Search results1 – 10 of over 12000
Sets out to encourage a critical reappraisal of the models and practices of management consultancy. Tracing the historical development of management consultancy, argues…
Sets out to encourage a critical reappraisal of the models and practices of management consultancy. Tracing the historical development of management consultancy, argues that management thinking and practice has been unduly influenced by management consultants who have made use of flawed and increasingly faddish ideas and models. Examining these fads, and the groups who have promoted them, concludes by arguing that managers should dispense with the services of management consultants, and should instead learn to understand the world of work as experienced by their employees.
We argue that change management has become ideological and that by selective use of complexity research has used the imperative for change to further political and…
We argue that change management has become ideological and that by selective use of complexity research has used the imperative for change to further political and economic agendas. We seek to redress this situation by developing a critical perspective on change and a new metaphor, the zone of entanglement, to assist critical analysis of change. Central to our argument is that a dynamic of change is non‐change. In this vein, we show that there are deep, robust and persistent structures that dampen change and which, if recognized, may help in achieving organic change, resulting in positive social transformations.
Through his call to “reverse the lens” in leadership, Shamir (2007) helped trigger the emergence of followership theory as a new field of study in leadership research…
Through his call to “reverse the lens” in leadership, Shamir (2007) helped trigger the emergence of followership theory as a new field of study in leadership research. While followership theory brings exciting new opportunities to leadership studies, it also introduces theoretical and conceptual challenges for researchers. In this chapter we address these challenges by showing how followership can be positioned fully within the leadership construct. We extend Shamir’s (2007) call for a balanced view in leadership by showing how followership theory adds new perspectives on the ways in which we can study leadership as a dynamic, fluid, relational process. The alternative views we present (e.g., position, role, identity, constructionist, and co-creation) approach leadership study from a range of paradigmatic perspectives that allow us to more fully capture the behaviors, interactions, relational dynamics, and processes through which leadership and followership are created and constructed. We conclude by reflecting on Shamir’s legacy as a scholar, and the contributions he made through his willingness to not only open his mind, but also to constructively challenge alternative perspectives and views.
This paper explores graduate students’ misconceptions about qualitative research and demonstrates how a learner‐centered approach can support formative adjustments in…
This paper explores graduate students’ misconceptions about qualitative research and demonstrates how a learner‐centered approach can support formative adjustments in instructional design and delivery of a qualitative research course. Among the qualitative data sources used in the study was students’ work in the course, as well as observations made by the instructor. A two‐stage analysis process, using NVivo software, generated two broad categories of students’ misconceptions: technical skills and design considerations. An examination of the depth of students’ work provided insight into how they approached and corrected misconceptions. Among the implications of these findings is the need for qualitative research instructors to continually anticipate, monitor, and actively respond to students’ misconceptions to counter negative effects of students’ faulty thinking. An instructor who gives little forethought to the issue of systematically and formatively adjusting course content to resolve learning dissonance may be hindering student learning and encumbering the development of future qualitative researchers. On one level, students’ misconceptions become a diagnostic tool to help the instructor correct students’ flawed thinking; on a higher level, an in‐depth exploration of the origins of the misconceptions can engage educators in curriculum reform efforts to promote cross‐curricular building of research competencies. Rather than supporting the divisions between qualitative and quantitative research, graduate reform should promote a learner‐centered systemic approach to formative improvements, thus strengthening cohesion among all forms of research methodology.
“The unexamined life is not worth living” (Socrates). That is, without critically inquiring into the knowledge of life which is well-being and valuable, life is not worth…
“The unexamined life is not worth living” (Socrates). That is, without critically inquiring into the knowledge of life which is well-being and valuable, life is not worth living. Critical thinking questions existing theories and their unexamined and obsessive assumptions and generalizations, constraints, and “best” practices of the prevailing system of management and tries to replace them with more valid assumptions and generalizations that uphold the dignity, uniqueness, and inalienable rights of the individual person and the community. Better outcomes result from asking the right questions than from having the right answers. In the diverse, pluralist cultural environment of today, the promise of a truly generative dialog among Occidental (Western) and Oriental (Eastern) cultures and civilizations holds great hope for the future. Critical thinking (CT) is an “inclusive” thinking system that can facilitate this dialog such that all of us have a meaningful space and place in this universe. After defining CT and arguing its importance for executives, this chapter introduces CT in two parts: Part 1: Various Approaches to Critical Thinking; Part 2: Major Theories of Critical Thinking. Several contemporary business cases will be invoked to illustrate the need, nature, and scope of corporate CT.
Now well into the 21st century, the world’s most powerful organizations’ highest executive levels and boards of directors still fail to represent a diverse collection of people shaped by unique social identity dimensions according to age, class, culture, ethnicity, faith/spirituality, gender, physical/psychological ability, sexual orientation, and more. Offered in this book is an investigation into why a homophily framework, or a similarity-attraction hypothesis, continues to perpetuate leadership by predominantly Caucasian/White males and reinforces barriers that keep qualified people possessing a multiplicity of social identity dimensions from achieving their full human potential.
To understand interactive processes through which discrimination is reproduced in the workplace, social identity theorists explore connections between ways that people create social identity and that organizations become socially constructed. Social identity theory explains how people seek to develop oneness with groups that help them to develop and/or to enhance positive self-esteem – and to better understand how people develop notions of high-status ingroups and low-status outgroups. Both of these frameworks are central to this book’s attention to difference in organizations. Difference is positioned as a positive advance in organizational dynamics; advocating respect and appreciation for multiple and intersecting social identities – not for profitability and other business case reasons – but because it is morally justified to eradicate inequitable and exclusionary practices in organizations. This book offers an introduction to doing difference research by introducing a number of theoretical underpinnings, addressing methodological challenges, and presenting a wide cross-section of numerous bodies of literature which have been attending to difference work. Chapter 1 is divided into subthemes of: applying social identity theory, emphasizing the “center” and the “margin,” managing organizational climate, and avoiding business case thinking and other flawed models by advocating for real diversity.
The purpose of this paper is to propose that conceptions of time and future that are currently in use restrict the possibilities for framing decision making. By privileging the notion of present moment over that of linear time, a more comprehensive framing of what it means to consider what influences our judgements. The ontology of the present moment provides a theoretical context for knowing what we can of the future in a more comprehensive way.
A review of ways of knowing the future that extends beyond linear assumptions of time leads to consideration of anticipatory systems and of the relationship between purpose and causality. It leads further into conjecture that the present moment is more ontologically fundamental than what we customarily refer to as past, present and future.
On this foundation, examination of experience of now reveals a multidimensionality which can include retrocausality, the possibility of the future influencing the present and the importance of latent patterning in determining events.
The notion of the present moment has much in common with second order cybernetics and indicates a possible way of bringing systems thinking, especially boundary critique, to futures thinking and strategic decision making.
Although basically a theoretical paper, the framework does suggest possibilities for redesigning futures practice through using the present moment as a meta‐framing critique technique to reveal more clearly underlying assumptions in both futures studies and systems thinking.
In the context of a world where serious inability to see what is coming is pervasive in management and governance, a fresh look at fundamental assumptions may reveal flawed decision thinking and indicate ways of improvement.