Search results

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.

Theories of outstanding, historically notable, leadership have traditionally emphasized charisma. Recent research, however, suggests that charisma may represent only one pathway to outstanding leadership. Outstanding leadership may also emerge from ideological and pragmatic leadership. In this article, we examine the conditions influencing the emergence and performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. It is argued that different conditions operating at the environmental, organizational, group, and individual levels influence the emergence and performance of each of these three types of leaders. Implications for understanding the origins and impact of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders are discussed.

This study aims to explore how a postmodern tribe enacts and re-interprets ideologies as a part of consumers’ collective experience, to enhance our understanding of consumer communities in conjunction with ideological capacities.

The community of “presenteers” is conceptualized as a self-organized tribe with heterogeneous components that generate capacities to act. Netnographic observation was conducted on 18 presenteer accounts and lasted around six months. Real-time data were collected by taking screenshots of the posts and stories that these users created and publicly shared. Data were analysed by adopting assemblage theory, combining inductive and deductive approaches. Firstly, a qualitative visual-textual content analysis of the tribe’s defining components was conducted. Then, the process continued with the thematic analysis of the ideological underpinnings of the tribe’s enactments.

Findings shed light on the ways in which consumer communities interpret the entanglement of religious, political, and cultural ideologies in shaping their experiences. In the case of the presenteers tribe, findings reflect a novel ideological interplay between neo-Ottomanism, post-feminism and consumerism.

The study offers a deep dive into a unique tribe that is being organized around the consumer-created practice of “presenteering” and investigates consumer communalization in alignment with the ideological turn in culture-oriented interpretative research on consumers, consumption, and markets. This exploration helps to bridge the research on the communalization of consumers with the recent discussions of ideology in the postmodern market.

The study offers a deep dive into a unique tribe that is being organized around the consumer-created practice of “presenteering” and investigates consumer communalization in alignment with the ideological turn in culture-oriented interpretative research on consumers, consumption, and markets. This exploration helps to bridge the research on the communalization of consumers with the recent discussions of ideology in the postmodern market.

There is a tendency for opposing partisans to ideological disputes to imagine that their opponents are extremist, biased, and in diametric opposition to themselves. The current investigation examined the role of these imagined ideological differences in face‐to‐face negotiations. Experiment 1 examined the problems that develop when negotiators attend to irrelevant ideological differences. Dyads who were made aware of political differences, even imagined ones (i.e., their political views were actually similar), required more time to allocate hypothetical funds and perceived their partner less favorably than did dyads who were unaware of their political differences. Experiments 2 and 3 tested the hypothesis that ideological opponents who acquire accurate information about their counterpart's beliefs (thus reducing the effects of imagined ideological differences) will have more successful negotiations. Opposing partisans to abortion (Experiment 2) and the death penalty (Experiment 3) reached more comprehensive, integrative agreements and perceived each other more favorably when they disclosed their own views to each other before negotiating. The relevance of these findings to other mediation techniques and real world conflicts was discussed.

In the Kazakhstani context, the instrumentalization of the Muftiate as a social engineering tool is particularly pertinent, as it stands out as a unique channel for the political, moral and cultural shaping of Muslims. This study aims to outline the role of the Muftiate, its historical background and recent restructuring process. It focuses on the ideological practices and religious discourses of the Muftiate.

In Kazakhstan, as a result of reforms in the religious sphere, which were started in 2011, the scope of activity of the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Kazakhstan (the Muftiate) has entered a new phase and become an important ideological tool within national policy. It has emerged as a civil society institution that will centralize the process of Islamization and instrumentalize the importance of Islam to create a new fantasy of unity and solidarity.

Thus, it discusses how Muftiate fabricates the correct forms of action and the correct form of thought. The theory of “ideological state apparatuses” (ISA) of the French philosopher Louis Althusser should be considered as a theoretical framework of this study. This approach not only gives a theoretical definition of the Muftiate but also allows us to determine its position in society and outline three different dimensions of the practice that it performs.

The study demonstrates how the Muftiate as an ISA actualizes various concepts, ideas, beliefs or images in which Muslims live their imaginary relations to the real world and transforms Muslim individuals into ideological subjects, thus enabling them to become apparently free bearers of the ideology.

The purpose of this paper is to longitudinally explore the symbolic and substantive ideological strategies located in ENGIE’s environmental discourse while considering the specific negative media context surrounding the company’s environmental activities.

Thompson’s (2007) and Eagleton’s (2007) theorizations are used to build an extended ideological framework to analyze ENGIE’s environmental talk from 2001 to 2015.

ENGIE drew extensively on a combination of symbolic and substantive ideological strategies in its annual and sustainability reports while ignoring several major issues raised in the press. Its substantive ideological mode of operation included actions for the environment, innovation, partnerships and educating stakeholders/staff, while its symbolic ideological mode of operation used issue identification, legal compliance, rationalization, stakeholders’ responsibilization and unification. Both ideological modes of operation worked synergistically to cast a positive light on ENGIE’s environmental activities, sustaining the ideology of a company that reconciles the irreconcilable despite negative press coverage.

This paper develops the notion of environmentally friendly ideology to analyze the environmental discourse of a polluting company. It is the first to use both Thompson’s and Eagleton’s ideological frameworks to make sense of corporate environmental discourse. Linking corporate discourse with media coverage, it further contributes to the burgeoning literature that interpretively distinguishes between symbolic and substantive ideological strategies by highlighting the company’s progressive shift from symbolic to more substantive disclosure.

This paper aims to investigate how consumers react to corporate managers publicly espousing an ideological belief regarding a social issue. In particular, this paper investigates anger derived by consumers as a mediator explaining why consumer attitudes change.

An experiment was used to present respondents with a scenario about managers espousing specific ideological beliefs. All independent and dependent variables were measured. Variable relationships were analyzed utilizing general linear models to understand direct effects and bootstrapping to understand mediation.

When made public, managers’ stances can make multiple, possibly competing, ideologies salient to consumers. Consumer reaction to a stance is most positive when held ideological beliefs are competing and consumers anchor on one ideology in agreement with the manager’s stance, leading to less anger and enhanced brand attitudes. When competing beliefs exist, consumers minimize the importance of dissonant beliefs. Further, preexisting brand attitudes provide a halo effect which helps to determine the amount of anger derived and any potential shift in brand attitude.

This paper offers insights into when a reparative brand strategy may need to be structured after a manager’s ideological stance is made public. Not all of a company’s targeted demographic will take offense, and any reparative communications may need to focus on the consumer relationship with the brand rather than an outright apology.

This paper adds to the literature investigating the intersection of ideology and marketing. This paper shows that there is an opportunity for managers to strategically shape marketing messages to capitalize on situations where consumers hold multiple, possibly competing ideological beliefs. Thus, this paper highlights that understanding consumers’ brand attitude shifts requires a more encompassing view of ideologies, as opposed to viewing them in isolation.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the causes, impact, and resolution of ideological conflicts in the workplace. By integrating research on organizational justice, the paper aims to argue that ideological discord is engendered though the interaction of distributive, procedural, and interactional (un)fairness.

Using a longitudinal field study, the ideas were tested with a sample of 77 claimants, undergoing mediation through the USA. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The results were generally supportive of all predictions, suggesting that, though injustice may cause troublesome ideological conflicts, fair dispute resolution interventions can provide a remedy.

The research documented in this paper is particularly important because it suggests that justice can be restored through the intervention of a neutral mediator.