Search results

As a sector, higher education is at the low end of innovation rankings. The challenges we face – demographic, technological, political, and pedagogical – will require sustained innovation at a strategic level. Recent research with mature companies has identified exemplars in strategic innovation (e.g., O’Connor, Corbett, & Peters, 2018). This work explores whether – and how – higher education institutions might adapt insights from the corporate sector for strategic innovation in teaching and learning.

The introductory section provides an overview of the nature of strategic innovation (and why it is hard to sustain), strategic issues facing higher education, and the status and challenges of sustaining strategic innovation for teaching. The next two sections describe insights from research with corporate exemplars of sustaining strategic innovation. Each section uses a scenario from higher education as a proof-of-concept test to explore the application of the corporate sector insights for strategic innovation in higher education teaching and learning.

The final section of the chapter discusses the planned next steps to prototype and test adaptation of these corporate sector insights with institutional innovation leaders in higher education, as well as additional potential sources of insights (from other research in the corporate sector and from strategic innovation in the public sector).

The current scenario of higher education is undergoing a paradigm shift due to, among other factors, globalization, internationalization, cross border exchange of students and student mobility. This socioeconomic change has prompted educational institutions to brace themselves to deliver education in new ways. The authors are living in an age marked by information revolution where the phenomena of physical distance have shrunk giving way to online education and other innovative pedagogies. With the advent of new ways to teach and learn, education the concept of autonomy, accountability and responsibility has become the new buzz words in academia. Universities need to be more flexible and incorporate the needs of society into their mission and vision. Since education at all levels has become a key driver in economic and social development, universities must reorient their focus on the needs of society and the economy. Autonomy in governance and management in education has become the prerogative of higher education institutions and optimum allocation and use of resources have become one of the chief aims of all higher education institutions.

This book explores the creation of knowledge and its dissemination in order to create significant impacts in society. The chapters talk about the highly competitive education market and the transformation it has undergone. Authors from across the globe have suggested interventions that will help in sustainable growth of universities while enhancing quality standards. The chapters present a better understanding of a philosophy of management, society, development and education.

In this paper we develop an integrated model identifying the key factors involved in managing exploratory innovation processes while also maintaining current business models and processes.

We first characterize the problem of innovation as consisting of “the four central problems” organizations face when trying to manage innovation processes (Van de Ven, 1986). We develop an enhanced version of O’Connor’s (2008) Discovery, Incubation and Acceleration (DIA) model by integrating elements of Sanchez’ (2012) theory of architectural isomorphism as well as Markides’ (2008) framework for strategically assessing the benefits of segregation versus integration of innovation processes. We develop and apply our model working with managers in two company contexts to assure the ability of our Integrated Model to identify key organizational and strategic variables that need to be recognized and managed in order to sustain successful exploratory innovation processes.

Reviews of our “Enhanced Integrated Model” with managers in the two companies suggest that our model would help them to recognize and manage key issues that were not addressed adequately in their prior efforts at exploratory innovation.

Our model building process provides a basic template for other research focused on developing normative management models through case-based research. The specific elements included in our Enhanced Integrated Models should provide managers with a useful model for managing exploratory innovation processes.

Articulation of a vision is commonly held to be a critical component of theories of outstanding leadership – both transformational and charismatic leadership. Although there is reason to suspect that vision contributes to leader performance, less is known about the nature and origin of viable visions. In the present chapter, we argue that leaders’ visions can be viewed as a prescriptive mental model reflecting beliefs about the optimal functioning of an organization. To test this proposition, outstanding leaders possessing two contrasting types of prescriptive mental models were identified: ideologues whose models stress the maintenance of extant standards and charismatics whose models stress adaptive change. These two types of prescriptive mental models were associated with distinct patterns of leader behavior in a sample of notable historic leaders. The implications of these findings are discussed with respect to current theories of outstanding leadership.

During the 2020 election cycle, 2,276 super PACs spent over $2.1 billion in federal elections. This chapter argues that changes made to the US campaign finance system brought about by the Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and SpeechNow.org v. FEC (2010) cases have destabilized the American political system by fueling tensions between right-wing and left-wing populist factions and by contributing to congressional corruption. By moving away from the political corruption standard and toward the free speech standard in Citizens United, polarizing wealthy mega-donors and dark money sources have come to play a dominant role in congressional elections. These cases also helped to contribute to a two-tiered campaign finance regulatory structure that distinguishes between campaign contributions given directly to federal candidates and political money contributed to super PACs to support or oppose federal candidates. In the 2020 congressional elections, PACs and super PACS outspent both major party candidates combined in 35 House and Senate races. Super PACs are serving as “shadow parties” by targeting competitive races for the purpose of swaying partisan control of Congress. This study also shows that an exceedingly high percentage of super PAC money is spent on negative advertising that further divides rather than unifies the nation. This chapter also highlights the corrupting influence of congressional leadership PACs and examines how super PACs have enabled foreign and dark money sources to illegally influence congressional campaigns.