Search results

This paper aims to develop a model of collective innovation, with respect to innovation strategy, structure and culture in heterarchies. The enabling of collective innovation in heterarchies is conceptualised as “responsible exposure”.

A study adopting cross-case analysis was undertaken with five organisations perceived to have heterarchical characteristics. These included one small company, two medium-sized companies and two larger companies, all were European. Data from semi-structured interviews, a survey of staff and other sources provide evidence of collective innovation practices.

The cross-case analysis suggests that the management of collective innovation is different from “classic” innovation management. It is more about enabling “responsible exposure” than the management of “shelter” for collective innovation.

The strength of cross-case analysis and conceptual framework validation is limited by the cases being all from the European region.

What strategy, structure and culture for “responsible exposure” may mean can be described. Heterarchies will always be relatively rare, though lessons from how they enable collective innovation can be more widely learned. Lessons for the wider population of organisation that combine hierarchical and heterarchical characteristics and seek greater innovation are identified.

Collective innovation, which requires “responsible exposure” has implications for the capabilities of managers and professionals concerned with innovation.

The cross-case analysis of innovation in heterarchies is original, leading to the description of a model of “responsible exposure” for collective innovation.

The purpose of this paper is to consider how organizations with diverse, interdependent functions with differing evaluative principles and differing ideas as to which behaviors are the most desirable, use management controls in their efforts to achieve innovation.

The authors conducted a case study of TechCo, an Australian technology start-up company, over a 12 month period.

The authors demonstrate how the clash of differing evaluative principles among interdependent teams led to the organization seeking new ways of organizing, which in turn, enabled the organization to better manage the interdependencies between the diverse functional areas. Additionally, the findings show how, through the use of management control systems, the organization was able to promote idea generation and “buy-in” across all functional areas, order competing priorities for innovation and set the agenda as to what constituted “acceptable” innovation for the organization to pursue.

The authors find that management controls play an important role in managing the tensions between differing evaluative principles in diverse functional areas in a heterarchical organization, and in supporting innovation in such an environment. As such, the authors provide the first research evidence on how management controls are used within a heterarchy to generate and select innovative ideas.

The purpose of this paper is to question the continued usefulness of the hierarchy of strategies framework and to propose a new approach.

The study reviews extant literature and theorizes a new approach.

The paper finds that the hierarchy of strategies was a useful framework when it was first proposed, but since then a changed business context has made this framework obsolete. What is needed instead is a framework around a heterarchy of strategies. The locus of decision making is no longer hierarchical and corporate, business and functional strategies are far more interdependent and interlinked than they have been in the past.

Research on a hierarchy of strategies has run its course. Future empirical and theoretical work should focus on a heterarchy of strategies.

The paper provides a framework for managers whether from corporate, business divisions or functions to help with the continuous renewal of their firm.

Prior empirical and theoretical strategy research has taken the hierarchy of strategy framework for granted. The original contribution of this paper is to propose an alternative framework around a heterarchy of strategies.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the instructional leadership practices and structure in Singapore primary schools.

The study employs a qualitative approach. Data were collected from interviews of 30 Singapore primary school principals and 25 working-day observations of five principals. A grounded theory method was utilized to analyze the qualitative data.

The instructional leadership roles of principals can be categorized into four key themes: vision development and implementation, physical and organizational structure, professional development, and leading and managing instruction. Importantly, the study illuminates a hybrid structure of instructional leadership in which both hierarchical and heterarchical elements exist.

The current study expands the global knowledge base on instructional leadership by providing indigenous knowledge of how instructional leadership is enacted in Singapore schools. Simultaneously, this study suggests an agenda for future research on instructional leadership.

Discusses the movement away from hierarchical organizational structures towards flatter, heterarchical, structures which is reflected in the growing interest in distributed manufacturing control systems. Traditional hierarchical control systems are limited by the breadth, quantity and timeliness of information needed for their operation. Distributed, heterarchical, control systems overcome these hierarchical limitations but, concurrently, forfeit advantages of the hierarchy including analytically optimal loading patterns and centralized pristine data tracking. Classifies existing research into four categories and documents a progression of heterarchical control approaches to inject some of the advantages of the traditional hierarchy into new heterarchical frameworks. Concludes that neither hierarchical nor heterarchical control structures are ideal in their pure form and, hence, proposes a modified structure, called the quasi‐heterarchical control system, which is a combination of, and a compromise between, pure hierarchy and pure heterarchy.

The transformations in the existing forms of governmentality and power regimes are deeply rooted within the political economy of advanced neoliberalism, having profound implications in the governance matrix. The new rationalities and instrumentalities of governance involve ‘governing without government’ (Rhodes, 1996) following the delegitimisation and deconstruction of the Keynesian Welfare State and the gradual enactment of what Jessop (2002) calls the Schumpeterian Competition State. This chapter throws open the play field for competing standpoints on governing the mega corporates. Various theorists consider that there is emptiness within the existing global regulatory armoury concerning the operational activities of TNCs. The convolution of ‘steering’ in this poly-centred, globalised societies with its innate uncertainty makes it tricky to keep an eye on the fix of ‘who actually steers whom’ and ‘with what means’. There also appears to be huge disinclination to spot systemic technical description of the evolving modern institutional structure of economic regulation in a composite and practical manner. Thus, the complexity of international issues, their overlapping nature and the turmoil within the arena in which they surface defy tidy theorizing about effective supervision.

