Search results

This chapter identifies that distributed leadership is about sharing power for political pluralism. Distributed leadership has a comprehensive commitment to bringing different groups with different interests, different languages and dialects, different knowledge bases, different metaphysical knowledge and different religions, or no religion, together through provisional agreement on key principals of political pluralism. Marginalised groups may not feel like they belong and may be vulnerable to ideologies that give them a sense of being disconnected from community. Such a position stands as a barrier to political pluralism and shared world views. The situation might be ignored in schools because developing political liberalism through participatory, evidence-informed leadership that is logical, moral and ethical requires time, and agents need to be prepared for such identity work. However, the problem cannot be ignored if community members seek to belong with risky gangs, and are vulnerable to radicalisation, which is very dangerous for them and for their communities. Empowering others may be achieved by developing their capability to ask good questions, and apply collaborative critical thinking for solving social and personal problems. Such empowerment requires shifts from hierarchical teaching of standardised knowledge that is right or wrong to doing the right thing as mature citizens in becoming. The chapter also identifies that it cannot be assumed that leaders are willing or able to distribute leadership, or that doing so would be a panacea for navigating the turbulence faced by their schools to empower societal innovators for equity and renewal. Rather, we concur with Leithwood et al. (2008) who advocate for a thoughtful and purposeful approach to developing leadership for school improvement.

In Chapter 1, a broad overview of the scope of entrepreneurialism in policing and criminal contexts which are broadly positive in nature was developed. In Chapter 2, the scrutiny to cover socio-cultural and organisational barriers to the implementation of entrepreneurial policing are extended. These include police culture, organisational traits such as ‘Machismo’ and ‘Conformism’, the restrictive nature of the police rank structure, the military model of policing, bureaucracy, risk-aversion, anti-entrepreneurialism, anti-intellectualism, the ‘Maverick’ stereotype, and the ‘Questioning Constable’. Many of these elements are of a negative nature and inhibit the implementation of entrepreneurial policing and practices. Also the entrepreneurial organisation and issues such as privatisation, commercialisation, innovation, and technology which also inhibit entrepreneurialism in policing contexts, but which also offer significant opportunities, are considered.

Vertical and horizontal integration has transformed the organization and delivery of health services, with hundreds of systems or networks providing a range of services to regional populations by the late 1990s. The advantages and disadvantages of vertical integration are well known in other industries, with most strategists suggesting that it is inherently less competitive than virtual and other arrangements. This paper explores the advantages of conjoining integrated delivery systems (IDSs) with integrated delivery networks (IDNs). An historical overview of health delivery organization integration illustrates how three external forces — managed care penetration and competitiveness, legislative and reform activity, and anti-trust issues — have determined the various forms of integrated delivery organizations (IDOs). Empirical research comparing the financial performance of hospitals in system versus network organizations generally favors systems over networks. A strategic stakeholder analysis of both IDN and IDS forms of organizations identifies key stakeholders and their interests; classifies the relationships of these stakeholders with the IDO; and assesses the extent to which the array of stakeholder relationships create a benevolent or hostile environment for the IDO. This strategic analysis indicates that networks have more benevolent stakeholder relationships than systems. We discuss the environmental conditions favoring, and the managerial challenges facing, IDOs that embody both systems and networks.