Search results

Since feminism is a political stance which draws attention to the external factors which limit women's lives we can predict that it may be slow to make an impact in a professional group which accepts the mores of conservatism in both its practice and its educational institutions. Nevertheless, in a professional group which has a professional register of 6,890 women there are likely to be some movements or shifts in attitudes leading to changes in behaviour eventually. Library and information work in common with many other service occupations has relied heavily on a female workforce. It has frozen into many of the organisational patterns designed by and for men that are present in both bureaucratic public service and industrial/commercial work organisations.

VINE is produced at least four times a year with the object of providing up‐to‐date news of work being done in the automation of library housekeeping processes, principally in the UK. It is edited and substantially written by the Information Officer for Library Automation based in Southampton University Library and supported by a grant from the British Library Research and Development Department. Copyright for VINE articles rests with the British Library Board, but opinions expressed in VINE do not necessarily reflect the news and policies of the British Library. The subscription for VINE in 1981 will be £20 for UK subscribers and £23 for overseas subscribers — the subscription year runs from January to December and VINE is available in either paper or microfiche format.

This paper is the first in a regular series of articles in JFBM that will share “a conversation with” thought leaders who are active in the family business space. The world of family business is, like many other arenas, constantly evolving and as the authors learn more about how and why families “do business” the approaches and tools for working with them also evolve. The purpose of this paper is to stimulate further new research in areas that practically affect family businesses and to “open the door” to practical insights that will excite researchers and provide impetus for new and exciting study. The specific purpose of this paper is to explore “what is strong governance.” There has been much interest in governance lately yet there is a tendency to treat governance in a formulaic way such that, at the moment, the notion that every family business must have a family council or a formal structure in order to be considered “effective” and “successful” predominates. The authors’ panel challenges and discusses this notion drawing on the experience and knowledge as family business advisors, consultants and owners.

The impetus for this particular conversation is a result of a brainstorming conversation that Lorna Collins and Barbara Murray held in February 2014 where they focussed on “how JFBM can encourage and stimulate researchers to engage in aspects of research that makes a difference to the family business in a practical way.” This paper reports a conversation between Barbara Murray (Barbara), Ken McCracken (Ken) and Martin Stepek (Martin), three leading lights in the UK family business advising space, all of whom have been involved in running or advising family businesses for more than three decades, held in August 2015. The conversation was held via telephone and lasted just over 60 minutes. Lorna Collins acted as moderator.

Strong governance is not just about instituting a “family council” or embedding formal governance mechanisms in a family business. Evolutionary adaption by family members usually prevails such that any mechanism is changed and adapted over time to suit and fit the needs of the family business. Many successful family businesses do not have recognized “formal” governance mechanisms but, it is contended, they are still highly successful and effective. Future areas of research in governance are also suggested.

This paper contributes to the family business discourse because the debate it reports challenges the basic assumptions upon which much consulting and advisory practice is conducted. It also challenges the notion of “best practice” and what is “new best practice” and how is it that any “best practice” is determined to be “best.” Furthermore, the panel provides insights in to the “impact of family dynamics on governance” and “the impact of family dynamics on advisors.” The paper content is original in that it provides an authentic and timely narrative between active family business practitioners who are also scholars and owners.

In the 1988 film The Accused, a young woman named Sarah Tobias is gang raped on a pinball machine by three men while a crowded bar watches. The rapists cut a deal with the prosecutor. Sarah's outrage at the deal convinces the assistant district attorney to prosecute members of the crowd that cheered on and encouraged the rape. This film shows how Sarah Tobias, a woman with little means and less experience, intuits that according to the law rape victims are incredible witnesses to their own victimization. The film goes on to critique what the “right” kind of witness would be. The Accused, therefore, is also about the relationship between witnessing and testimony, between seeing and the representation of that which was seen. It is about the power and responsibility of being a witness in law – one who sees and credibly attests to the truth of their vision – as it is also about what it means to bear witness to film – what can we know from watching movies.

Working as a consultant in the field of team development, I frequently find myself at odds with people who have different perceptions about the nature of the work. This confusion was actually expressed in print when in 1980, following the publication of my article on team problem diagnosis, another consultant wrote of his “simpler” method. This turned out to be the “LIFO” system. Again, similar misunderstanding arose in 1982, within a large client organisation in the public sector. The client had undergone major reorganisation, and it had been decided to create an internal consultancy role, a central function of which was to be team development. I was engaged to train those appointed to the role, with emphasis on the skills required by internal consultants. It came as some surprise therefore to be told during a seminar with some of the organisation's directors, that “team building” had recently been conducted in the area concerned. I had not yet trained the internal consultants. It emerged of course that their “team building” and my “team development” were entirely different processes. Impatient to “get things moving”, the organisation had initiated a programme of “team‐building” activity based on packaged exercises, mainly concerned with the analysis of management style.

The interview traces the early discussions in the context of disasters as developmental failures.

The transcript and video was developed in the context of a United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) project on the history of DRR.

The interview traces the development of disaster risk reduction discussions in different contexts such as “LA RED” network in Latin America.

The interview clearly highlights the need to not forget the early thoughts on vulnerability and disaster risk.

Imagine yourself trying to: — keep an eye on time — listen to a long and confusing but relevant contribution — bring somebody into the discussion whom you believe has an important point to make — stop a “side meeting” that’s just developed all at the same time, and whilst being observed by a number of your colleagues. This is what we expect of someone who is running a meeting. No wonder most people find it difficult to do and, in turn, no wonder many managers take a dim view of the effectiveness of meetings. (The ones they attend, of course, not the ones they run themselves!)

Billy's story is told as an experience of care provided by health and social services; the events are taken from the stories of several clients. The story illustrates the failures of a system of care that is not person‐centred. Nor is it integrated. It is a system that has been cobbled together from the stretched and patched remains of old, incompatible systems. Billy's story was used as a central part of a system‐wide review commissioned by Kent's new joint services for people with learning disabilities. By examining the real experiences of a small number of clients and (in the second part of the paper) testing the outcomes against the principles underpinning the plans for a new integrated and person‐centred service, Kent has been able to pinpoint areas of failure and consequently priorities for development and change. The paper ends with a summary of the questions Billy's story raises and the proposals stemming from it.