity management and maximizing the personal potential, is essential to
coping with environment demands. Furthermore, the growth of the high-tech industry is
more dependent on the successful HRD management in terms of enhancing motivation,
loyalty and commitment and workers well-being (Harpaz and Meshoulam 2004; Baptiste
2008). Promoting the most suitable candidates regardless of subjective variables is one of
the main bases for reaching the above advantages.
Promotions are a sensitive, emotionally loaded subject. Extensive use of non-rational
considerations and a lack of transparency regarding promotions create anger, frustration
and low performance (Baptiste 2008) as well as a decrease in work performance,
involvement and commitment and higher rates of absenteeism (Bonnie-Bei and Carolyn
2005; Fairris 2004; Lincoln and Kalleberg 1996; McKay 2004). Such a promotion process
leads to turnover not only among the low level workers (Chun-Hsien, Mu-Lan, and Nai-
Hwa 2006; Fairris 2004; Lincoln and Kalleberg 1996) but also among the middle and top
managers (Eby, Allen, and Brinley 2005; Saporta and Farjoun 2003).
Global competition together with the privatization process of the public sector in
western countries requires increasing efficiency of organizations, and obligates management
to focus on improving the way in which promotions are determined. A survey such as this
one, performed periodically in an organization, may help HRD professionals identify
patterns or changes in workers’ perceptions regarding the factors influencing promotions.
HRD professionals may then be able to implement appropriate interventions to prevent
burnout of organizational values and norms. Learning and development intervention can
generate awareness among managers about non-relevant factors affecting their promotion
552 M. Sharabi
Downloaded By: [MALMAD] At: 11:59 8 November 2008
decisions. With such intervention, managers should be able to focus on objective criteria
regarding promotions to the mutual benefit of the company and the workers.
The aims of the final research (after expanding the survey) beyond examining the
factors influencing promotions according to managers and workers are: (a) discovering
how demographic variables (age, gender, education, etc.) influence promotion factors
perceptions and (b) discovering how different the perceptions are of high tech workers
compared to non-high-tech (private and public) workers, while referring to the different
cultures and values of the organizations. Promotion considerations in different types of
organizations should provide more insight on the subject.
References
Baptiste, R.N. 2008. Tightening the link between employee wellbeing at work and performance: A
new dimension for HRM. Management Decision 46, no. 4: 284–309.
Baruch, Y., and E. Rosenstein. 1992. Career planning and managing in high tech organizations.
International Journal of Human Resource Management 3, no. 3: 477–96.
Blumen, O., and S. Hareli. 2006. How children feel about their fathers’ work in the hi-tech sector.
International Journal of Work Organization and Emotion 1, no. 4: 317–35.
Bonnie Bei, Y., and P.E. Carolyn. 2005. Human resource management practices and affective
organizational commitment: A comparison of Chinese employees in a state-owned enterprise
and a joint venture. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 43, no. 3: 332–60.
Bore, M. 1997. Promotion as a tool for organizational planning. Human Resources 112: 12–13.
Chun-Hsien, L., H. Mu-Lan, and L. Nai-Hwa. 2006. The impacts of benefit plans on employee
turnover: A firm-level analysis approach on Taiwanese manufacturing industry. International
Journal of Human Resource Management 17, no. 11: 1951–75.
Deondra, S.C. 2006. Human-resource professionals’ perceptions of organizational politics as a
function of experience, organizational size, and perceived independence. The Journal of Social
Psychology 146: 717–32.
Eagleson, G., R. Waldersee, and R. Simmons. 2000. Leadership behavior similarity as a basis of
selection into a management team. British Journal of Management 36: 319–48.
Eby, T.L., D.T. Allen, and A. Brinley. 2005. A cross-level investigation of the relationship between
career management practices and career-related attitudes. Group and Organization Management
30, no. 6: 565–97.
Fairris, D. 2004. Internal labor markets and worker quits. Industrial Relations 43, no. 3: 573–94.
Fenwick, T., and L. Bierema. 2008. Corporate social responsibility: Issues for human resource
development professionals. International Journal of Training and Development 12, no. 1: 24–35.
