Faculty of Industrial Engineering & Management

of Human Resources at "Of Tov" and Haifa University doctoral candidate in the field of leadership and performance. Crises happen. This is the way of the world; major crises, minor crises, simple crises and complex crises. The business, economic and organizational world is filled with different types of crises, which requires managers to find creative solutions to get out of, particularly because the serious ones do not resolve themselves, and dealing with them incorrectly could complicate the crisis and accelerate the next one. One of the immediate actions taken by administrators in times of crisis is initiating the "tightening of the belt" policy by cutting workers. This is the easy solution, based on the the bottom line of "employer costs" and various related costs. This policy of cutbacks in the workforce is typical to the perception of change and restructuring that an organization must enact as a short-term project which should be executed quickly in order to move on the more pressing matters of achieving business goals. However, in reality, this solution entails considerable damage to the organization, both in the short and long term. It sours the atmosphere, does not necessarily solve the crisis or prevent it and sometimes expedites future crises. Precisely in times of crisis it is important to keep workers and identify the organization's talents in order to strengthen the capabilities of the organization in the long term. Raising the organizational commitment of employees in tough times is a critical means in dealing with shortage of resources. Management acquaints the employees with the company's objectives and its methods of dealing with the crisis. Proper communication through clear messages, maintaining positive personal connections with employees and strengthening their sense of belonging to the organization by developing creative solutions for social cohesion, are significant actions that can be taken which do not entail significant costs, if any, and their value to the organization can be great. In times of recession the best employees will be those to lead the company to business success with their talents and abilities in the difficult and challenging market. Therefore, human resource development should take place during the period of recession, in which the organization aims to extrapolate itself from the crisis and move towards prosperity, and not only in times of growth. At certain times, transferring labor from departments that require cost reduction to open positions in the organization, or to other departments that are backed up, or changing the division of work hours and reorganizing tasks can replace

In recent years, more and more CEOs are discussing "the importance of human capital in organizations" and the need to "develop and preserve human capital". It seems as if managers tend to believe that "employees are an organization's greatest asset" and understand the need for quality workers that will enable the organization to meet its goals and improve business performance. Despite this, strategic thinking regarding human capital in organizations and plans for its development remain uncommon. Many managers believe that they are able to recognize the contribution of the human resource and its impact on the organization's bottom line. However, in practice, when the time comes to budget programs and make decisions the strategy for developing human capital is shoved into a dark corner. Therefore, de facto, the reality does not match the promise. Itzhak Harpaz and Meshoulam Ilan present in their book, "Human Resource Management: A Strategic Approach" a study that included 300 executives, that demonstrates the gap between the perception of employees as an important variable in the success of the organization, and the importance attributed to them in practice by the executive body. Around 90% of executives interviewed for the study, claimed that employees are the most important variable in the success of their organizations. However, when they were asked to rank their priorities based on strategic importance to the organization, investment in employees was seen as less important than customer satisfaction, economic performance, competitiveness and quality of products. If this is the case, how can we explain the contradiction between statements made by CEOs and their strategic focus in practice? The problem may stem from the underdeveloped strategic impact of human resources which has yet to permeate the consciousness of every level of management, explaining why most managers find it difficult to link human capital to the organization's performance. In the book "Investing in People" the writers (Cascio and Boudreeau) clarify the issue and claim that the executive body is lacking economic data to evaluate cost-benefit analysis of human resource programs, by which the value of human capital and its contribution to an organization's profits can be measured. It appears that in many organizations the connection has not been made between data measured by Human Resources Divisions and aspects "of great import" to senior management. What is certain is that capital return on investment (ROI) is not clear. HR managers can innovate by identifying, analyzing and characterizing ways to present data in order to assist the executive body in understanding that investing in human capital equates to a guaranteed return based on logical thinking, measurements and basic financial analysis (instead of settling for satisfaction surveys). This line of thinking has the power to affect a paradigm shift in the importance given to the human resource and in budgeting suitable development programs. A quality system for measuring human resource will enable organizations to logically understand the relationship between investment in this resource and strategic decisions in relation to it. In order to affect this change, HR professionals must adopt the usage of economic language-the language spoken by CEOs – when presenting development plans and work plans. In addition, they must be familiar with basic concepts in areas such as finance, marketing

