Search results

The purpose of the research described in this paper is to provide empirical evidence pointing to IT artifacts' contribution to organizational mindfulness.

To accomplish the specified aim, the authors studied how a leading company in the cork industry uses a platform to support the innovation process's ideation phase. This case study took two and a half years, and the research information was collected in documents, meetings, observations and interviews.

The study provides empirical evidence pointing to the funneling of collective attention induced by the studied platform. The use of an innovation platform was engaging the collective attention to the incremental innovation of processes to the detriment of products' disruptive innovation.

The authors’ findings contribute to developing an IS mindfulness theory and designing sociotechnical arrangements that expand organizational mindfulness. The analysis of the gathered research information resulted in a first explanation for the impact of using IT artifacts on organizational mindfulness. The resulting framework emerged as a first step in the effort to develop an IS mindfulness theory, paving the way for developing a methodological approach to support CIOs in addressing the challenges of the digital age.

The purpose of this study is to test the validity of using collective trust as a social indicator of instructional capacity.

A hypothesized model was advanced for the empirical investigation. Collective trust was specified as a latent construct with observable indicators being principal trust in faculty (PTF), faculty trust in principal (FTP), faculty trust in colleagues (FTC), and faculty trust in students (FTS). It was hypothesized that enabling school structure is directly related to the latent collective trust construct and collective trust is directly related to school performance. Data were collected in the spring of 2010/11 from teachers and students in 85 schools in an urban school district in a southwestern state. A partially latent structural regression model was tested in AMOS 7.0.

Results of the measurement model support the theoretical relationship among faculty trust in principal, faculty trust in colleagues, faculty trust in students, and principal trust in faculty. Both directional hypotheses were supported: enabling school structure had a strong, direct effect on a culture collective trust and collective trust had a strong, direct effect on school performance.

The sample consisted of schools in one urban district in the southwestern part of the USA, and collective trust only operationalized the social dimension of instructional capacity.

Regular and consistent measures of collective trust have the potential to improve how administrators at site and district levels manage the implementation of improvement strategies designed to build capacity.

Many theoretical discussions treat trust as a constitutive property of capacity building, but few studies have empirically tested a priori models that specify relationships among structures and processes aligned with instructional capacity, collective trust, and school performance.

The paper starts from the increasing spatial and functional fragmentation of value‐added chains, global de‐regulation and dis‐embedding of “markets”, and interdependencies among the Net‐based digital technologies. It develops a socio‐economic setting with ubiquitous direct interdependencies and interactions, Net‐externalities, “strategic” strong uncertainty, and omnipresent collective‐good and social‐dilemma problems. These entail co‐ordination failures, either in the form of conventional market failure (i.e. collective blockages of action) or of “wrong” or outmoded institutional co‐ordination and, thus, wide‐spread technological “lock‐ins” that are indicative of insufficient ability of collective action. This is particularly true for de‐regulated, individualistic cultures. In contrast, sustainable innovation, used in a broad, i.e. technological and institutional, sense, requires an effective collective action competence. This, in turn, requires a new and increased co‐ordination. Against this background, the global corporate economy has spontaneously developed private individualist substitute arrangements to cope with the new complexity, such as local clusters and hub‐and‐spoke networks, which all have severe shortcomings. With reference to what we call the “Linux” paradigm, the paper discusses the possibility of a spontaneous evolutionary, i.e. collectively learned, institutional co‐ordination through emergent collective action and networks with “good” governance. The paper argues that only a hybrid system that consists of “well‐governed” networks and a new approach towards more comprehensive and deliberate “interactive” and “institutional” public policy, supporting collective learning and emergent institutional co‐ordination, is capable of solving the complexity and co‐ordination problems of the “new” economy by increasing certainty, stability and more continuous and comprehensive innovation. This new policy approach is outlined at the end.

For many of the current leadership theories, models, and approaches, the answer to the question posed in the title, “Is leadership more than ‘I like my boss’?,” is “no,” as there appears to be a hierarchy of leadership concepts with Liking of the leader as the primary dimension or general factor foundation. There are then secondary dimensions or specific sub-factors of liking of Relationship Leadership and Task Leadership; and subsequently, tertiary dimensions or actual sub-sub-factors that comprise the numerous leadership views as well as their operationalizations (e.g., via surveys). There are, however, some leadership views that go beyond simply liking of the leader and liking of relationship leadership and task leadership. For these, which involve explicit levels of analysis formulations, often beyond the leader, or are multi-level in nature, the answer to the title question is “yes.” We clarify and discuss these various “no” and “yes” leadership views and implications of our work for future research and personnel and human resources management practice.

I argue that while group and organizational identity research is gaining in popularity, there has not been sufficient attention paid to explicating what identity refers to at the level of the collective. The goal of this chapter is to ‘disentangle’ various issues associated with the concept of collective identity. To meet this goal, I pose questions that scholars should consider when engaging in identity-related research. I begin by asking, “Is it identity?” Here, I address the characteristics that are central to identity, and that differentiate it from similar constructs (e.g. culture). I then ask, “Is it collective identity?” Here, I address issues of levels of analysis, identity locus and origin, as well as how identity comes to be shared in the collective via socialization and media. I conclude by discussing how identity research can be enhanced by more carefully considering these fundamental questions, and suggest some terms that scholars can employ to make their identity-related assumptions and arguments clearer and more precise.