Harpaz, I., and I. Meshoulam. 2004. Differences in the meaning of work in Israel: Workers in high-
tech vs. traditional work industries. The Journal of High Technology Management Research 15,
no. 2: 163–82.
Invest in Israel. 2008. Jerusalem: Ministry of Industry Trade and Labor, Foreign Trade
Administration, Investments Promotion Center.
Jackson, S.E., and R.S. Schuler. 2000. Managing human resource. NY: South-Western College
Publication.
James, E.H. 2000. Race-related differences in promotions and support: Underlying effects of human
and social capital. Organization Science 11, no. 5: 493–508.
Kunda, G. 2006. Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Lincoln, J., and A. Kalleberg. 1996. Commitment, quits, and work organization in Japanese and US
plants. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 50, no. 1: 39–60.
Markham, W.T., S.L. Harlan, and E.J. Hackett. 1987. Promotion opportunity in organizations:
Causes and consequences. In Research in personal and human resource management, ed. G.R.
Ferris and K.M. Rowland, 223–87. Greenwich, CT: JAUI Press.
McKay, C.S. 2004. Securing commitment in an insecure world: Workers in multinational high-tech
subsidiaries. Economic and Industrial Democracy 25, no. 3: 375–410.
Pasternak, S., and M. Zaritzky. 2003. International women’s day 2003. Jerusalem: The Central
Bureau of Statistics-Israel.
Human Resource Development International 553
Downloaded By: [MALMAD] At: 11:59 8 November 2008
Powell, G.N., and D.A. Butterfield. 1994. Investigating the ‘glass ceiling’ phenomenon: An empirical
study of actual promotion to top management. Academy of Management Journal 37, no. 1: 68–
86.
Saporta, I., and M. Farjoun. 2003. The relationship between actual promotion and turnover among
professional and managerial-administrative occupational groups. Work and Occupations 30, no.
3: 255–80.
Sharabi, M., and I. Harpaz. 1998. Changes in work values: A glance into a changing reality [in
Hebrew]. Human Resources 128: 22–5.
———. 2002. Period, life-course and cohort effect on work goals in Israel [in Hebrew]. Work, Society
and Law 9: 43–64.
———. 2007. Changes in work centrality and other life areas in Israel: A longitudinal study. Journal
of Human Values 13, no. 2: 95–106.
Shore, T.H., L.M. Shore, and G.C. Thornton. 1992. Construct validity of self and peer evaluations
of performance dimensions in an assessment center. Journal of Applied Psychology 77, no. 1: 42–
51.
Singh, V., S. Kumra, and S. Vinnicombe. 2002. Gender and impression management: Playing the
promotion game. Journal of Business Ethics 37, no. 1: 77–89.
Statistical Abstracts of Israel – 2002. 2002. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics.
Taniguchi, M. 2006. Succeeding where others fail to try: A case study of diversity management in the
Japanese retail sector. Career Development International 11, no. 3: 216–29.
Tharenou, P. 2001. Going up? Do traits and informal social processes predict advancing in
management? The Academy of Management Journal 44, no. 5: 1005–18.
Tzafrir, S.S., Y. Baruch, and I. Meshoulam. 2007. HRM in Israel – new challenges. International
Journal of Human Resource Management 18, no. 1: 114–31.
Vigoda, E., ed. 2002. Public administration – the new generation: An interdisciplinary critical analysis.
New York: Marcel Dekker.
———., and A. Drory, eds. 2006. Handbook of organizational politics. Northampton, MA: Edward
Elgar Publishing.
Wertzberger, R. 2001. Women in the Israeli economy – those who influence, participate and are
harmed (presented to the committee for advancing the women’s status). The Knesset-Center of
Research and Information, Jerusalem.
Williams, K.Y., and C.A. O’Reilly. 1998. Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40
years of research. In Research in organizational behavior, ed. B.M. Staw, 77–140. Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Woodhams, C., and B. Lupton. 2006. Gender-based equal opportunities policy and practice in small
firms: The impact of HR professionals. Human Resource Management Journal 16, no. 1: 74–97.
554 M. Sharabi
Downloaded By: [MALMAD] At: 11:59 8 November 2008
