Search results

The purpose of this paper is to take “a long view” of initiatives taken to promote integration between local government and the NHS with the objective of seeking to understand why they have achieved consistently disappointing results.

The paper's analysis is based on an historical overview drawn from official documents and empirical research from the time of the creation of the NHS in 1948. It primarily focuses on the principles shaping the separate but parallel reorganisations of 1974 and their continuing influence up to and including the current White Paper “Liberating the NHS”, and the Health and Social Care Bill.

The fundamental sources of integration barriers today lie in the foundational principles of basing their responsibilities on the skills of providers rather than the needs of service users and their organisational forms on separation rather than interdependence, with national uniformity driving the NHS and local diversity local authorities. In addition, frameworks for integration have been established on a paradigm of seeking to build bridges at the margins of organisations rather than seeking to interweave their mainstream systems and processes.

Future empirical research will be necessary to establish whether the currently proposed arrangements for integration do, in fact, experience the same limited results as previous ones.

Local and national strategies for improving integration should be reviewed in the light of the understandings set out here and local frameworks should seek to align and integrate mainstream systems and processes as far as possible. A thorough and dispassionate analysis should be conducted of whether a free‐standing, single purpose, national organisation still provides the most appropriate structure for delivering health services in light of changing needs, care models, and resources.

The paper offers a distinctive analysis of the possible causes of disappointing outcomes from successive attempts to improve integration. If accepted, it could lead to a radically different approach, first to integration and, ultimately, to the nature of the NHS and local government.

Based on critical theory and dialectical thought, discusses and outlines a framework for understanding corporate culture as corporate hegemony. First, offers the relevance of critical theory to the study of corporate culture as a managerial praxis and organizational discourse. Second, examines three aspects of the dialectics of corporate culture: the dialectical tensions between corporate and individual identity; the conflicting pressure for uniformity and diversity; and the dialectics of empowerment and disempowerment. Third, discusses the mechanisms for the hegemonic perpetuation of corporate culture by researchers and practitioners and for resisting a critical stance in the discourse of corporate culture. Fourth, and finally, the article examines possible ways for overcoming the problem of cultural hegemony in organization theory and praxis.

Induction and institutions may have followed the same tracks for a long period of time, but their interaction is scarcely analyzed. On the one hand, induction prepares newcomers to work in an organization that is completely new to them. On the other hand, institutions apparently need induction processes to maintain themselves in the same time they renew their members. The purpose of the present paper is to analyze induction as a practice, and to show how this practice turns itself into an institution, in spite of the embeddedness of action scripts into rational schemes.

The paper introduces the case of a retail bank and a consulting company in France. Both have formalized induction systems, but they show enough differences to be considered as offering two complementary approaches of a same practice. The same method is applied to both fields. It consists of analyzing induction as an aggregate of ostensive (action scripts), performative (actions themselves) elements, and artefacts (material productions).

The successive steps of selections and integration of induction process appear as ways of testing the compatibility of newcomers with the immunity system of the organization. Moreover, throughout both case studies, the ostensive aspect of induction has remained stable for years, although markets and business models have changed a lot. Induction seems to be frozen as far as practicing (i.e. the implementation of action scripts) is concerned. The study of practising (i.e. the dialectic interaction of ostensive, performative elements, and artefacts) shows that constant and individually lead adaptive moves preserve the institutionalized practice without any shape of rigidity.

Stability vs change, uniformity vs diversity depends on the lens by which the paper it looks at practices. If it takes into consideration the ocean of actions that are performed day after day inside the firm, diversity and change appear. However, if it adopts a longer range look at what happens and correlate it to appropriate institutional factors, stability, and uniformity emerge from permanent change. That disqualifies both technocratic attempts to standardize performance from abstract patterns and naive designs of spontaneous emergence of “not embedded” behaviors.

Several frameworks have been developed to map and document scientific societal interaction and impact, each reflecting the specific forms of impact and interaction that characterize different academic fields. The ReAct taxonomy was developed to register data about “productive interactions” and provide an overview of research activities within the social sciences and humanities (SSH). The purpose of the present research is to examine whether the SSH-oriented taxonomy is relevant to the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines when clarifying societal interactions and impact, and whether the taxonomy adds value to the traditional STEM impact indicators such as citation scores and H-index.

The research question was investigated through qualitative interviews with nine STEM researchers. During the interviews, the ReAct taxonomy and visual research profiles based on the ReAct categories were used to encourage and ensure in-depth discussions. The visual research profiles were based on publicly available material on the research activities of the interviewees.

