Search results

Increasing market pressures require organizations to rethink the development of change capability. Building a sustainable and flexible organization capable of responding in a timely manner to quickly changing customer demands without compromising technological excellence and quality is a complex task. This chapter builds on a five-year study of transformation efforts at a product development unit of Ericsson. The complexity of designing and managing learning mechanisms as both a transformation engine and a way to improve new product development is captured. The chapter points toward the challenges of designing and managing learning mechanisms that enhance organizational agility.

Environmental uncertainty, turbulence, and heterogeneity create a host of strategic and operational challenges for today’s organizations (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998). To cope with the challenge of simultaneously developing and nurturing both today’s and tomorrow’s core competencies, firms increasingly rely on effective use of corporate entrepreneurship (Covin & Miles, 1999). These facts make it imperative that managers at all levels actively participate in designing and implementing a strategy for corporate entrepreneurship actions. The recent literature reveals that there is a general although certainly not a complete consensus around the position that successful corporate entrepreneurship (CE) is linked to improvement in firm performance (Ireland et al., 2001). Covin, Ireland and Kuratko (2003) suggest that corporate entrepreneurship is increasingly recognized as a legitimate path to high levels of organizational performance and that the understanding of corporate entrepreneurship as a valid and effective practice with real, tangible benefits is occurring across firm type and managerial levels. Other researchers cite corporate entrepreneurship’s importance as a growth strategy (Kuratko, 1993; Kuratko et al., 1993; Merrifield, 1993; Pinchott, 1985; Zahra, 1991; Zahra & Covin, 1995; Zahra, Kuratko & Jennings, 1999). As an example, Dess, Lumpkin and McGee (1999) note that, “Virtually all organizations – new start-ups, major corporations, and alliances among global partners – are striving to exploit product-market opportunities through innovative and proactive behavior” – the type of behavior that is called for by corporate entrepreneurship. Barringer and Bluedorn (1999) suggested that in light of the dynamism and complexity of today’s environments, “…entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviors are necessary for firms of all sizes to prosper and flourish.” Developing an internal environment that cultivates employees’ interest in and commitment to creativity and the innovation that can result from it contributes to successful competition in today’s competitive arenas. A valuable and appropriate internal organizational environment is a product of effective work (often within the context of corporate entrepreneurship) by managers at all levels (Floyd & Lane, 2000).

This chapter examines the tension between interdependence and dominance. First, we briefly review prominent social psychological theories regarding the development and maintenance of status systems. Next we briefly describe how these structures help distribute social power in modern society. We then examine how prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination stem from status systems and interdependence, using the Stereotype Content Model (Fiske, Xu, Cuddy & Glick, 1999; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). Next, we consider the unique circumstances of gender relations and how they give way to complementary justifications of gender inequality, using Ambivalent Sexism Theory (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 1999, 2001a, 2001b). Last, we review evidence to support our argument that women do not necessarily acquiesce joyfully to the present hierarchical arrangement, but rather guide their choices by their pragmatic alternatives, as dictated by benevolent and hostile ideologies.

Developing economies like India have adopted the Sustainable Development Goals of sustainable cities and communities and reduced inequalities to achieve inclusive development and growth. Globally, the indigenous communities or tribals seek reparation for conflicts between proclaiming indigenous rights and claiming natural resources. There is little literature on challenges to the social inclusion of the tribes or the indigenous people. This literature review study aimed to (a) introduce the problem of social exclusion of indigenous people, (b) discuss the most researched dimensions of social inclusion of the tribal or indigenous people using relevant theoretical frameworks and (c) to develop conceptual frameworks on the theory of social inclusion of the indigenous people. PRISMA protocol was followed, and various tools were used for bibliographic management and text mining with 58 articles selected from 944 journals indexed in Web of Sciences. The analysis of the literature underscores four pivotal themes namely (1) the cultural identity of indigenous people, (2) the debate on the legitimacy of the rights of indigenous people rights and sustainable development, (3) factors impacting the social inclusion of the indigenous people and (4) coping strategies for the social inclusion of the indigenous people. The literature review highlights urgent needs to socially include indigenous and tribal people. Various factors impact the financial inclusion of the poor, including cognitive and affective factors. It is essential to leverage the skills and expertise of the local indigenous people for forest management and land management to ensure the social inclusion of the poor and tribes.

The call for a new paradigm in politics and governance has become a planetary imperative. Humanity is at a critical juncture; unless we mature as a species and become net-positive to nature the human experiment may (soon) end. We have become our own biggest threat. This chapter explores the foundations, as well as systemic barriers, for the shift to a new and life-centred paradigm in politics and governance. Offering a systemic exploration of the root causes of our sustainability crises and how to address this, based on the cosmology and evolutionary principles of complex living systems. Applying Living Systems Protocols from the EARTHwise Constitution for a Planetary Civilization, and its framework of five Future Archetypes, for developing our transformative capacities to address the systemic thrivability barriers of mechanistic systems and worldviews. With case-study examples of new paradigm tools, systems and technologies that enable a decentralization of governance and democratization of ownership. As such empowering the systemic conditions and maturation pathways for a thriving planetary civilization. The chapter completes with a brief practice for developing our future human capacities and inner consciousness shifts for a new paradigm in politics and governance.

