Search results

The purpose of this paper is to construct an optimal resource reallocation model of the limited resource by a moderator for reaching the greatest consensus, and show how to reallocate the limited resources by using optimization methodology once the consensus opinion is reached. Moreover, this paper also devotes to theoretically exploring when or what is the condition that the group decision-making (GDM) system is stable; and when new opinions enter into the GDM, how the level of consensus changes.

By minimizing the differences between the individuals’ opinions and the collective consensus opinion, this paper constructs a consensus optimization model and shows that the objective weights of the individuals are actually the optimal solution to this model.

If all individual deviations of the decision makers (DMs) from the consensus balance each other out, the information entropy theorem shows this GDM is most stable, and economically each individual DM gets the same optimal unit of compensation. Once the consensus opinion is determined and each individual opinion of the DMs is under an acceptable consensus level, the consensus is still acceptable even if additional DMs are added, and the moderator’s cost is still no more than a fixed upper limitation.

The optimization model based on acceptable consensus is constructed in this paper, and its economic significance, including the theoretical and practical significance, is emphatically analyzed: it is shown that the weight information of the optimization model carries important economic significance. Besides, some properties of the proposed model are discussed by analyzing its particular solutions: the stability of the consensus system is explored by introducing information entropy theory and variance distribution; in addition, the effect of adding new DMs on the stability of the acceptable consensus system is discussed by analyzing the convergence of consensus level: it is also built up the condition that once the consensus opinion is determined, the consensus degree will not decrease even when additional DMs are added to the GDM.

This book is a policy proposal aimed at the democratic left. It is concerned with gradual but radical reform of the socio‐economic system. An integrated policy of industrial and economic democracy, which centres around the establishment of a new sector of employee‐controlled enterprises, is presented. The proposal would retain the mix‐ed economy, but transform it into a much better “mixture”, with increased employee‐power in all sectors. While there is much of enduring value in our liberal western way of life, gross inequalities of wealth and power persist in our society.

How is strategic consensus formed in top management team (TMT)? Prior literature provides inadequate evidence. A few scholars explore its antecedents from some perspectives (e.g. organizational or team structure) to address this gap but yield confusing results. This study aims to clarify the mechanism to reach TMT strategic consensus and explore both the effect of collective team identification and information elaboration.

Stepwise regression analysis is applied to explore the formation process of strategic consensus by using data collected from 126 TMTs of Chinese firms.

Results show that collective team identification has a positive effect on TMT strategic consensus, whereas information elaboration has a U-shaped effect. Further, the U-shaped relationship between information elaboration and TMT strategic consensus is strengthened by collective team identification.

This study provides a nuanced explanation of the antecedents of strategic consensus in TMT by exploring the effects of collective team identification and information elaboration. Particularly, this study proposes a U-shaped relationship between information elaboration and strategic consensus, which enriches TMT decision-making literature and consensus research. Moreover, by examining the moderating effect of collective team identification, this study articulates why TMT members fail to achieve strategic consensus even when they have sufficiently discussed the task-relevant information.

Following Philip Selznick’s lead in using pragmatist social science to understand issues of public concern we conducted a study of failed innovation in the commercial construction industry (CCI). We find that social heuristics – collectively constructed and maintained interpretive decision-making frames – significantly shape economic and non-economic decision-making practices. Social heuristics are the outcome of industry-based “institutionalization processes” and are widely held and commonly relied on in CCI to reduce uncertainty endemic to decision-making; they provide actors with both a priori and ex post facto justifications for economic decisions that appear socially rational to industry co-participants. In the CCI – a project-centered production network – social heuristics as shared institutions sustain network-based social order but in so doing discourage novel technologies and impede innovation. Social heuristics are actor-level constructs that reflect macro-level institutional arrangements and networked production relations. The concept of social heuristics offers the promise of developing a genuinely social theory of individual economic choice and action that is historically informed, contextually situated, and neither psychologically nor structurally reductionist.

