Search results

Risk appetite is widely accepted as a guiding metaphor for strategic risk management, yet metaphors for complex practice are hard to critique. This paper aims to apply an analytical framework comprising three categories of flaw – futility, perversity and jeopardy – to critically explore the risk appetite metaphor. Taking stock of management literature emphasising the need for metaphor to give ideation to complex management challenges and activities and recognising the need for high-level metaphor within strategic risk management in particular, the authors propose a means to scrutinise the risk appetite metaphor and thereby illustrate its use for further management metaphors.

The authors apply a structured analytical perspective designed to scrutinise conceivably any purportedly progressive social measure. The three flaw categories are used to warn that organisational risk appetite specifications can be: futile vis-a-vis their goals, productive of perverse outcomes with respect to these goals and so misleading about the true potential for risk management as to jeopardise superior alternative use of risk management resource. These flaw categories are used to structure a critical review of the risk appetite metaphor, which moves towards identifying its most fundamental flaws.

Two closely interrelated antecedents to flaws discussed within the three flaw categories are proposed: first, false confidence in organisational risk assessment and, second, organisational blindness towards contributions of behavioural risk-taking to true organisational risk exposure. A theory of high (over-optimistic, excessive or inappropriate) risk-taking organisations explores flaws within the three flaw categories with reference to these antecedents under organisational-cultural circumstances where the risk appetite metaphor is most needed and yet most problematic.

The paper is highly original in its representation of risk management as an organisational practice reliant on metaphor and in proposing a structured means to challenge it as a dominant guiding metaphor where it has gained widespread uncritical acceptance. The discussion is also innovative in its representation of high risk-taking organisations as likely to harbour strong managerial motives, aptitudes and capacities for covert and illicit forms of risk-taking which, being subversive and sometimes reactionary towards risk appetite specifications, may cause particularly serious futility, perversity and jeopardy problems. To conclude, the theory and its implications are summarised for practitioner and educational use.

Significant changes in British recreational drug use were seen throughout 2009, with the emergence and rapid growth in the availability and use of substituted cathinones or ‘M‐Cats’ (most notably mephedrone and methylone), a group of psychoactive drugs not currently controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (HM Government, 1971), with similar effects to ecstasy, cocaine and amphetamines. The reasons for the appearance and appeal of this group of so‐called ‘legal highs’ are explored here in relation to availability, purity, legality and convenience. The authors argue that a reduction in the availability (and thus purity) of illegal drugs such as ecstasy and cocaine and resultant disillusionment among users was a key motivation for displacement to substituted cathinones, conveniently and legally purchased online. Finally, we explore policy considerations around the likely criminalisation of substituted cathinones and the challenge of providing rapid yet considered harm reduction responses to emergent drug trends in the face of a minimal scientific evidence base and eager press demonisation.

The purpose of this paper is to expose practical and theoretical problems with the range of reasonable responses (RORR) test as applied in UK unfair dismissal law, and to propose an alternative interpretation of the test that would resolve these problems.

Through a close analysis of the purpose and structure of UK unfair dismissal law, and a careful reading of the leading cases in the area, the paper questions whether the law as it is currently interpreted achieves the goals of the underlying legislation. The current interpretation of the law being found lacking, alternatives are considered and evaluated.

The RORR test, as delineated in the most recent Court of Appeal cases, holds that dismissals are fair unless they are based on a reason for which no reasonable employer would dismiss. This interpretation of the test is internally incoherent; moreover, it fails adequately to promote the goals of unfair dismissal law, which are to protect the dignity and autonomy of employees. An alternative and superior interpretation of the test would hold a dismissal to be outside the RORR if no rational theory of management would condone dismissal on the grounds given by the employer.

The paper draws attention to fundamental incoherence in the current interpretation and application of unfair dismissal law, and suggests a new and better approach. If the new approach were accepted by the courts or by Parliament, it could lead to reform in unfair dismissal law.

The paper provides a detailed analysis of the RORR test, a long‐standing and well‐recognized problem in UK unfair dismissal law, and suggests a novel solution that would improve the coherence and function of unfair dismissal law.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a reaction to the paper of Nijhof and Jeurissen in IJSSP on limitations of business case approaches to CSR by nuancing some of their critique as well as extending it by addressing a more fundamental flaw in such approaches. In addition, the paper aims to also provide a case of a company that integrates various approaches to CSR into its business model that goes beyond the CSR business case.

The paper both has a conceptual approach through drawing on critical studies and theoretical arguments on CSR as well as an empirical approach through examining the integrative sustainability business model developed by the company Patagonia, a recognized and innovative CSR leader.

The paper argues that the “cherry-picking argument” by Nijhof and Jeurissen on the limitations of the business case approach to CSR does not reflect the idiosyncrasy of the CSR concept. Also, their glass ceiling metaphor may not be well-chosen. Second, stage models of CSR maturity that detach ethics from CSR development should be revised to include these, also from a credibility perspective. Third, the theory of the firm perspective on CSR may be adjusted to capture the reality of new market relations that companies pioneering with sustainability business models are developing.

