Search results

While the potential for digital innovation (DI) to transform organizational practices is widely acknowledged in the information systems (IS) literature, there is very limited understanding on the socio-political nature of institutional interactions that determine DI and affect organizational practices in social cash organizations. Drawing on the neo-institutionalist vision, the purpose of the study is to examine the unique set of institutional exchanges that influence the transition to digital social cash payments that give rise to new institutional arrangements in social cash organizations.

The paper draws on an in-depth case study of a government social cash organization in Pakistan. Qualitative data were collected using 30 semi-structured interviews from key organizational members and stakeholders.

The results suggest that DI is determined by the novel intersections between the coercive (techno-economic, regulatory), normative (socio-organizational), mimetic (international) and covert power (political) forces. Hence, DI is not a technologically deterministic output, but rather a complex socio-political process enacted through dialogue, negotiation and conflict between institutional actors. Technology is socially embedded through the process of institutionalization that is coupled by the deinstitutionalization of established organizational practices for progressive transformation.

The research has implications for government social cash organizations especially in the Global South. Empirically, the authors gained rare access to, and support from a government-backed social cash organization in Pakistan (an understudied country in the Global South), which made the data and the consequent analyses even invaluable. This made the empirical contribution within this geographical setting even more worthy, since this case study has received little attention from indigenous scholars in the past. The empirical findings showcased a unique set of contextual factors that were subject to BISP and interpreted through an account of socio-cultural sensitivities.

The paper provides practical implications for policymakers and practitioners, emphasizing the need to address institutional challenges, including covert power, during the implementation of digitalization projects in the public sector. The paper has certain potential for inspiring future e-government related (or public sector focused) studies. The paper may guide both private and government policy-makers and practitioners in presenting how to overcome certain institutional challenges while planning and implementing large scale multi-stakeholder digitization projects in similar country contexts. So while there is scope of linking the digitization of public sector organizations to anti-corruption measures in other Global South countries, the paper may not be that straightforward with the private sector involvement.

The paper offers rich social insights on the institutional interchanges that occur between the social actors for the innovation of technology. Especially, the paper highlights the social-embeddedness nature of technology that underpins the institutionalization of new organizational practices. These have implications on how DI is viewed as a socio-political process of change.

This study contributes to neo-institutional theory by theorizing covert power as a political force that complements the neo-institutional framework. This force is subtle but also resistive for some political actors as the force shifts the equilibrium of power between different institutional actors. Furthermore, the paper presents the social and practical implications that guide policymakers and practitioners by taking into consideration the unique institutional challenges, such as covert power, while implementing large scale digital projects in the social cash sector.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the controversial repeal of legislation requiring UK companies to disclose an Operating and Financial Review (OFR). After a lengthy period of consultation and the preparation of a reporting standard, legislation was passed in March 2005 requiring UK listed companies to disclose a separate statement of management commentary, an OFR. In November 2005 the Chancellor unexpectedly and controversially announced the repeal of the OFR during a speech to the largest business lobbying group in the UK.

The analysis draws upon internal, private governmental documents prepared by the Treasury ministry to brief the Chancellor, publicly disclosed as a result of a legal challenge against the repeal decision.

The paper describes how Treasury officials were motivated to seek deregulatory opportunities in order to gain political support for their head, Prime Minister-in-waiting, Gordon Brown. The analysis reveals how the repeal of the OFR was identified as an example of corporate deregulation, and how this perception proved to be misplaced following the reaction to the repeal decision which led to the government reinstating many OFR requirements in an enhanced Business Review in 2006.

The paper draws on the conception of “3-D” power to analyse how a political ideology prevalent in the pre-financial crisis environment came to influence accounting technology with unexpected consequences. Using data rarely disclosed in the public domain, it illuminates the “black boxed” processes underlying regulatory decision making. The paper details how the Treasury were politically motivated to influence corporate reporting policy in the absence of concerted political lobbying, and why this episode of government intervention led to an unanticipated regulatory outcome.

The emergence of climate science denialism in the United States provides a challenge to STS theories of the relationship between scientific expertise and public policy because a situation of epistemic rift occurs: the capacity of scientific consensus to establish the grounds of political debate is broken, and the standard circulation of expertise from the scientists and funding from the state is interrupted. Three mechanisms for the containment of scientific expertise are studied: direct intellectual suppression of climate scientists, industry support of contrarian scientists and policymakers, and cutbacks on government research programs that support climate change. This situation politicizes climate scientists, who are drawn into the public sphere as a counterpublic to the effort to contain the circulation of their knowledge in the political field. Although the strategy of contained expertise has been effective in blocking climate legislation at the federal government level in the United States, it may be losing effectiveness, and an emergent alternative strategy based on adaptation may be coming to replace it. Factors that affect the reduction in the capacity to contain the circulation of scientific expertise are also analyzed.

