Search results

We live in times of increasing dynamism in the natural, social and business environments; with such dynamism comes fear, uncertainty and doubt. As a result the discipline of risk management is in the ascendancy. In a recent influential report the UK’s Royal Society called for research into the role that organization design plays in risk management. Defines a theoretical framework that is being used to investigate a part of that relationship: the link between risk management strategy and organizational behaviour. Organizations are identified with either a proactive or a reactive approach to risk management. The research issue is whether the “choice” of approach is dependent on organization structure or is it independent? Does structure determine the approach or does the approach determine the structure? What other factors play a role? The critical factor of risk perception in managers and its impact on implementation strategy is considered. The types of risk strategy an organization follows and its structure are defined using various measures of distinct factors. By establishing the nature and cause of relationships between the measures and factors, the relationship between organizational approaches to risk and organization structure may be identified. Describes a method for evaluating this relationship.

The paper's purpose is to identify the inappropriateness of the current model of regulation of corporate governance, which applies worldwide; and inherent paradoxes in the five areas of best practice in corporate governance.

This is a review paper building new conceptualization for research into governance. The paper identifies the origins of the issues with weaknesses in the ontological and epistemological base for theorizing about corporate governance and its regulation. It suggests an alternative theoretical basis, identifying ways forward for developing theoretically aligned best practice along with regulation that properly reflects the complexity of the post‐modern business world.

The paper calls for a fresh approach to governance theorizing for regulation and best‐practice through considering governance praxis rather than structure and the reconceptualization of governance as a process of systematically balancing out tensions in order to effect good governance.

Governance research and regulation requires reframing so that good theory can improve practice.

The paper goes against the conventional wisdom in governance research, falling in with more advanced thinking for practice‐based studies of organising.

We report field research undertaken in five sites in New Zealand in which we explored the process of tourists’ in-destination decision-making. We then critique our experiences of conducting this project.

The paper starts with a description of a risk management model more suited to the current business environment. Key to the introduction of the model is the success of organizational communication and culture. Aspects of culture are explained using cultural theory. This is followed by a discussion of the critical role of communication, and the theory of the social amplification of risk is presented and analysed. From here the paper moves to the development of a framework explaining communications behaviour during crisis. The notions of structural distortion and communications degradation during crises are used to explain behavioural (cultural changes) distortion. Total risk management is presented as a notional solution to these problems.

This article provides a critical appraisal of the relevance of conventional management inquiry to management, and a proposal to use the critical management paradigm to develop genuinely relevant management studies.

Discusses the relevance of conventional management inquiry to management.

Conventional management inquiry closely mirrors scientific inquiry, with strict adherence to scientific method in pursuit of “objective” and rigorous empirical evidence or “proof” of specific and universal managerial truths. The products of this research are published via a machine bureaucracy that reinforces the hegemony of science. However, some academics have expressed concern that there is little uptake in commerce of “new” management ideas, and that practising managers have little or no interest in academic research. Based on 20 years experience of commerce and academe the author explores the underlying reasons for the failure of management academe to be taken seriously by managers.

The article proposes the need for a more applied and critical direction to management research. Some ideas for research are presented at the end of the piece, but the main message is that all management research should be more timely and relevant to practitioners' issues in the daily task of management.

The article is a commentary on the principles on which management should be studied (and to a lesser degree on how these studies should be published). As such it is difficult to suggest any implications for management practitioners. That said the author would advise management practitioners involved in the funding of research to question the relevance of research themes and conventional responses to them. There guidelines drawn for academic practitioners.

Similar ideas on “relevance lost” have been presented previously. However, the arguments have been lost in an academic hegemony that reinforces the requirements for a strictly scientific approach to the study of management. The original proposition of this article is one of the outliers of this approach, critical management theory, should take centre stage in ensuring relevance.

Describes a study of trends in the use of keywords (risk, hazard and crisis) in the media having accessed a large commercial on‐line database for this purpose. Allowing for several assumptions, finds mainly rising trends in the usage of each of the keywords, and in the proportion of articles classified under related categories (insolvency, terrorism, environment/ecology, and air transport crash).