Search results

“Shared purpose,” understood as a widely shared commitment to the organization’s fundamental raison d’être, can be a powerful driver of organizational performance by providing both motivation and direction for members’ joint problem-solving efforts. So far, however, we understand little about the organization design that can support shared purpose in the context of large, complex business enterprises. Building on the work of Selznick and Weber, we argue that such contexts require a new organizational form, one that we call collaborative. The collaborative organizational form is grounded in Weber’s value-rational type of social action, but overcomes the scale limitations of the collegial form of organization that is conventionally associated with value-rational action. We identify four organizational principles that characterize this collaborative form and a range of managerial policies that can implement those principles.

Corporate culture is a spirit formed by the shared values of the individuals in the organization that has potential to make the library more than the sum of its parts, both positively and negatively. It is the vehicle by which the organization defines itself, for both itself and the clientele, with the purpose of providing the best service possible by sharing a vision of the organization as an organic whole. It operates through the power of peer influence rather than direct vertical authority. This paper takes a holistic approach to a concept that is more complex than it first appears; it addresses the molding of corporate culture, not as a management function, but as a complex and deep system, being in effect the soul of the organization, which resides in the motivation of each individual and which, therefore, requires a special kind of leadership.

To explore the challenges of worker ownership in complex and distributed collaborative production systems.

Review of emerging developments in the organization of economic production and conceptual exploration of their implications for the ownership regime, and for worker ownership.

Worker ownership research and advocacy usually take for granted what is to be owned: a factory or firm, exchanging on open markets. But this form of production, analyzed in the markets-hierarchy literature, is increasingly in question as more value is generated through flexible cross-boundary collaborations. As a result, the nature of ownership rights are contested from both within and without the business community.

This paper explores some implications of these developments on employee ownership as a practical ideal: what are the main possibilities for the evolution of “ownership” rights in collaborative processes?

Worker owners need to consider their relation to, and distribution of rights among, other collaborative partners, including knowledge contributors and interdependent stakeholders.

Implies a need to move beyond markets-hierarchies frameworks, in which concern is focused on the governance of firms, to building a set of mechanisms for the organization and governance of production networks.

Poses a set of problems for the worker ownership field emerging from the changing nature of production and organization.

To succeed in the 1990s management must be globally‐minded and extremely knowledgeable of the competition. Using new technology within flexible, downsized and decentralised organisations, they must react quickly to rapidly changing markets. Firms will turn to employees for help in improving productivity and quality. Likewise, managers must be more sensitive towards employees. They will offer creative incentives and working conditions to keep employees happy and attract quality employees, which will be in short supply.

The purpose of this paper is to examine through a sensemaking lens the transforming nature of scientists’ work role in public research organizations (PROs), resulting from organizational innovations in the form of collaborative culture.

Based on a symbolic-functionalist theory of work role transition, the paper uses interview data from a case study to explore scientists’ sensemaking of work role change.

Work role transition and identity processes among scientists in traditional PROs reveal tensions regarding organizational restructuring to the extent that organizational innovations are changing scientific work conflict with organizational norms, procedures and reward structures in hierarchical, bureaucratic PROs.

As the paper is based on only one case study, further research should be carried out on the difficulties involved in transforming the nature of the scientific work role and the way scientists recognize, contradict and make sense of changes.

The novelty of this paper is in the un-discussed role of organizational innovations in enabling new work roles for scientists in public research centers and how scientists make sense of and react to these innovations. Therefore, this paper could be beneficial for PROs facing pressure to restructure.

This “Rapport” proposes to examine the function and effect of British social law in the context of the employment/unemployment debate. This debate is a most significant one for it has not only British, but also European and International dimensions.

Bureaucracy has reached its limits. The simplicity and power of top‐down, rule‐based administration created competitive advantage in the past, but blocks the responsiveness and continuous innovation that are the keys today. That is why “teamwork” and “empowerment” are seen almost everywhere as the road to success. But middle managers increasingly report that these changes increase bureaucracy and organizational politics. Their experience is that the organizations they work in have become more rule‐bound and narrowly focused rather than less, and less entrepreneurial rather than more. What has gone wrong?