Search results

To demonstrate transparency and accountability, the three boards in this study are required to meet in public in front of an audience, although the boards reserve confidential issues for discussion in private sessions. This study examines boardroom public accountability, contrasting it with accountability in board meetings held in private. The study adopts Erving Goffman's impression management theory to interpret divergences between boardroom behaviour in public and private, or “frontstage” and “backstage” in Goffman's terminology.

The research observes and video-records three board meetings for each of the three boards (nine board meetings), in public and private. The research operationalises accountability in terms of director-manager question-and-answer interactions.

In the presence of an audience of local stakeholders, the boards employ impression management techniques to demonstrate accountability, by creating the impression that non-executive directors are performing challenge and managers are providing satisfactory answers. Thus, they “save the show” in Goffman terms. These techniques enable board members and managers to navigate the interface between demonstrating the required good governance and the competence of the organisations and their managers, while not revealing issues that could tarnish their image and concern the stakeholders. The boards need to demonstrate to the audience that “matters are what they appear to be”, even if they are not. The research identifies behaviour consistent with impression management to manage this complexity. The authors conclude that regulatory objectives have not met their transparency aspirations.

For the first time, the research studies the effect of transparency regulations (“sunshine” laws) on the behaviour of boards of directors meeting in public. The study contributes to the embryonic literature based on video-taped board meetings to access the “black box” of the boardroom, which permits a study of impression management at board meetings not previously possible. This study extends prior impression management theory by identifying eleven impression management techniques that non-executive directors and managers use and which are unique to a boardroom context.

A sense of collective free-thinking with tangible goals makes co-creation an enlightening experience. Yet despite the freedom and organic flow of the methodology, there remain barriers to deploying co-creation in the real-world context. The aim was to understand the barriers and solutions to co-creation, reflect on applying co-creation in practice and co-create an applicable framework for co-creation.

These reflections and conceptual developments were completed using a Participatory Action Research Approach through the co-creation of the Erasmus+ funded Co-creating Welfare course.

Results presented are centric to the experiences in the United Kingdom but led to application at an international level. Problem formulation led to solutions devised about who should co-create, what co-creation aims to achieve, how to receive management buy-in, co-creating beyond the local face to face context and evaluation.

The Three Co’s Framework is proposed using the outline of: Co-Define, Co-Design and Co-Refine. Those who take part in co-creation processes are recommended to be called co-creators, with less focus on “empowerment” and more about facilitating people to harness the power they already have. Utilising online and hybrid delivery methods can be more inclusive, especially in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The use of co-creation needs to be evaluated more moving forwards, as well as the output co-created.

This paper argues that when incumbent firms counter disruptive threats head-on, they may fail to develop the required new skills. This paper aims to propose an adjacent strategy which proved useful to Fujifilm to counter disruption of its core business of manufacturing photographic film.

The study uses an inductive methodology. Based on a detailed case study of Fujifilm, the study proposes two frameworks: for the conditions under which an adjacent strategy is likely to be fruitful and how firms can make the strategy work in their organizations.

The study finds that an adjacent strategy can be useful to firms under specific circumstances. Not only will the strategy help to counter decline in the core business, but it will also open up new avenues of growth. The success of the strategy requires significant efforts in aligning the leadership and the organization, however.

The frameworks proposed in the study can be useful to incumbent firms in many industries as they battle new disruptive business models and players.

The study’s key argument that incumbent firms can leverage skills from their core business is novel. The study also proposes frameworks that can help firms decide whether an adjacent strategy is appropriate for them and how they can implement it.

The study explains why Parliamentarians in the United Kingdom (UK) focused on accountability through data during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as on how data could be used to improve the government’s response to the pandemic.

Understanding the implications of accountability for COVID-19 is crucial to understanding how governments should respond to future pandemics. This article provides an account of what a select committee in the UK thought were the essential elements of these accountability relationships. To do so, the authors use a neo-Roman concept of liberty to show how Parliamentary oversight of the pandemic for accountability was crucial to maintaining the liberty of citizens during the crisis and to identify what lessons need to be learnt for future crises.

The study shows that Parliamentarians were concerned that the UK government was not meeting its obligations to report openly about the COVID-19 pandemic to them. It shows that the government did make progress in reporting during the pandemic but further advancements need to be made in future for restrictions to be compatible with the protection of liberty.

The study extends the concept of neo-Roman liberty showing how it is relevant in an emergency situation and provides an account of why accountability is necessary for the preservation of liberty when the government uses emergency powers.

Governments and Parliaments need to think about how they preserve liberty during crises through enhanced accountability mechanisms and the publication of data.

The study extends previous work on liberty and calculation, providing a theorisation of the role of numbers in the protection of liberty.

Under extensive pressure from normal market competition, frequent technological change and extreme exogenous shock, firms are facing severe challenge nowadays. How to withstand discontinuous crises and respond to normal risks through improving resilience (RE) is an important question worth researching. Thus, drawing on the strategic entrepreneurship theory, the purpose of this study is exploring the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and RE, and combining digitization to discuss the role of digital business capability (DBC), digital business model innovation (DBMI) and environmental hostility (EH).

Based on survey data from 203 Chinese firms, using the methods of linear regression and bootstrap to test our hypothesis. Furthermore, fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (FsQCA) is used to identify previously unknown combinations which lead to strong/weak RE in digital context.

First, EO positively influenced DBC and RE. Second, DBMI promoted RE, DBC and DBMI served as sequential mediators that linked EO and RE. Third, EH positively moderated the effects of EO on RE. Further the study revealed that different configuration of DBMI and dimensions of EO and DBC can explain RE.

The study explains mechanism of RE from perspective of digitization. The conclusion is good for further consolidating strategic entrepreneurship theory, and providing a new frame for firms to build the ability of antifragile.