Search results

Purpose – To place contemporary masculinity research in a global context and explore new possibilities for theory and research.

Method – Review of international literature, and life-history interviewing.

Findings – A full appreciation of the significance of world society for gender analysis requires reworking both theory, to incorporate the perspectives of the global South, and research methods, to allow for the impact of global social forces.

Originality: The chapter develops critical perspectives on masculinity studies; introduces theorists not normally included in this field; and presents two case studies from current field research illustrating the interplay between local history and global social forces.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

In his preface to Everyman's encyclopaedia the editor traces the ancestry of such compendia “back via Knight's Encyclopaedia to the great Penny Cyclopaedia published between 1833 and 1843 at the instigation of Lord Brougham by the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, a body which did much in its day to further the education of ordinary men and women”. It's a good idea to brush up one's sense of this social background by re‐reading George Eliot's Middlemarch. Here, at the beginning of Chapter 38, is a typical group of Top Middlemarchers in discussion:

This paper considers parents who misuse substances. The potential impacts of their substance misuse on their ability to parent effectively and safely (parenting capacity) are explored, as are some of the barriers many parents face when attempting to seek treatment for problematic substance misuse. The terms ‘use’ and ‘misuse’ are used interchangeably in this paper and ‘substances’ refers to alcohol, illicit drugs and overuse of prescribed medicines. It is important to make the distinction between parents whose use of substances does not constitute dependency and might be best described as ‘recreational or hazardous’. Such individuals might not seek treatment and estimates of prevalence rates of use among this cohort are difficult as they remain hidden from services. Parents who might already be in treatment services or who might be seeking treatment might be described as ‘problematic or dependent’ although presentation at services is neither necessary nor sufficient to assume that the individual's misuse of substances is problematic or indicative of a dependency. The use of substances is associated with numerous harms to the individual: psychologically, socially, interpersonally and physically, and is a risk factor towards negative parenting practices. The use of substances in itself is not an indication of neglectful or harmful parenting, as many parents who use substances have adequate parenting skills, however, it is more frequently associated as a risk rather than a protective factor when considering potential harms. Most of the research refers to mothers although we are aware that some fathers may have sole parenting responsibility for their children. Parents, in particular mothers, face many barriers when trying to access substance misuse treatment services. When they are in treatment, services often lack the skills and experiences to be able to balance managing child protection issues and engaging the parent in treatment. A full review of the issues associated with parenting and substance misuse is beyond the scope of this paper and the reader is referred to Fowler (2003), Cleaver et al (1999), Velleman and Templeton (2007) and Day and George (2005) and the British Psychological Society's Child Protection Portfolio (2007) for further discussion.

When the Covid-19 pandemic struck some organizations were more vigilant and better prepared to absorb the shock and are emerging stronger. This article describes the best practices of these vigilant organizations that enabled them to be more adept at anticipating whatever surprises are coming next.

The article describes the four ways that vigilant firms are distinguished from their under-performing vulnerable rivals.

Vigilant firms practice: A strong commitment to processes that promote vigilance. 10;9;They invest in foresight activities. They deploy flexible and adaptive strategy-making processes. They coordinate and share information across organizational silos.

Vigilance is rewarded when an organization is able to move faster than rivals once the ambiguities shrouding the weak signals of potential threats or nascent opportunities are clarified.

The practices of the vigilant organizations enable them to be more adept at anticipating whatever surprises are coming next, a crucial capability in the current and post-covid era.

The case of Philips Lighting shows how management coped with the ambiguous but real threats and opportunities of a highly disruptive emerging technology using three insight-producing approaches: 10; 10;∙9; Probe and learn widely. 10;∙9; Explore creative hypotheses. 10;∙9; Develop multiple scenarios. 10;

The case shows how leadership teams can effectively respond when confronted with ambiguous but potentially disruptive signals.

When assessing a potential digital disruption, leaders can begin by probing the latent needs of current as well as potential customers more thoroughly. Once ‘probe and learn’ approaches have surfaced new perspectives and strategic possibilities, the organization should generate context-expanding hypotheses about the meaning and consequences of various weak signals.

A limited number of disparate scenarios, clearly organized around a few pivotal uncertainties, provide leaders with a strategic context for interpreting ambiguous signals.

In the current VUCA environmen, when turbulence is high or major disruption is feared, all leaders need to examine at least one scenario that directly challenges the organization’s current mindset.

The authors map out a work system that was key to Procter & Gamble transforming its innovation practices from a slow-paced, cautious incrementalism toward a leaner, more entrepreneurial model able to make bigger and riskier long-term bets.

Starting in 2016, P&G began “innovating how they innovated”, supported by a strong leadership commitment to working differently.

The newly envisioned future included P&G exploring many smaller scale innovations within and across business units, with quick learning, conducted in close collaboration with consumers and driven by their problems and needs.

Kathy Fish began this initiative by studying what innovation practices had produced “irresistible superiority” in the past.

Describes how P&G, a leading, long-established company instituted a systematic program of changing the system through which the work of innovation gets done. This system has eight action levers that collectively shape a supportive and productive work environment. Taking these actions in a coherent, coordinated fashion at Procter & Gamble, changed the operating environment and the company’s innovators adapted their behavior to the new system.

The crippling lack of attention to potentially apocalyptic alerts also afflicts specific warnings about more common serious threats to the supply chain when there can be no certainty about their occurrence. Instead of mobilizing an organization to prepare for threats, inaction often prevails when leaders filter warning signals through eyes clouded by cataracts of self-deception, myopia and inertia. 10;

The corrective to the preparedness paradox: five attention-getting actions that prompt low-cost readiness for potential disruptions.

The route to preparedness starts when the leadership team is collectively curious about anomalies in the business market, emerging technology or social environment.

Pursuing the significance of an anomaly requires the exercise of curiosity.

The authors offer time-tested ways to improve an organization's attention to potential threats and new opportunities. Their recommended approaches include: learning from good and bad past experience, staying alert to anomalies, narrating credible stories about the future and creating engaging experiences through simulations.