Complex cost structures and multiple conflicting objectives make selecting an appropriate cloud service difficult. The purpose of this study is to propose a novel group consensus decision making method for cloud services selection with knowledge deficit by trust functions.

This article proposes a knowledge deficit-based multi-criteria group decision-making (MCGDM) method for cloud-service selection based on trust functions. Firstly, the concept of trust functions and a ranking method is developed to express the decision-making opinions. Secondly, a novel 3D normalized trust degree (NTD) is defined to measure the consensus levels. Thirdly, a knowledge deficit-based interactive consensus model is proposed for the inconsistent experts to modify their decision opinions. Finally, a real case study has been carried out to illustrate the framework and compare it with other methods.

The proposed method is practical and effective which is verified by the real case study. Knowledge deficit is an important concept in cloud service selection which is verified by the comparison of the proposed recommended mechanism based on KDD with the conventional recommended mechanism based on average value. A 3D NTD which considers three values (trust, not trust and knowledge deficit) is defined to measure the consensus levels. A knowledge deficit-based interactive consensus model is proposed to help decision-makers reach group consensus. The proposed group consensus model enables the inconsistent decision-makers to accept the revised opinions of those with less knowledge deficit, rather than accepting the recommended opinions averagely.

The proposed a knowledge deficit-based MCGDM cloud service selection method considers group consensus in cloud service selection. The concept of knowledge deficit is considered in modeling the group consensus measuring and reaching method.

This paper examines and challenges the embodiment of Japanese decision making in the term ‘ringi.’ A model for attaining decision consensus is developed from existing literature and validated through interviews with Japanese managers. The model incorporates interpersonal process mechanisms into a series of decision stages, from which consensus evolves. The model shows the decision process to be iterative, reverting to previous stages, until issues blocking consensus are resolved. From the behavior patterns identified in the Japanese decision process model, propositions are offered on the implications of western decision theories in Japanese organizations. The adoption of Japanese decision making into western organizations may be limited to the newer team‐based organizations.

The lack of authority of the sponsoring firm in online communities raises questions about how to orchestrate members of an online community in value co-creation. Hence, this study aims to examine how online communities co-create value with community members. The authors draw upon service-dominant logic (SDL) to study two comparable, and yet different, Indonesian firm-sponsored online communities.

The authors build on an earlier systematic literature review and triangulate it with semi-structured interviews of 28 community members and content analysis of over 35,000 online comments. The data collection was conducted from February to October 2018.

The findings revealed that (1) value co-creation in online communities is orchestrated through the fluidity of the online community, which is represented by three mechanisms: consensus-making, consensus settlement and changing boundaries, and (2) the mechanisms can be conditioned by switching firm roles (as a co-creator and facilitator).

The study has enriched the body of knowledge in fluid organisations by explicating three mechanisms, consensus-making, consensus settlement and changing boundaries, that explain the coordination efforts between individuals who have options to participate or not and changing boundaries, that reveals actors' responses in online communities. The mechanisms demonstrate the dynamics of a service ecosystem.

This study offers valuable insights into how sponsoring firms orchestrate value creation in online communities where they do not have full control of participants' reactions. The authors hereby contribute to enriching the understanding of co-creating value with customers in a fluid organisation, such as online communities.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight a series of critical points in the traditional theory (and practice) of ER/IR, in search of a more comprehensive paradigm.

After an introduction based on a literature review, the paper draws on the results of recent empirical research, and particularly of a survey of employment relations in Italian small firms, in order to explore the extent to which practices conform to traditional expectations on the functioning of collectively mediated IR systems.

Through the combination of two dimensions – the representation of labour and the degree of workplace welfare – a typology of ER models in small firms is thus delineated unveiling the diffusion of “anomalous” configurations, in which labour organization and workplace welfare are disconnected from one another.

The research results, which are here instrumentally used as an example of a much broader range of facts and behaviours that challenge the traditional wisdom, disclose a number of implications at theoretical level, that still need to be fully appreciated. They include the need to consider: the structure and composition of resources available to ER/IR actors both within and beyond workplaces; and the conditions for good labour relations also in absence of representation.