"At work, you think of the children you have left at home. At home, you think of the work you've left unfinished. Such a struggle is unleashed within yourself." – (Golda Meir) It seems that despite the substantial growth in recent decades of women joining the labor market, women rarely hold positions of authority in many organizations. While the percentage of women at the bottom of the organizational hierarchy corresponds more or less with their relative percentage of the population, their representation decreases the higher up the pyramid one goes. The figures in the country show a clear picture. Studies show that women in Israel constitute only 32.8% of managers in senior positions in corporations. Furthermore, it was found that although women constitute half of the labor force, there are "only six women serving as CEOs in all the companies listed in the TA-100". These numbers signify that progress is very slow when it comes to the percentage of women in leadership positions over the past decade. One can easily transfer blame and declare that we're "held back" up there, but the reality, as always, is far more complex. What, then, is the main obstacle for women? The obstacle that is ignored or at best not taken into consideration is not external but rather internal, inside us. According to Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, we stop ourselves in many ways because we are deterred. We are afraid. We have internalized the negative messages that we've received throughout our lives-messages that tell us to lower our expectations about the achievements we can accomplish. Between you and me, let's face it-this barrier wears us down and obscures what we have already achieved in the field. Researchers dealing with the employment gap between women and men believe that the main obstacle that interferes with full integration and equality of women in the labor market is the need to reconcile the needs of work and the needs of the family. Many women do not want to take on a demanding position due to their desire to balance family life and career. We are afraid. We fear making the wrong choice, we fear being judged and we fear failure. It's hard to admit, but the concept of an ideal worker remains while our conflict regarding work and home has only grown stronger. Many women assume that attempt to do both at the same time would be difficult, if not impossible. We are surrounded by messages that warn us that we cannot remain committed to both family and career. "It's better for children when a mother is at home,"

When you think of a worker's union in an organization alongside management-the immediate association is of a fight between two groups with conflicting interests. The way to achieve a desirable agreement between the parties is usually a nerve-wracking ritual including grumbles, moans, demands, quoting data back and forth, again and again across the table – and this is the best case scenario; strikes and sanctions in extreme cases, all of which have already become part of the usual process of negotiations. In general, employees tend to organize when they feel that they cannot achieve on their own what a professional union can achieve for them by its mechanism and political, economic and social influence. Now, try to imagine the two sides, the employees' union and management, conducting themselves not as rivals but as partners. Discussing issues put forth in good humor, from the view point of a common goal-business growth, reaching new heights for employees and the company's aims. Sounds strange? Not necessarily. Like it or not, organizations find themselves required to negotiate with unions and their representatives. While around the world the trend is of weakening unions, the labor system in Israel, even before the establishment of the State, has always been based on a model of cooperation and negotiation between three parties: employers, employees and the State. In the past year we have seen a growing trend of unions entering companies where organized labor had never stepped foot, high-tech companies like Ness Technologies, SAP and Comverse, insurance companies and accounting firms such as Ernst & Young. Just last week we learned that employees of Strauss Group's distribution center in Acre established an association for the first time and a union. The common denominator: workers were convinced that a collective agreement would provide them organizational protection, advantages and benefits far beyond what the law requires. It seems as if with the establishment of a workers' union, the newly defined relationship with management is immediately characterized as confrontational. "We're not going to give up," is sounded on a regular basis by both parties. Disagreements, disputes regarding interpretation of clauses in agreements, enforcement of new rules and norms by one of the parties without the knowledge of the other, violations of the balance between the parties in the form of sanctions or strikes lawfully or otherwise-all these factors shock the system, balance and stability that existed before the conflict. Management, for its part, remains entrenched behind closed doors hoping that the union will not break them down, all the while making efforts to continue to manage the company as previously done. The surroundings: no