This brings in the wider questions dealt with in the chapter – Is globalisation then a product of material conditions of fundamental technical and economic change or is it collective construct of an artifact of the means we have preferred to arrange political and economic activity? The new reflexive, self-regulatory and horizontal spaces of governance are getting modelled following the logic of competitive market relations whereby multiple formally equal actors (acting or aspiring to act as sources of authority) consult, trade and compete over the deployment of various instruments of authority both intrinsically and in their relations with each other (Shamir, 2008). The chapter also looks into these messy and fluid intersections to situate the key actors at the heart of processes of ‘rearticulation’ and ‘recalibration’ of different modes of governance which operates through a somewhat fuzzy amalgamation of the terrain by corporates, state hierarchy and networks all calibrating and competing to pull off the finest probable’s in metagovernance landscape. Unambiguously, this chapter seeks to elaborate on an institutional-discursive conceptualization of governance while stitching in and out of the complex terrain a weave of governances for modern leviathan – the global corporates.

This paper seeks to examine the meaning and nature of the structure metaphor in the social sciences, and the consequent implications for the academic activity of describing and substantiating new structural forms of multinational corporations (MNCs) in the international business discourse.

The paper's approach is primarily conceptual, but also introduces some fieldwork. The paper contrasts generalist work in the social sciences on structure with a close reading of the foundational texts on structure in MNCs along with a broader reading on the considerable attempts to describe new structures for MNCs. By interrelating these literatures with fieldwork that deconstructs stories from actors within MNCs, it opens a broader criticism on the discourse on structuring the MNC.

The paper suggests that the phalanx of new MNC structures could, perhaps, be better understood as a criticism of using the structure metaphor to describe the MNC. On safer ground, it suggests the point of difference between older forms of MNC and the variously described new forms arise from the contrasting definitions of structure used by Giddens.

The paper's originality and value arise from its unique consideration of the structure metaphor in social sciences and the discourse on structure in the international business discourse. It responds to calls for new research methods, and more critical approaches by those hoping to assist managers, in this functionally‐oriented discourse.

A new grouping of the eight schools of thought on business management is introduced. Their advancement is initially assessed with the help of a frame of reference, which is based on the principles inherent in Beer’s viable system model. It is proposed that a high degree of systemic advancement is one of the necessary attributes of any business-management concept that will be proven to be highly applicable to managing a firm’s dynamic business in practice. The first assessment reveals that the systemic advancement of the representative concepts varies a lot as follows. Porter’s chained frameworks (representing 1st Porterian school), Barney’s VRIO framework (2nd resource-based school), Sanchez and Heene’s concepts (3rd competence-based school), von Krogh et al.’s concept (4th knowledge-based school), and Hedlund’s heterarchy (5th organization-based school) are fairly systemic, respectively. Martin’s cascade (6th process-based school) is less systemic. Instead, Hamel’s revolutionary concept (7th dynamism-based school) and Brown and Eisenhardt’s competing on edge strategy (8th evolutionary school) are highly systemic. Thus, some promising ways to advance, in particular, the competence-based school of thought on business management are suggested.

In this theoretical, empirical and occasionally speculative paper we argue that human interaction is the critical source of intangible value in the intellectual age. This argument is supported with some perceptual evidence on the dimensions of intellectual capital (IC) from the Irish ICT sector. Key findings are that almost two thirds of organizational value is perceived to be intellectual and that half of this IC value is perceived to stem directly from the people dimension. Drawing on the system/lifeworld distinction in Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action we claim that the dominant tenets of market and hierarchy are changing in both nature and scope in an increasingly knowing‐intensive economy. We argue strongly that these tenets must be complemented with ideas of community and lifeworld that place human interaction at the center of a more enlightened economic and social equation.

The present study aims to address the emergence of platform-organized open innovation (OI). The research has the two main aims: the first is to increase the understanding of the performance of OI by investigating how the achievements of OI are measured in situated practices from a performative and strategic knowledge management (SKM) orientation. The methodological disadvantages of not pre-given case selection are partially counterbalanced by the second aim of the research, which is to extend existing SKM theory and examine how platforms create knowledge as they include actors and digital devices, thereby potentially redistributing relations of accountability.

Building on performativity theory, the paper studies how the achievements and knowledge created in OI are managed and evaluated in practice. The case description draws on different sources from a spiral case study, as openness is performed by platform, firm, crowd and innovation intermediaries.

The paper illustrates how a strategy of digitally enabled openness brings its own issues as platforms enable knowledge sharing and perform a redistribution of accountability. In the heterarchies studied through this research endeavor, managers and their team members were accountable not only to multiple units, or teams, across the organization, but also to the crowd. The case material demonstrates that the ecology of devices and their performative struggles create lateral accountability.

While recent streams of research suggest that the context of OI (i.e. distributed sources of knowledge for innovation) shifts the unit of analysis of organization design from the individual firm to networks of actors organized on platforms, the authors find that the focal firm still remains a key conceptual parameter in SKM research, which, in turn, makes it difficult to capture the suggested radicality of OI.

The authors show, that in practice, the firm has to take into account the performance of the external crowd and at times put resources into its training and education. In heterarchy, distributed authority is assumed to be facilitated through lateral accountability, whereby the traditional principles of vertical authority no longer hold, but rather, managers and their team members can be accountable to multiple units, or teams, across the organization.

The paper develops a performative theory of openness. OI is a model, strategy and socio-material practice whereby digital designs create an ecology of devices that can enact all kinds of openness. Ultimately, the current paper proposes that SKM and OI theory need to consider how platforms perform relations of accountability beyond the boundaries of the single organization.