This paper contrasts research streams in corporate brand management (CBM) with perspectives on corporate strategy (CS). The aim is to examine whether CBM research is as diverse as research on CS and to identify potentially new research perspectives within CBM.

First, the main dimensions to capture approaches and directions in general strategy research are carved out and integrated into a framework for subsequent analysis (strategy descriptor cube). Second, research streams within CBM are clustered into predominating schools. Third, the framework is then used to classify the identified schools, allowing further evaluation. In doing so, an innovative view on the status of and developments in CBM research is provided.

Most schools of CBM are built on rational and prescriptive approaches, while political and emergent conceptions are hardly addressed. Thus, from the strategy-derived dimensions, approaches to CBM are surprisingly homogenous, with only one school diverging from the dominating pattern. A variety of perspectives as found in strategy research cannot be validated for CBM. Alternative conceptualizations to CBM in terms of assumptions about the genesis of strategic directions and the perspective of analysis might provide impetus for progress in CBM research.

The question arises why emergent and political perspectives have not been seriously pursued in the past decades of brand research. Researchers might seize opportunities to be further stimulated from the many faceted research approaches in CS. Further dimensions for description, as well as alternative clusterings of CBM schools, should be discussed.

A broadening of perspectives, including potentially a more attentive reception of agile trends in CBM, might become increasingly relevant for CBM practitioners. As new realities shape the present and future of corporate brand building, new paradigms should be explored and tested.

The corporate brand strategy link is evidently important; however, to date, few papers have such a focus. This is the first paper to apply reasoning and perspectives that have contributed to significant developments in CS research to the current situation in CBM research. It introduces a novel way to analyze and discuss developments between and within CBM schools.

The paper uses theoretical conceptions of power and orchestration to analyse the role of the Corporate Reporting Dialogue on the global standardisation of sustainability reporting.

The paper adopts an interpretive approach and draws on a qualitative dataset derived from interviews, documentary analysis and observation.

The paper traces how the Corporate Reporting Dialogue was orchestrated by the International Integrated Reporting Council, with the objective of aligning sustainability reporting standards, but moved to become a vehicle for orchestrating standards consistent with the recommendations of the Task Force for Climate-Related Financial Disclosure. Collaboration between the Dialogue's five most active bodies forged the blueprint adopted by the International Sustainability Standards Board's vision of sustainability reporting that prioritised reporting only on those socio-ecological issues deemed to materially affect future enterprise value.

The paper explicates the role of collaborative initiatives in the standardisation of sustainability reporting and shows how these initiatives act as vehicles to subtly undermine the GRI position (presented as one standardiser amongst many whose vision appears as an outlier, despite its position as the dominant sustainability reporting standardiser), and establish the prioritisation of a sustainability reporting worldview based on investor-oriented enterprise value creation. The case also draws attention to the specific orchestrators involved in establishing this prioritisation, and reveals the influence of philanthropic foundations. In doing so, it extends our understanding of legitimacy generation in standard-setting by showing how collaborative initiatives offer private standardisers another means to generate input legitimacy for what, in this case, represented a vision of reporting at odds with most sustainability reporting practice. Finally, the paper extends the sites of power to collaborative initiatives and details the mechanisms through which covert power is exercised but also masked where orchestrators use convening power, funding and membership choices to define the boundaries of discussion by influencing who participates, what is on the agenda and what activity is undertaken. Rather than viewing standardisation as a simple pursuit of conquest between individual standardisers, the paper considers how collaboration provides the opportunity for assimilation.

This study aims to examine the (overt) arguments and (covert) myths the Business Accounting Council (BAC) members have used to lobby over controversial accounting issues, such as the application of fair value accounting (FVA) and the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in Japan.

The authors used a content analysis to examine 85 statements included in multiperiod BAC meeting minutes and 68 articles prepared by International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) representatives from Japan.

