Search results

ON TUESDAY, 3 December 1878, there was held within the premises of Mr Dowell at 18 George Street, Edinburgh, an auction of the library of Andrew Jervise, Esq., F.S.A.(Scot.). Jervise, a bachelor, had died almost eight months before at the age of 58. In his library was a two‐volume edition of Jamieson's Dictionary of the Scottish Language, edited by John Johnstone, published by Wm. Tait in 1840–41, and printed at the University Press (Messrs. Stevenson's), then in Thistle Street. This was sold for the sum of £3 3s. to an unnamed buyer. In 1967 in ‘The Book Cellar’, a newly‐opened secondhand bookshop in Dundas Street, Edinburgh, it was to appear again. This time it was broken‐backed and apparently of undistinguished origin.

For decades organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has been of interest to scholars and practitioners alike, generating a significant amount of research exploring the concept of what citizenship behavior is, and its antecedents, correlates, and consequences. While these behaviors have been and will continue to be valuable, there are changes in the workplace that have the potential to alter what types of OCBs will remain important for organizations in the future, as well as what types of opportunities for OCB exist for employees. In this chapter we consider the influence of 10 workplace trends related to human resource management that have the potential to influence both what types of citizenship behaviors employees engage in and how often they may engage in them. We build on these 10 trends that others have identified as having the potential to shape the workplace of the future, which include labor shortages, globalization, immigration, knowledge-based workers, increase use of technology, gig work, diversity, changing work values, the skills gap, and employer brands. Based on these 10 trends, we develop propositions about how each trend may impact OCB. We consider not only how these trends will influence the types of citizenship and opportunities for citizenship that employees can engage in, but also how they may shape the experiences of others related to OCB, including organizations and managers.

The process approach to multi-level organizational behavior is based on the assumption that multi-level organizational behavior is processual in nature. This article defines group and organizational processes and their representation as process frameworks. Both functional and inclusional classes of levels exist, each of which has at least five categories of levels. All ten categories are special cases of process frameworks. This article provides examples of each category level, which it uses to illustrate new models of organizational work, extended models of interdependence, a new typology of theories based on their levels of processes, and a new tool for survey research called knobby analyses. After explaining the basic idea of knobby analysis, the article briefly describes the processual theory of the organizational hologram, the use of linear programming, and causal-chain analysis to provide multi-level explanations of employee opinion data. These ideas are embodied in conducting a strategic organizational diagnosis, which is the first stage of organizational design. Organizational design encompasses multiple stages, each of which itself involves multiple, multi-level phenomena and analyses. The basic point is that the processual nature of multi-level organizational phenomena gives more hope for improvements in theory building and their application if one uses the process approach rather than a variable approach.

This chapter provides a new theory for organizational leadership in which an organization's leadership, authority, management, power, and environments (LAMPE) are made coherent and integrated. Organizations work best if their LAMPE is coherent, integrated, and operational. The chapter begins by introducing basic concepts, such as structures, processes, process frameworks, task–role matrices, interdependence uncertainty, and virtual-like organizational arrangements. The LAMPE theory is then built upon this base. Leadership is defined as the processes of initiating, enabling, implementing, and sustaining change in an organization. Authority is defined as the legal right to preempt the outcome of a decision or a process. Management is defined in term of its major processes. Power is the control of interdependence uncertainty. When 29 leadership practices are introduced, it is possible to link them to all five of LAMPE's constructs. A number of conclusions are derived, in the form of 36 propositions: 5 dealing with leadership, 5 focusing on leadership requirements matching, 4 relating to leadership effectiveness, 5 dealing with leadership capacity, 4 concerning the benefits of distributed leadership, and 13 linking LAMPE to the theory of the organizational hologram.

Just what is the core concept of organizations? The question is posed as “what is the organization of organizations?” The answer is interdependence. Beginning with the concept of a process and its framework, the notion of an entity is extended to Processual Agents. A Processual Agent is anything that can effect a process. The discussion turns to potential, defined, and manageable interdependencies with examples of each. Many traditional management methods are viewed in terms of their effects in reducing potential interdependence in order to cut it down to manageable proportions. The discussion of Processual Agents is extended to organizations. This leads to a proposed structure for levels of interdependence and a summarizing principle called the cascade principle. Next the discussion turns to a new analysis of organizational change which examines the concepts of an organizational space and the summarizing conclusion called the cushioning principle. It is argued that the cascade and cushioning principles provide processes for maintaining and stabilizing organizations in the face of change. Examples are provided for the major concepts. The text is formalized in the form of ten axioms, twenty‐two propositions, and two summarizing principles.

This paper explores the role of institutional objects in the constitution of institutional logics. Institutional objects depend for their objectivity on the goods produced through those objects, such as economic models, passports, or sacred texts. The authors theorize institutional logics as grammars of valuation that institutionalize goods through institutional objects. The authors identify four value moments through which goods are objectified: institution, the instituting of a good, a belief and an imagination of its objective goodness; production, how the good is produced, what practices are productive of the good; evaluation, how good is the good, the practices and objects through which worth in terms of that good is determined, and territorialization, the domain of reference of the good, to what objects and practices a good can and does refer in its instantiations. The authors assess the adequacy of our model through an institutional object based on the good of “market value” – i.e., an options pricing model. The authors discuss the implications of these findings for institutional logical theory and the sociology of valuation.

Recounts Rockefeller philanthropy and the role it has played in shaping the development of medicine in the USA and elsewhere. Questions why social scientific research was not included in Rockefeller philanthropy in its formative stages. Investigates the role one Frederick T. Gates played in Rockefeller philanthropy and, particularly, his opposition to the creation of an institute of economic research. Sketches a biography of Gates, covering his professional career and the development of the philosophical views he held. Explores his approach to wholesale giving and scientific philanthropy as he gained more and more influence over Rockefeller’s business interests. Mentions William Lyon Mackenzie King (who later became Prime Minister of Canada) and his role within the Rockefeller philanthropic set‐up – to investigate labour relations – as a key factor in later obtaining support from the Rockefeller Foundation for social scientific research.