The paper contributes to the debate on the possibilities of positive and socially acceptable ways of setting the rules of work in the globalized scenario by focussing not on new, fashionable issues, but on an old problem often neglected by classic studies on industrial relations in the golden age.

Globalization has created conditions in which business has become increasingly global. The combined effect of global business, intense competition, weakening of labor unions, and the inability of national governments to control the negative effects of globalization has created immense difficulties in the formulation and implementation of global labor standards. This research takes an ancient industry with a long tradition of international features and regulations, that is, the maritime industry, as a case study to understand the dynamics associated with the regulation of a global industry. The study argues that J. R. Commons' works at the turn of the century not only give us excellent insights into the creation of global markets and the need for global labor rights protection but also provide us with a solution, that is, the creation of an “authoritative commission.” Finally, the study suggests that there is a need to enhance the role of ILO as a global “commission” to regulate the industry. Presently, the ILO does not have the essential features for becoming such a commission. Therefore, ILO should develop three important characteristics: ability to include new emerging actors, decision-making based on consensus and dialogue, and sanction power to implement its standards. Based on the above principles, ILO can work as the center of a global regulatory regime in the maritime industry. Through its power of sanction, it will implement its standards mainly through states. But, at the same time, it will network with unions and NGOs and all other important actors in the industry at local, national, and global levels to detect and eradicate substandard shipping.

In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report revealed an important increase in the level of consensus concerning the reality of human-caused climate warming. The scientific basis for global warming has thus been sufficiently established to enable meaningful planning of appropriate policy responses to address global warming. As a result, the world's policy makers, governments, industries, energy producers/planners, and individuals from many other walks of life have increased their attention toward finding acceptable solutions to the challenge of global warming. This laudable increase in worldwide attention to this global-scale challenge has not, however, led to a heightened optimism that the required substantial reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions deemed necessary to stabilize the global climate can be achieved anytime soon. This fact is due in large part to several fundamental aspects of the climate system that interact to ensure that climate change is a phenomenon that will emerge over extensive timescales.

Although most of the warming observed during the 20th century is attributed to increased greenhouse gas concentrations, because of the high heat capacity of the world's oceans, further warming will lag added greenhouse gas concentrations by decades to centuries. Thus, today's enhanced atmospheric CO2 concentrations have already “wired in” a certain amount of future warming in the climate system, independent of human actions. Furthermore, as atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase, the world's natural CO2 “sinks” will begin to saturate, diminishing their ability to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Future warming will also eventually cause melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, which will contribute substantially to sea level rise, but only over hundreds to thousands of years. As a result, current generations have, in effect, decided to make future generations pay most of the direct and indirect costs of this major global problem. The longer the delay in reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, the greater the burden of climate change will be for future life on earth.

Collectively, these phenomena comprise a “global warming dilemma.” On the one hand, the current level of global warming to date appears to be comparatively benign, about 0.6°C. This seemingly small warming to date has thus hardly been sufficient to spur the world to pursue aggressive CO2 emissions reduction policies. On the other hand, the decision to delay global emissions reductions in the absence of a current crisis is essentially a commitment to accept large levels of climate warming and sea level rise for many centuries. This dilemma is a difficult obstacle for policy makers to overcome, although better education of policy makers regarding the long-term consequences of climate change may assist in policy development.

The policy challenge is further exacerbated by factors that lie outside the realm of science. There are a host of values conflicts that conspire to prevent meaningful preventative actions on the global scale. These values conflicts are deeply rooted in our very globally diverse lifestyles and our national, cultural, religious, political, economic, environmental, and personal belief systems. This vast diversity of values and priorities inevitably leads to equally diverse opinions on who or what should pay for preventing or experiencing climate change, how much they should pay, when, and in what form. Ultimately, the challenge to all is to determine the extent to which we will be able to contribute to limiting the magnitude of this problem so as to preserve the quality of life for many future generations of life on earth.