Department chairs represent one of the most intriguing, complex, and important leadership roles in higher education. Despite the important role chairs play, there is limited research about ongoing dynamics and how they manage the complexities that come along with the position. The tension between the academic and administrative cores creates inherent stress in the position. What stresses department chairs? Has it changed over time? The theoretical construct used to investigate these questions is based on the four-stage chair stress cycle (identification, perception, response, and consequences), and in particular the first two stages of identification and perception. The data for this study are derived from two data sets collected in 1991 and 2016 surveying 800 and 982 department chairs respectively. Each survey assessed personal profiles, professional and organizational variables, and two validated stress and role instruments. Findings collected 25 years apart suggested some shifts in chair gender, motivation to serve, professional identity, preparation, tenure status, and ethnicity. When comparing top stressors from 1991 to 2016, more stress emanated from chairs trying to balance scholarship and leadership as well as work-life balance. Top department chair stressors underscored the difficulty to find some balance between professional and personal roles. Many of these imbalances appeared to be more structural and inherent in the position while others fall within the chairs' control to be personally managed. Female chairs experienced higher stress than men from having insufficient time to stay current in their academic fields and balancing administrative and scholarly demands. The researchers expected to find significant differences according to marital status, ethnicity, and age, but no significant trends emerged. Ultimately, higher education institutions will continue to have a leadership crisis if the conditions for chairing departments remain unmanageable.

This chapter is a journey into the ontological significance of place in consideration of the Atlantic Tasmanian salmon industry and its challenges to the ethical discourse around the social license to operate (SLO) beyond the oxymoron of a name. It centres the discourse around the salmon itself. A once totem animal, responsible for the balance of Canada’s abundant ecosystem, now reduced to a mere source of protein, manipulated, and commodified by Tasmania’s ‘big business’ and against the SLO of Flanagan’s ‘Toxic’. It applies Ortega y Gasset’s mid-twentieth century solution to the problem of our western disconnection from place to the current neoliberal political framework. This welcomes an inclusive dialogue with kinship structures of the Mi’kmaq peoples reflected also in the ontological narrative of the First Nations people of Tasmania. This multidisciplinary journey necessitates a concept of the SLO founded upon ethical responsibility and a cultural license if it is to genuinely hold to account the corporate sovereign.

The chapter examines the current macro-governance of agri-food in a contemporary sense, taking changes in the UK and more broadly Europe. It first outlines a recent ongoing period of what is called ‘Disruptive Governance’. This emerged in the UK, the USA and indeed Brazil after the prolonged fiscal and financial crisis which brought about economic austerity in these countries over the past two decades. This relatively new disruptive phase, has now become more engrained into wider political and institutional structures and cultures, and indeed re-enforced earlier neo-liberal rounds of political articulation. Whilst there are far wider in effects than with agri-food systems, it is having a profound effect upon the stability and security of current food and farming systems. The chapter then explores the unfolding implications for agri-food in terms of policy changes, further market concentration and further financialisation. At a regional scale, we look at how these macro governance and regulatory forces are impacting in contrasting regional contexts: the UK, Wales and rural North West England (Cheshire and Shropshire). Finally, in conclusion, we ask to what extent these conditions are indeed tempered by longer-running and alternative radical shifts in agro-food systems, and the degree to which these can become mainstreamed. What do these trends suggest for sustainable food transitions and the further application and appropriateness of regime theory and governance?

In this chapter I argue that education cannot escape being influenced by the economic, political and cultural effects of globalization. Through an examination of the policies of national governments, agenda of international organizations such as the World Bank and UNESCO, the global practices of privatization, accountability and managerialism, I demonstrate that education is being used as a tool of neo-liberal economic reform, a process that increases inequalities and marginalizes the already unheard voices. I argue that any analysis of globalization and its impact on higher education requires stepping back from all interactions and practices and asking basic questions about what these terms imply, why they function the way they do, and whose interests they serve. A critical analysis of the transformation of universities and thus the knowledge produced is essential as it affects and infiltrates our very consciousness. I argue that while higher education is being restructured under the neo-liberal economic rationality it is important for educators to find out what will be gained and what will be lost before going ahead with such restructuring. I also contend that the neo-liberal economic rationality of globalization has framed the restructuring of education in such a manner that its function has changed from production of knowledge to production and management of wealth. As a result of accepting the dominant discourse of the globalization agenda without much critical analysis or debate regarding its consequences, education has lost its basic function of producing democratic citizens.