Search results

This chapter explores a relatively underresearched assumption in the diversity literature, namely, that more variety in demographic characteristics, educational or functional backgrounds, or hierarchical status in the workforce represents a wider repertoire of perspectives, approaches, and ways of thinking. Using data from members of innovation teams across 27 organizations in 11 industries (for which variation in thinking should be highly valued), we explore at the individual level whether people with different demographic and informational backgrounds evidence differences in ways of thinking which we define in terms of cognitive styles, learning styles, cultural orientations, and communication preferences. We find large differences in ways of thinking due to culture and communication preferences but modest and limited differences in ways of thinking by level and type of education, occupational function, and hierarchical status. We find few differences by gender. The findings raise questions about the frequently repeated claims that categorical and informational diversity among organizational members reflects differences in ways of thinking.

In the current context of increasing awareness about dramatic societal challenges, a growing number of businesses, including both small enterprises and large corporations, are increasingly embracing more socially oriented behaviors and aligning their innovative strategies and business models to address specific societal needs. Widespread expectations toward more inclusive and sustainable forms of entrepreneurship are determining the need to prioritize objectives toward individuals, society, and stakeholders, beyond mere profit. This study advocates a human-centered perspective in entrepreneurial theory, recognizing human capital’s relevance in the contemporary economic landscape.

Employing a qualitative approach, the authors investigated 17 Italian innovative start-ups with a strong social orientation. Through the Gioia methodology, the authors examined the antecedents of three dimensions within the humane entrepreneurship framework – Sustainable Orientation, Entrepreneurial Orientation, and Human Resources Orientation – and their role in fostering Humane Entrepreneurial Orientation. Innovative start-ups’ outcomes reveal that three antecedents – namely, prior engagement in voluntary activities, connections within the local community, and adept relational skills – exert influence on the development of humane entrepreneurship.

Transdisciplinarity was the core subject of a special issue of Futures in 2004 including numerous cases of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary architectural and urban research and professional practice in several countries. This paper takes stock of achievements during the last 20 years before presenting challenges about bridging persistent gaps between theory, research and practice.

The special issue of Futures is a benchmark for numerous publications about transdisciplinarity in and beyond the multidisciplinary and intersectoral field of built environments. This paper presents a narrative literature review of publications about transdisciplinarity in architecture, urban design and planning since the 1970s.

Transdisciplinarity is still being debated, is often contested, and is not mainstream in research or practice. Like design practice, transdisciplinary inquiry is a creative process involving border work by participants in collaborative projects. Transdisciplinary inquiry is broader in scope and purpose than public participation, participatory action research and team science.

This paper discusses challenges that should be addressed by those in the field of built environments who endorse transdisciplinarity. Based on a half century of contributions about design theory and methods, the paper differentiates inquiry from research as fundamental to transdisciplinary projects.

Organizational scholars studying compensation often place an emphasis on certain employee groups (e.g., executives). Missing from this discussion is research on the compensation systems for low-wage jobs. In this review, the authors argue that workers in low-wage jobs represent a unique employment group in their understanding of rent allocation in organizations. The authors address the design of compensation strategies in organizations that lead to different outcomes for workers in low-wage jobs versus other workers. Drawing on and integrating human resource management (HRM), inequality, and worker literatures with compensation literature, the authors describe and explain compensation systems for low-wage work. The authors start by examining workers in low-wage work to identify aspects of these workers’ jobs and lives that can influence their health, performance, and other organizationally relevant outcomes. Next, the authors explore the compensation systems common for this type of work, building on the compensation literature, by identifying the low-wage work compensation designs, proposing the likely explanations for why organizations craft these designs, and describing the worker and organizational outcomes of these designs. The authors conclude with suggestions for future research in this growing field and explore how organizations may benefit by rethinking their approach to compensation for low-wage work. In sum, the authors hope that this review will be a foundational work for those interested in investigating organizational compensation issues at the intersection of inequality and worker and organizational outcomes.

The detrimental effects of increased workloads and high-stakes accountability that impact on teachers’ job satisfaction and wellbeing have been well documented in the international literature (Holloway et al., 2017; Perryman et al., 2011). This chapter will explore the factors which influence staff mental health and wellbeing in schools. The authors unpack issues of burnout, job satisfaction and teacher attrition. The authors consider the concept of teacher resilience by situating resilience within a socio-ecological framework. Specifically, the authors draw on Greenfield’s (2015) model of teacher resilience. The authors draw on our own research to explore the relationship between staff wellbeing and student wellbeing (Glazzard & Rose, 2020). In addition, the authors consider the specific issues related to the wellbeing of school leaders.