Search results

For a successful search, all members of the client–headhunter–candidate trio need to step up to the plate. How can clients better prepare for and engage in the search process? What are the current limits of client engagement and their rights vis-á-vis the headhunter? We explain why headhunting is different from recruitment, and why procuring executive search is as serious as other assets. We reveal the depth of questioning and bias management that it takes to reveal and attract the right candidate. We propose five points to build into the profile of the leader of the future. We next take a look at the clients of executive search firms – who come in all shapes and sizes. Van Eijck distinguishes four groups: multinationals, family businesses, private equity firms and public institutions. A tour signals points of attention for each group regarding a search process and some key points that apply across the spectrum – for example, how wildcard candidates can compromise a search process, the persistent problem of “no pay no cure” and why an appointment doesn’t always guarantee success. Finally, we move to the world of the executive candidate. Many make errors (also of judgment) when building their CVs. A seasoned headhunter can easily spot these. We present the keys to forging a robust story, working effectively with an executive search consultant and conclude with the features of the modern educational and work environment that can get in the way of a career.

An earlier form of this chapter by the author was published in Dutch in “Bestemming Boardroom: over zoeken en gevonden worden” (Boom, Amsterdam, 2018).

Residents in under-resourced/high-Medicaid (85% or higher) nursing homes on average receive care from relatively lower quality providers and have worse health outcomes, which may increase the risk of higher COVID-19 incidence. This study aims to evaluate if having a culture that encourages employee empowerment results in better quality (lower COVID-19 deaths) in times of crisis, such as the current pandemic. The study combined primary survey data from 391 Directors of Nursing (response rate of 37%), with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) Nursing Home COVID-19 Public File, LTCFocus, Area Health Resource File, and Nursing Home Compare. The dependent variable consisted of the number of COVID-19 death as of November 25, 2021. The independent variables consisted of Likert scale for employee empowerment (Cronbach alpha= 0.82). Control variables consisted of organizational factors (e.g., size, location, and ownership), as well as community factors (e.g., poverty, unemployment, and competition). The results indicated that one unit increase in employee empowerment was associated with 6% lower likelihood of having COVID-19 deaths. Nursing homes, particularly those under-resourced, face difficulty improving the quality of care due to financial constraints. However, the results suggest that adopting a culture that fosters employee empowerment may give nursing homes an edge in improving quality outcomes in crises.

As the economy re-shapes, so too must the modern organization and its governance. We examine corporate governance codes and their limits in predicting an executive’s performance. We look at the Code of Professional Practice of executive search consultants, the in-built factors that have prevented the sector from becoming a qualified profession, and how to move beyond them. We examine how sustainability is migrating to the heart of modern governance, and present eight reasons to change existing codes and a call for tolerant governance. Mining engineer Henri Fayol is considered the founder of corporate governance. Despite dramatic changes in management during the past 100 years, much of his theory still holds. We take a tour of Fayol’s thinking, how management has evolved, and examine the unstructured shape of things to come: an organic architecture, an emphasis on knowledge capital and an agile leadership culture. We conclude with “change ability” – an evolutionary leap for the chair, CFO, supervisory board and organizations as a whole. The executive search profession finally comes under a harsh spotlight. What’s next for the profession, in light of digitization, its representation on boards, its effect on diversity? And why do executive search firms need to walk the sustainability talk in the way they seek and position leaders?

An earlier form of this chapter by the author was published in Dutch in “Bestemming Boardroom: over zoeken en gevonden worden” (Boom, Amsterdam, 2018).

This chapter attempts to explain why the community of scholars at Stanford University generated an unparalleled amount of highly influential theory and research on organizations in the last three decades of the 20th century.¹

Corporate culture is a spirit formed by the shared values of the individuals in the organization that has potential to make the library more than the sum of its parts, both positively and negatively. It is the vehicle by which the organization defines itself, for both itself and the clientele, with the purpose of providing the best service possible by sharing a vision of the organization as an organic whole. It operates through the power of peer influence rather than direct vertical authority. This paper takes a holistic approach to a concept that is more complex than it first appears; it addresses the molding of corporate culture, not as a management function, but as a complex and deep system, being in effect the soul of the organization, which resides in the motivation of each individual and which, therefore, requires a special kind of leadership.

Every paper needs a theme. Luckily, the venue defines the theme for me; how did the initial conditions at Stanford affect the development and diffusion of population ecology as a theoretical research program. I use the term theoretical research program reluctantly, especially considering the context of the department of sociology at Stanford University during the 1970s and 1980s (Lakatos & Musgrave, 1970). Nonetheless, I believe that population ecology can be usefully described as such. It is not a theory but rather a collection of theories developing over time with progressive problem shifts. There are methodological rules that define what paths of research to pursue and to avoid (Pfeffer, 1993, p. 613).

In 1981, W. Richard (Dick) Scott of Stanford's sociology department described a paradigmatic revolution in organizational sociology that had occurred in the preceding decade. In Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems (Scott, 1981), he depicted the first wave of organizational theory as based in rational models of human action that focused on the internal dynamics of the organization. He described the second wave, found in human relations theory and early institutional theory, as based in natural social system models of human action but still focused on the internal “closed system.” A sea change occurred in organizational theory in the 1970s as several camps began to explore environmental causes of organizational behavior. The open-systems approaches that Scott sketched in 1981 were still seedlings, but all would mature. What they shared was an emphasis on relations between the organization and the world outside of it. The roots of these new paradigms can be traced to innovations of the 1960s. Contingency theorists Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch (1967) had argued that firms add new practices and programs largely in response to external social demands and not simply to internal functional needs. James Thompson (1967) argued that organizations come to reflect the wider environment and particularly the regulatory environment.

Accountants’ involvement in environmental and sustainability management has merely been investigated to date. With the continuous take-up of sustainability issues by companies and with the growing experience companies gain in dealing with this topic, this chapter raises the question whether accountants are involved in a way different than previously reported and if yes, what their role is in social accounting practice.

Based on 58 interviews with corporate practitioners, this chapter firstly explores the roles involved in the social accounting practice in companies which are considered to be leading in sustainability reporting in the United Kingdom and Germany. Secondly, the role of professional accountants is analysed from a power theory perspective.

The main findings suggest that professional accountants are partially involved in social accounting practice but mainly exert a gatekeeping role between sustainability managers and higher management.

Investigating the observed behaviour empirically can help improve social accounting. Should it turn out that the accountants have no other option but to act like gatekeepers, accounting education will play a major role in overcoming this deficiency in the pursuit of improved sustainability knowledge and performance. If, on the other hand, it is the defensive stance of accounting professionals and the fear of losing power in corporate structures which motivates them to act as gatekeepers, mechanisms to motivate them to cooperate should be researched.

The chapter empirically investigates and discusses the accountant’s contribution to sustainability information management. This can help overcome organisational challenges impeding companies to successfully implement sustainability measures.