Search results

The Offender Engagement Programme (OEP) within National Offender Management Service (NOMS) has been built on our collaborative approach with probation trusts to develop approaches which can support more effective offender engagement. Drawing areas of potential practice development from our early fieldwork and literature review, events for trusts and reference groups with practitioners and middle managers, we identified where more focussed work with trusts would develop learning and evidence which could be shared. In response to an invitation to express an interest, 22 trusts committed themselves to taking forward an OEP pilot, starting between March and May 2011. External evaluation is planned for nine trusts in total and is being undertaken by our research partners: a team from the Institute of Criminal Policy Research (ICPR) Birkbeck College London and Leicester University, and a team based at Sheffield University which includes Fergus McNeill from Glasgow University.

This chapter looks at how we implemented pilot work on approaches to involving offenders in Sentence Planning; Developing Effective Engagement Skills through training and continuous professional development; and a model for Reflective Supervision by senior and middle managers to support effective engagement. It also examines how the methodology for the external and internal evaluation was developed, and what we are hoping to get out of the evaluation. In short, the purpose of this work is to investigate and test the core proposition that the relationship between the offender and the practitioner can be a powerful means of changing behaviour.

Questions regarding the effectiveness of criminal justice efforts to reduce crime have dominated social and political thinking in this area for more than a century (Bowen, 2011). During this time a number of philosophical shifts regarding the aims of correctional systems have occurred, fuelled typically by the prevailing political standpoint (McGuire, 2005). At the start of the twentieth century, policymakers in the United States and United Kingdom placed faith in the rehabilitative ideal and offender ‘treatment’-dominated corrections policies (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000). In this context ‘treatment’ refers to a range of interventions designed to alter the individual, contextual and social factors that sustain offending behaviour (Hollin, 1999). This remained the prevailing perspective for the subsequent seven decades until questions arose regarding the quality of ‘state run’ corrections facilities in the United States in the early 1970s. At this point, evaluation science was one of many influences on a change of policy (Hollin, 1999). Martinson's (1974) now infamous research synthesis, described by Glaes (1998, p. 713) as ‘a watershed moment’, provided politicians and policymakers with greater justification for changing the focus of corrections policy. Although arguably it was observers misreporting of Martinson's claims about the evidence which were most influential, rather than the review itself. According to Martinson (1974):It is just possible that some of our treatment programs are working to some extent, but that our research is so bad that it is incapable of telling. Having entered this very serious caveat, I am bound to say that these data … give us very little reason to hope that we have in fact found a sure way of reducing recidivism through rehabilitation. This is not to say that we found no instances of success or partial success; it is only to say that these instances have been isolated, producing no clear pattern to indicate the efficacy of any particular method of treatment. (p. 49)

Brad Astbury is research fellow in the Centre for Program Evaluation, Melbourne Graduate School of Education at the University of Melbourne where he lectures within the Masters of Evaluation course. His interests lie in evaluation theory and social research methodology. Brad has conducted evaluations in a number of areas, including corrections, education, health promotion and various family and community service interventions.

The purpose of this paper is to supply insights into talent management (TM) in Russia in the light of Soviet experience and the contemporary officially sanctioned business‐antagonistic political culture.

A diachronic approach, whereby a key dictum of Karl Marx which underlays Soviet thinking and methods is contextualized and applied to post‐communist Russia, and TM practice in Russian firms and foreign firms in Russia is contrasted.

A key finding is that there is seemingly greater value placed on Russian employees' talents by foreign companies. Six influential factors are identified which give Russian‐style TM a dysfunctional character: Russia's default position (i.e. instinctive gravitation to authoritarian rule), mistrust of institutions, entrenched “bossdom”, persistence of “Soviet mental software”, negative selection, and limited tradition of empowerment.

The paper highlights needs for: comparative empirical studies, contrasting Russian firms' and foreign firms' understanding and application of TM; investigation into the relationship of Russian‐style TM and career progression in Russian companies; and studies into contrasting ways of transferring TM concepts and practices by Western firms.

Foreign firms must be prepared to engage with Russia's prevailing officially sanctioned business‐antagonistic, occasionally xenophobic political culture.

The paper demonstrates how engagement with contemporary Russia for management research purposes requires a deep appreciation of the Soviet period and the complexities of its legacy and judicious use of Russian‐language material adds credibility.

Describes the environment for management education in the former USSR, a topic hitherto receiving limited treatment in Western management literature. Having placed Soviet management education in the general context of glasnost and perestroika, attention focuses on key developments since the creation of the USSR′s first business school in July 1988 to launch the re‐education of up to 14 million technocrats and officials. A short discussion of the curriculum and orientation of one Moscow‐based management centre follows. Highlights certain stumbling‐blocks in the further development of management education, which involves ever greater participation by Western partners: the problem of communicating management concepts into Russian/post‐Soviet terms of reference and Western management educators′ limited appreciation of the psychology of Russians.

As the USSR undertakes the transition to a market economy, western words and concepts to describe business and management activity are becoming increasingly used there. The semantic discrepancies between the English word “businessman” and the Soviet word biznesmen are advanced as examples. But the main focus of attention is on the use and implications of the Russified forms of “manager” and “management”, which are becoming very fashionable in the USSR. A short historical review of these terms in the Soviet context is followed by a discussion of the impact of perestroika on the evolution of management as it becomes increasingly independent of Party and planners. Attention is paid to the distinction between industrial managers and entrepreneurs seeking to establish small businesses in the USSR. Use is made of Russian‐language sources.

This paper seeks to provide an invited response to the Michailova/Jormanainen paper (CPoIB, Vol. 7 No. 3).

The author adopts a subjective approach to respond to the Michailova/Jormanainen paper and challenge/develop further some of the authors' findings.

The author: suggests that a striking capacity for improvisation applied to virtually every human activity in the USSR; agrees with Michailova and Jormanainen that the Soviet Union's knowledge legacy is a far more important resource for Western firms than is usually appreciated, but believes it is very difficult for the latter to use this resource “in a more nuanced manner”; posits that Russia is learning a new language both literally and metaphorically; and concludes that Russians prefer asymmetrical relationships with the West.

There is a need for more research into Soviet history and even earlier periods of Russian history to explain contemporary Russian management and the Russian style of interaction with foreign business partners.

Foreign firms dealing with Russia must learn to live with asymmetry in their relationships with Russian business partners; knowing sharing operates in a zone of severe terminological and attitudinal mismatches.

Historical approach; use of Russian language sources, including Tolstoy; first reference in English‐language management literature of Russia's first Handbook of Knowledge Management.