The results reveal that together with the arguments, myths were created and amplified by opponents of FVA and the Financial Services Agency to hide the latter’s strong regulatory power. They created these myths, using covert stories of the importance of manufacturing activities and tax accounting (for small- and medium-sized enterprises [SMEs]), to oppose mandatory IFRS adoption in Japan and, thus, to maintain vested rights in preparing the Japanese generally accepted accounting principles and Japanese accounting standards for SMEs.

First, this study contributes to the lobbying literature by focusing on the coalition (network) effect of influential stakeholder groups. Second, although lobbying activities have been investigated mostly using comment letters, this study reviews multiperiod BAC meeting minutes and articles prepared by IASB representatives from Japan. Third, the study examines both overt arguments and covert myths, both of which are important in unmasking the fundamental structures of power within influential organizations, such as government agencies and standard-setters.

When will individuals accept or reject systems that subordinate them, when will they take actions that will challenge these status hierarchies, and when will such challenges be more intense, overt, and non-normative? Research suggests that individuals often justify and maintain systems that subordinate them, yet we suggest that there are certain boundary conditions that predict when individuals will no longer accept their place in such systems. We propose a model that examines how multiple factors: A sense of power, emotions associated with power, and perceptions of the system's legitimacy and stability – predict when those in low power will act against authority or when they will act to justify and maintain such systems. We also suggest that the level and type of action taken against a hierarchy changes as more of the elements (i.e., sense of power, emotions, perceptions of the status hierarchy) of our model are present. We predict that the actions taken against hierarchies become more overt and non-normative as more of these factors are present.

The purpose of this paper is to examine organizational perceptions regarding the coaching process as an evaluation tool.

The research method used is a multiple case study based on the author’s work with coached executives in eight organizations in Israel. Texts of 79 coaching encounters with executives, their directors and human resource personnel, were analyzed. Text analysis was performed through a qualitative method.

The research findings provide evidence of the intensity of the coaching practice as a tacit evaluating tool for organizational functioning, in relation to five focusses: the selection of executives for the coaching meetings, the participants’ perception of their participation in the coaching process, the organizational control wishes, how participants deal with organizational supervision and confidentiality.

Research findings are discussed from a perspective of power relations in the organization, and their significance is presented.

The usage of the coaching tool, not only for its original purpose, but also for evaluating and controlling executives tacitly, can hurt the coaching process, and its authenticity.

The concept of “tacit evaluation” was developed for this research, and the concept of the coaching process as a tacit tool of control and supervision can help us to better understand the coaching process, and its covert and overt components.

Megaprojects are seen as vehicles for delivering significant social value. However, megaproject decision-making, which is deeply embedded in networks comprising formal and informal practices involving the exercise of power, can facilitate or hinder social value delivery. Moreover, these decision-making practices are often intentionally designed and executed to remain hidden and so are not easily identifiable but have implications for maximising social value. This paper aims to identify the hidden barriers to social value delivery on megaprojects resulting from the decision-making environment.

Governmentality theory was used to deconstruct the megaproject decision-making environment. The critical realism philosophy was merged with a narrative inquiry approach to analyse the everyday, taken-for-granted practices that resulted in the decision-making outcomes. Data were collected through 22 in-depth semi-structured interviews to uncover stories highlighting the nature of power relations underpinning the decision-making environment of one megaproject in the Asia Pacific region.

Governmentality theory as a lens showed that emergent, informal governing practices blend with formal governance mechanisms, creating a complex mix of overt and covert power dynamics. The findings suggest that the exercise of covert power by project team members through deviant tactics hinders social value delivery. Therefore, understanding the power dynamics that influence the decision-making of project team members is key for maximising social value delivery.

Originality stems from the use of governmentality theory and critical realism to deconstruct and explain the megaproject decision-making environment, enabling observation of otherwise challenging-to-understand, complex and hidden barriers to the delivery of social value. This paper offers a novel way of explaining social value delivery through megaproject decision-making.

This chapter explores how power obtained from societal hierarchies of gender, race, and economic status is covertly used by individuals within relationships, further maintaining systems of stratification. The case of marriage is used to examine how social stratification translates into and is reinforced within even the most intimate relationships in terms of control over decision making. Analysis of in-depth interviews with black and white wives in same-race and interracial marriages illustrates how economic inequality affects who makes what decisions within marriage and how race affects what decisions are made. In the midst of income and racial inequality, socialized gender roles dictate which spouse controls certain arenas versus others. Gender norms operate covertly to affect decision making dynamics through mechanisms of availability, areas of knowledge, and preference.