The study provided an insight into how STEM researchers assessed the importance of mapping societal interactions as a background for describing research impact, including which indicators are useful for expressing societal relevance and impact. With regard to the differences between STEM and SSH, the study identified a high degree of cohesion and uniformity in the importance of indicators. Differences were more closely related to the purpose of mapping and impact assessment than between scientific fields. The importance of amalgamation and synergy between academic and societal activities was also emphasised and clarified.

The findings highlight the importance of mapping societal activities and impact, and that societal indicators should be seen as inspiring guidelines depending on purpose and use. A significant contribution is the identification of both uniformity and diversity between the main fields of SSH and STEM, as well as the connection between the choice of indicators and the purpose of mapping, e.g. for impact measurement, profiling, or career development.

The work sheds light on STEM researchers' views on research mapping, visualisation and impact assessment, including similarities and differences between STEM and SSH research.

Two views of organizational change dominate the management literature. The incremental view holds that organizations experience large‐scale strategic changes quite slowly while the revolutionary view proposes that organizations experience long periods of relatively little strategic variation punctuated by short, intense periods of major change. Commonalties among the two change theories provide the basis for a study of 101 businesses over a six year period. The research examines two theoretical implications: change is bimodally and discretely distributed and skewed toward incremental strategic change, and firms undergoing revolutionary strategic change will be more likely to experience simultaneous changes on multiple organizational dimensions than firms undergoing incremental strategic change. Consistent with Proposition 1, it was found that change is skewed toward incremental, but also that change is unimodal and continuously distributed, contrary to Proposition 1. Contrary to Proposition 2, revolutionary change on multiple dimensions was found to be rare.

The purpose of this paper is to look at the way higher‐education institutions are responding to the challenges of an increasingly diverse academic force and the extent to which organizational culture welcomes and values diversity, thus allowing the university to benefit from talented people with diverse backgrounds.

The study was conducted in a Portuguese university. Data were collected from 45 interviews with faculty members from different backgrounds and affiliations.

The organization studied is failing to promote equal opportunities policies and to manage the increasingly diverse academic workforce. Behavioural pressures to conform and parochial and inward looking attitudes appear to prevail. Values‐in‐use and artefacts seem to reflect the assimilation ideals. National origin came out as the key diversity issue. The integration of foreign academics is left to the individuals concerned and little effort is made to accommodate and to take advantage of their unique contribution.

The paper provides an in‐depth account of subtle discriminatory mechanisms faced by non‐native academics in a university that does not value diversity.

Groups once marginalized by culture, ethnicity, class, sexuality, age, and physical ability have entered and impacted business, service, and educational institutions. To unify their widening communities, leaders must pursue inclusivity, which demands more than equitable demographics. Inclusivity integrates each individual’s perspective, regardless of group – the tougher goal of equitable belonging. Most diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging programs agree that inclusivity starts with leaders’ acknowledging their own biases and committing to organizational reform. Yet few apply leadership principles to gain crucial team collaboration in the project. This chapter explicitly shows public- and private-sector executives and instructors how to guide staffers and students to understand and welcome unfamiliar cultural, social, and personal variances so they themselves create an inclusive cohort. Experiential activities, games, performance arts, and focused, reflective debriefings help make inclusivity the norm by playfully but persistently uncovering even unconscious exclusionist assumptions and replacing them with informed, diversity-positive interactions. These emotionally engaging exercises reveal that exclusionism emerges most bluntly in casual conversation, which both displays and perpetuates preconceptions. Fortunately, self-corrected speech can become the avatar and instrument of inclusivity. So the gentle unearthing and disproving of biases about cultural, social, and personal differences allow participants to construct a diversity-enhanced unity deeper than uniformity. Albeit temporary and simulated, such visceral learning experiences dramatically immerse players in the hurtful disregard caused by microaggressions of privilege and prejudice about cultures, ethnicities, classes, sexualities, ages, and abilities. These exercises and leaders’ modeling grow collegiality despite – indeed, through – human variety, letting all celebrate their individuality while greeting new views and voices.

Examines the global organization and its particular management development needs. It proposes that implicit in the idea of global stategy is a model of management based on efficiency. Efficiency is created by a uniformity of approach across national and cultural boundaries. Global managers must also be able to create effective microcultures of unified action worldwide. Describes a management development programme which uses simulation to provide managers with a practice field for creating a unifying cultural framework which can cohere diverse interests around organizational strategy.