Even the smartest organizations believe that “good enough is never good enough.” Highly intelligent people may be able to do important things individually; still, it is their accumulated brainpower that allows them to do great things. Collective intelligence means when a group of people do things that seem intelligent. On the other hand, when intelligent people are gathered or hired in an organization, they tend toward collective stupidity and slow-wittedness. Therefore, the purpose of the present study is to develop a model of the factors affecting and affected by collective stupidity.

This study was conducted using a mixed-method approach and in two phases: qualitative and quantitative. First, in the qualitative phase and in order to achieve new findings, semi-structured interviews with experts from 12 knowledge-based companies were used to design a conceptual model and formulate the hypotheses. At the end of the qualitative phase, the conceptual model and relationships between variables were drawn. Then, in the quantitative phase, by running structural equation modeling, the antecedents and consequences of collective stupidity derived from the qualitative phase findings were analyzed and the research hypotheses were tested in 110 industrial knowledge-based companies.

The results of the qualitative phase revealed that individual, group and organizational factors were the antecedents of collective stupidity, with individual factors having three dimensions, collective ones including two dimensions and organizational ones focusing on the characteristics of managers/companies. It was also found that collective stupidity had individual consequences in three dimensions and organizational consequences in five dimensions; and one-sidedness, non-strategic thinking, organizational injustice and weakness in the management of key personnel were extracted as mediators. The results of the quantitative phase confirmed the research model and showed that individual factors and organizational consequences had the lowest (0.037) and highest (1.084) effect sizes on collective stupidity, respectively.

The study of the phenomenon in a particular context and the difficulty of generalizing the findings to other situations, the small size of the study population due to the disproportionate number of experts to the total staff in the qualitative phase, and the limited participation of experts due to the negative nature of the issue in the quantitative phase. Taking advantage of the diversity of experts' mental abilities through equipping the organization with tools for recognizing collective stupidity, improving collective decision-making, enhancing the efficiency of think tanks and organizational prosperity in the age of knowledge economy, preventing damage to the body of knowledge of the company and reducing social loafing can be the main operational implications of this study.

Using a mixed-method approach for analyzing the antecedents and consequences of collective stupidity in this study and examining such a phenomenon in a knowledge-based organizational context and its implementation in a developing country can be among the innovations of the present research. By following a few studies conducted in this field in addition to the organizational pathology of the phenomenon using a fundamental method, this study obtained deep results on how to make the maximum use of experts’ capacities. This was to the extent that in all of the three sections, i.e. the antecedents and consequences of collective stupidity, a new factor emerged.

The goal is to find a systemic information assembling mechanism, which would describe not only a human being's way of organizing the accepted information but also the general information regularities of this process, applied to different information objects.

Mathematical formalism of Informational Macrodynamics is employed for system modeling of the object's regularities and the main systemic mechanisms. The developed systemic assembling mechanism joins a chaotic oscillation of incoming information frequencies, initiating a chaotic resonance, into a cooperative attractor. A chain of sequentially built attractors generates a collective information dynamic network (IN), whose hierarchy models the multiple information contributions. An information structure of the IN node's attractors is memorized by the key‐lock connections of resonance frequencies.

The results indicate that formalized functions of the assembling cooperative information mechanisms represent a general attribute of a system.

A wide area of applications includes behavior analysis, cognition, artificial intelligence, data organization and management, social systems, and education.

The considered results bring together the formal systemic model of the regularities of collective macrodynamics and the mathematical evaluation of a complex individual's behavior in a collective environment.

Knight's Industrial Law Reports goes into a new style and format as Managerial Law This issue of KILR is restyled Managerial Law and it now appears on a continuous updating basis rather than as a monthly routine affair.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the process of collective leadership in emergency management organisations. More specifically, the authors investigate the conditions that enable or prevent collective leadership amongst key actors in the emergency management network in bushfire investigations. We also examine how chief investigators facilitate the conditions to effectively distribute leadership and the role of social networks within this process.

A qualitative case study approach was undertaken, and 18 semi-structured interviews were carried out with chief investigators, 6 at each of three agencies in Australia. A framework for understanding collective leadership (Friedrich et al., 2016) was used to examine key leadership constructs, baseline leadership and outcomes relative to bushfire investigations.

Findings demonstrate that there is no evidence of collective leadership at the network level of bushfire investigations. There is mixed evidence of collective leadership within bushfire investigation departments, with the Arson Squad being the only government agency to engage in collective leadership. The authors found evidence that government bureaucracy and mandated protocols inhibited the ability of formal leaders to distribute leadership, gauge a clear understanding of the level of skill and expertise amongst chief investigators and poor communication that inhibited knowledge of investigations.

The study was limited to three bushfire investigative agencies. A future study will be carried out with other stakeholders, such as fire investigators and firefighters in the field.

For the government, emergency management agencies and other stakeholders, a key enabler of collective leadership within the emergency management network is the presence of a formal leader within a network. That leader has the authority and political ability to distribute leadership to other experts.

The paper contributes to developing a better understanding of the efficacy and challenges associated with the application of collective leadership theory in a complex government bureaucracy. There are positive implications for the safety of firefighters, the protection of the broader community, their properties and livestock.

The authors address the lack of literature on effective leadership processes amongst emergency management agencies. The paper contributes to extending collective leadership theory by unpacking the processes through which leadership is distributed to team members and the role of institutions (i.e. fire investigation bureaucracy) on social networks within this integrative process. The authors provide new insights into the practice of collective leadership in complex bureaucratic organisations.