Search results

This chapter argues that organizations are not sustainable if they operate in unsustainable societal and ecological contexts, and that operating in a way that contributes to the health of the larger system requires organizations to develop new capabilities. It demonstrates the role that rich internal and external networks play in developing sustainability capability particularly in providing pathways to generate, import, apply, and disseminate knowledge about how to operate more sustainably.

The case study of the sustainability transition of Cleveland Clinic is based on four years of interviews and archival data collection examining the system’s transformational change that began in 2007. The case focuses on the building of sustainability capability, including an internal infrastructure to focus the organization on this outcome, and building of rich networks for learning and action. The case is framed with capability and network theory.

Guided and catalyzed by a small central group called the Office for a Healthy Environment, Cleveland Clinic has achieved measurable progress in key strategic focuses including waste diversion, energy efficiency, and increasing integration of local foods into its supply chain. To do so, it has developed strong internal networks to disseminate knowledge and accelerate innovation and adoption of sustainable practices. Strong, dynamic external networks have enabled Cleveland Clinic to import knowledge about sustainable practice from its environment, and have enabled it to help build the sustainability capability of its vendors, the community upon which it depends, and the health-care industry.

Starting with the perspective that the sustainability of an organization depends on the sustainability of the ecosystems in which it exists, this chapter focuses not on the design of specific sustainability initiatives, but on the dynamic networks that underpin the capability to simultaneously improve the health of the organization and of the larger ecosystem. This perspective provides insight into new organizing principles.

IN the newspapers, on the radio and television railways have been a topic on which differing views have been expressed. There have been suggestions that a Government subsidy might ease the problems.

However, as the result of recent research, information has been accumulating which points to the fact that all anti‐rachitic agents are not utilised by the body in the same relative proportions. For instance, from the clinical standpoint it has been shown by Hess and his co‐workers (1933) that more anti‐rachitic units were required to prevent or cure rickets in children when ciosterol (irradiated ergosterol) was used than when cod liver oil was the method of administration. These clinical findings have found support from animal experiments. Thus, in work with chickens it was demonstrated that 100–200 times the number of units was required if irradiated ergosterol was used instead of cod liver oil.

In this chapter, I propose an integrative framework for theorizing and empiricizing about talent management, based on the notion of “talent philosophies.” I believe that current debates about whether talent management should be inclusive or exclusive create the risk that our field will become fragmented, thereby undermining its social-scientific legitimacy. Nonetheless, this debate is absolutely correct in identifying the tensions between inclusive and exclusive approaches to talent management as a phenomenon. This, however, creates issues for talent management as a construct for scientific inquiry, as we need clear definitions and measures to create a cumulative body of research as a community. I propose that the solution lies in an expansion of our vocabulary as talent management researchers and identify four constructs that can help us structure and categorize our collective work: giftedness, talent, potential, and strength. Each of these constructs map logically onto different talent philosophies and talent management practices. In establishing “unity in diversity,” I believe talent management could finally make the transition into a more mature field of academic inquiry – although clearly phenomenon driven – characterized in equal parts by construct clarity, rigor, and relevance.

IN the Coventry tragedy, the central (Gulson) library was destroyed. Although not a library of the largest size, it was a considerable one, built up with the greatest skill, foresight and devotion by at least four of the best librarians of modern times, backed by a good committee for a generation. Three of these librarians have since commanded the largest municipal libraries of Great Britain.

Reference librarians in various library settings are often assigned responsibilities for training students, support staff, or other new professionals, a task for which they rarely have sufficient professional education. This bibliography recommends readings on topics that will assist reference librarians in understanding the philosophy of staff development. The readings listed here cover subjects such as: establishing an atmosphere that facilitates learning, assessing training needs, describing competent performance, writing clear and specific objectives, selecting appropriate training methods, maintaining skills and providing feedback, and evaluating the effectiveness of a training program.

In the knowledge economy, greater togetherness is the prerequisite for innovating and having more: selflessness extends scope while selfishness increases limitations. But human beings are not automatically attracted to innovation: between the two lies culture and cultural values vary widely, with the egoistic accent or the altruistic intonation setting the scene. In the representations of open innovation we submit to the reader’s attention, selfishness and selflessness are active in the cultural space.

Popularized in the early 2000s, open innovation is a systematic process by which ideas pass among organizations and travel along different exploitation vectors. With the arrival of multiple digital transformative technologies and the rapid evolution of the discipline of innovation, there was a need for a new approach to change, incorporating technological, societal and policy dimensions. Open Innovation 2.0 (OI2) – the result of advances in digital technologies and the cognitive sciences – marks a shift from incremental gains to disruptions that effect a great step forward in economic and social development. OI2 seeks the unexpected and provides support for the rapid scale-up of successes.

‘Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come’ – this thought, attributed to Victor Hugo, tells us how a great deal is at stake with open innovation. Amidon and other scholars have argued that the twenty-first century is not about ‘having more’ but about ‘being more’. The promise of digital technologies and artificial intelligence is that they enable us to extend and amplify human intellect and experience. In the so-called experience economy, users buy ‘experiences’ rather than ‘services’. OI2 is a paradigm about ‘being more’ and seeking innovations that bring us all collectively on a trajectory towards sustainable intelligent living.