Supporting employees with cancer is a challenging endeavor. You cannot ignore the alarming data that every year the number of cancer patients of working age has increased by tens of percentages. Therapies and new technologies added to medical packages that improve life expectancy of cancer patients, increase in early detection of the disease, and the proposal to raise the retirement age by a few more years – increase the chances of developing cancer while we are working. A report by the National Cancer Registry Department of the Ministry of Health reveals a startling picture of the extent of cancer in the country. Since 1997, cancer is the number one cause of death in Israel with around 200,000 cancer patients. 28,000 new patients join them every year. Every year 11,000 people die of the disease and its complications. According to the National Cancer Registrar, Dr. Micha Barchana, the disease survival rates are about 67% for men and 63% for women. These figures suggest that the extent of the phenomenon requires special consideration and establishment of policy and provision of an appropriate response. While the world is sensible in dealing with the issue, in Israel the matter is mostly ignored. In recent years, more and more companies find themselves in a dilemma that is supposedly on the scale of a "moral dilemma" and that is: whether to raise the issue of workers who have contracted cancer. We recruit them, invest in them, mark them as talents and then they tell us that they have contracted a malignant disease. Most companies in Israel prefer to sweep the problem under the rug. The moral aspect is clear that there is an acute need to help an employee in distress. But what about the business aspect? Financial statements by the European Union and data collected so far have painted a clear picture: there is direct correlation between investment in health and economic prosperity. Organizations that will be able to respond to the challenges of modern morbidity could develop a competitive advantage and enjoy higher productivity. Such a policy would create a positive full circle feedback-when an organization invests more in the health of employees, it will receive a higher return on investment and continue to grow. In addition, in the long term, a healthier population will assimilate a healthier culture.

This work explores the relationship between servant leadership in the service context and the extent to which employees engage in customer-oriented organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Data were collected at two time points from 158 full-time employees, working in 16 branches of a large bank in Israel. The results show that there is a positive relationship between servant leadership and customer-oriented OCB and that this relationship is mediated by employees levels of customer orientation and work engagement. Likewise, the relationship between servant leadership and customer orientation is stronger among employees with low levels rather than high levels of empathy.

A statistical model is a family of distributions, {P θ } θ∈Θ. • X ∼ P θ are the random observations associated with the model. • L X (θ) = P θ (X) is called the likelihood function. • Parametric model: when Θ is nite dimensional (e.g., R 3). • Non-parametric model: when Θ has innite dimension. • Nuisance parameters: the components of θ which are not of interest (e.g., when θ = µ, σ 2 and one is interested only in µ, then σ 2 is a nuisance parameter). Identiability A model P θ is identiable if for every θ 1 , θ 2 ∈ Θ, θ 1 = θ 2 ⇒ P θ1 = P θ2 • The inverse is trivially true, that is: P θ1 = P θ2 ⇒ θ 1 = θ 2. • Identiability means a one-to-one correspondence between Θ and {P θ } θ∈Θ ; It is a necessary condition for the ability to estimate the parameter θ. Sucient Statistic Assume X ∼ P θ. • A function T (X) is called a statistic if it does not depend on θ. • T (X) is called sucient statistic if for every t in the range of T (·), the distribution of X| T = t does not depend on θ. Regularity Conditions {P θ } θ∈Θ is called regular if either of the following holds: 1. P θ is continuous for every θ ∈ Θ 2. P θ is discrete for every θ ∈ Θ and there exists a countable set X = {ξ i } ∞ i=1 such that ∞ i=1 P θ (X = ξ i) = 1, ∀θ ∈ Θ. Factorization Theorem (Fisher-Neyman) If {P θ } θ∈Θ is regular, then T (X) is a sucient statistic if-and-only-if there exist functions g and h such that

Dear Colleagues,

We are currently organizing a Special Issue entitled 'The Complexity of Sustainable Project Management'.

This Special Issue seeks to publish papers featuring novel research on this topic. Modern projects cannot ignore this critical issue and, therefore, project management is faced with unique and new challenges; not only do they need to be fiscally sound, but they also need to be socially and environmentally sustainable. This can be achieved by the adequate management of resources.

Obviously, this is only a partial description of the complexity of sustainable project management, as the concept of sustainability today also includes labor practices, human rights, fair business dealings, social responsibility and consumer issues.

The aim of this Special Issue is to cover the broad range of topics involved in sustainable project management. In the environment sphere, we welcome contributions on sustainable resource use, pollution prevention, and climate change mitigation. Community involvement and engagement is another major factor in sustainable project management, including employee training and skills development, wealth and income creation, and stakeholder management. Important issues in human resource management are work conditions, health and safety.

This Special Issue will focus both on projects that deliver sustainable goods or services and on projects delivered following sustainable processes. Original research articles and reviews are welcome. Research areas may include but are not limited to the following:

Sustainable project management and the business case for sustainability;
Evaluating the impact and integration of sustainability in project management tools and techniques;
Critical factors, best practices and determinants for effective sustainable project management implementation;
Project managers and the tradeoffs between sustainability-related objectives in decision making;
Innovative sustainable project practices and applications.
We look forward to receiving your contributions.

Prof. Dr. Avraham Shtub
Dr. Claudio Szwarcfiter
Dr. Ran Etgar
Guest Editors