The paper formulates a new critique on business case approaches to CSR, adding to the stream of critical studies on CSR and provides an example of a company that pioneers an integrative approach to CSR.

To discuss some of the reasons why performance measurement systems in public services can lead to dysfunctional consequences even when people operate with the best of intentions.

The paper draws together literature from the UK public sector, from writers in performance measurement and from cultural insights in anthropology to understand why some of these perverse effects occur.

Though many reasons are cited for public service performance measurement regimes, it is clear that control aspects dominate the others. This, when allied to an unthinking use of cybernetic metaphors, is what can lead to dysfunctionality.

The paper should appeal to those who wish to improve the performance of performance measurement systems in public services and to those who wish to understand why things can go wrong.

This paper attempts to trace and describe the role played by the government sector – the state – in promoting economic growth in Western societies since the Renaissance. One important conclusion is that the antagonism between state and market, which has characterised the twentieth century, is a relatively new phenomenon. Since the Renaissance one very important task of the state has been to create well‐functioning markets by providing a legal framework, standards, credit, physical infrastructure and – if necessary – to function temporarily as an entrepreneur of last resort. Early economists were acutely aware that national markets did not occur spontaneously, and they used “modern” ideas like synergies, increasing returns, and innovation theory when arguing for the right kind of government policy. In fact, mercantilist economics saw it as a main task to extend the synergetic economic effects observed within cities to the territory of a nation‐state. The paper argues that the classical Anglo‐Saxon tradition in economics – fundamentally focused on barter and distribution, rather than on production and knowledge – systematically fails to grasp these wider issues in economic development, and it brings in and discusses the role played by the state in alternative traditions of non‐equilibrium economics.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how Marxist accounts of capitalism and capitalists as “vampiric” and “cannibalistic” can challenge the exploitation underlying “monstrosity” of the diverse “liberal organization”.

To bear out this argument, it will critically turn to Marx's original description of capitalism as “vampire” like. It will do so by examining a range of theoretical and existing empirical research related themes of contemporary diversity.

The paper argues that in order to avoid becoming capitalist monsters it is imperative to adopt an explicitly anti-capitalist Marxist perspective centring on themes of a “monstrous” capitalism. Capitalist organizations, not only “suck the blood of workers” but turns them into exploiting vampires, feeding on others for own profit and promotion. Yet it also expands on such readings by emphasizing the liberating possibilities that a more contemporary view of “monsters” stressing radical diversity and difference can make to this Marxist critique.

To this end, it illuminates how a perspective uniting these ideals, termed here as a “revolutionary monstrous humanism”, can effectively challenge the dehumanization of managerial control and market ideologies while also fighting for the right of individuals to express their heterogeneous and always evolving unique cultural identities.

In the Europe of the nineteenth century, a significant increase in abandoned children was caused by demographic pressures and growing economic difficulties that progressively afflicted the lowest social strata of the population. Those who had neither family, nor school, educated themselves in the streets or learned from patron‐tutors who aspired to produce a specific social subject, channelizing their “congenitally” subversive tendencies through a certain kind of structured apprenticeship. This model of education (or “bad education”) can be defined as the formalization, paradoxically devoid of symbols and alphabet, of the experience of the street within a specific system of knowledge. The purpose of this paper is to seek to encounter in literary sources the traces of the education of these marginalized children.

The authors intend to study, by means of the testimony of novels, the mentality of this historic period and the phenomenon of this very different kind of childhood. The epistemological and methodological viewpoint that is adopted is both ethnographic and historical, since the authors are attempting to understand and establish the evolving nexuses and dynamics of the educational phenomenon that is the object of the investigation.

The central objective of this investigation lies in the notion of “bad education”. By “bad education” the authors mean the presence of an educational itinerary, an acculturation, a personality formation, and a professionalization that have all strayed from the dominant, hegemonic social models. This “model” of education forms part of the prevailing educational philosophy of a particular epoch and historical situation, as demonstrated throughout this paper.

This paper proposes an operation of educational archaeology. However, this operation can contribute to an epistemological awareness that can greatly benefit both the pedagogical reflections of our time and the educations of so many marginalized children who inhabit the destitute streets of the contemporary metropolis.

In the Summer 1981 edition of The Journal of Educational Administration James D. Kaminsky published a philosophical analysis of the celebrated “Freedom and Authority Memorandum” delivered to South Australian public schools in the early 1970s by the then Director‐General of Education, A. W. Jones. In a later edition of the J.E.A. (Winter 1983) Smithson took issue with Kaminsky on several aspects of his analysis. A rejoinder from Kaminsky accompanied Smithson's paper. In this article (which closes off the debate) Smithson seeks to clarify some of the issues debated and, in particular, his own position.