Search results

This chapter seeks to optimize HR shared services performance by highlighting the potential for service fragmentation that can arise out of in the so-called Ulrich (structure or service delivery) model.

The evidence used in this chapter principally comes from the author’s own work, especially research for the UK’s Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), and draws upon academic literature where possible.

This chapter argues that HR directors should guard against three sets of fragmentation risks. Firstly, HR shared services should be properly connected to the rest of HR to offer customers an integrated service to avoid the structure’s division of labor inducing incoherence. Second, to guard against this risk, HR directors should exercise care in outsourcing/offshoring beyond individual, discrete services because contractually or spatially separating services risks exacerbating this tendency to fragmentation. Outsourcing/offshoring may focus too much on cost savings and insufficiently on quality. So, third, HR should argue for the distinctiveness of its activities and fight commoditization that is also implied in the creation of cross-functional shared service centers.

The arguments in this chapter could be better supported by academic research. In-depth case studies of management decision making and shared services operation would help support or challenge the chapter’s conclusion, as could quantitative evidence on the benefits/disbenefits of outsourcing/offshoring/cross-functional shared services centers.

We have highlighted a number of reported problems with HR shared services operation, besides the three principal risks noted above, but we have suggested possible solutions that could be adopted by practitioners.

HR managers may find this chapter helpful in designing new HR structures or in assessing the effectiveness of shared services that goes beyond the typical key performance indicator measures.

Partnerships with business involvement became a key trend in development cooperation since the late 1980s. Partnerships emerged as promising governance mechanism; however, governing partnerships in practice remained challenging – promise and reality seem to diverge. This chapter scrutinizes the tension between the promises of partnerships as governance arrangements and their actual governance challenges. It disentangles the complexity of governing partnerships by developing a framework based on a continuum between efficiency- and participation-orientation. This chapter identifies partnering approaches and their governance orientations based on an extensive review of literature in diverse academic fields and grey literature on the emergence and evolution of partnerships in development cooperation since the 1980s. Examples from the Dutch development cooperation provide illustrations for each partnership approach. Efficiency- and participation-orientation highlight competing governance rationales, logics and partnership characteristics. Partnership approaches that aim to embrace both perspectives have to deal with the inherent governance paradox between control and collaboration. This chapter identifies three key implications for research and practice: exploring new governance approaches and practices, adapting development agencies towards partnering and coordinating partnership approaches at international level. Understanding the tension between the promises of partnerships as governance arrangements and their actual governance challenges does not only contribute to more nuanced conceptualizations of partnering approaches for development but has also implications on how to govern partnerships for development in practice.

There is little doubt that practitioners and academics care about talent management (TM). The significant impact that the Fourth Industrial Revolution has on the work environment, combined with a set of broader socioeconomic, geopolitical, and demographic changes, emphasize the importance of managing talent extremely well. However, it seems that practitioners and managers are still seeking answers to the practical issues in handling TM and the chapter questions how much academic research is addressing this concern. In particular, this chapter offers a critical reflection on the relevance (visibility and impact) of TM research. Although the field has evolved significantly, practical implications for stakeholders remain unanswered. In other words, the Academic-Practitioner Gap in TM remains wide. Current TM research is lost in and before translation. In order to overcome these issues, scholars will require hard self-examination, and engagement with practitioners. The future of TM will be brighter and its role more effective when stakeholders work more closely to chart a consistent pathway forward.

Narrow, managerially centered notions of organizational culture remain hegemonic, marginalizing richer, anthropological approaches as well as efforts to understand how the beliefs and practices of organizations are fundamentally shaped by the wider societal dynamics within which they are embedded. In this paper, the authors draw upon recent efforts to explore the interface of scholarship on practice and the institutional logics perspective to highlight the utility of a practice-driven institutional approach to the study of organizational culture that brings society back in. Empirically, the authors present a longitudinal case study of a Chinese private enterprise, and analyze how the unfolding dynamics of a strong community logic increasingly affected by a rising market logic, shaped the formation of political coalitions internally and externally as organizational members aimed to maintain truces between the push and pull of logics over a period of 22 years. Through an analysis of seven episodes that we conceptualize as “cultural encounters,” the authors find that a combination of compartmentalization and overall integration of logics contributes to provisional truces, and that people in the same cohort who share common geographic socialization are more likely to form allies. Our aim is to encourage future scholars to study how societal beliefs and practices work their way into organizations in a variety of explicit as well as more mundane, hidden ways.

The competitive arena in business environments has changed in many ways. The globalization of markets, rapid technological change, shortening of product life cycles, and the increasing aggressiveness of competitors require firms to respond flexibly and rapidly (Grant, 1996; Volberda, 1996). Not just fast-moving, high-tech industries have been facing these changes; even industries that were supposed to be stable are heating up (D’Aveni, 1994). As competition intensifies and the pace of change accelerates, firms are increasingly confronted with a tension between exploiting existing competences and exploring new ones (Floyd & Lane, 2000; Levinthal & March, 1993; March, 1991). Firms seek to adapt to environmental changes, explore new ideas or processes, and develop new products and services for emerging markets. In addition, they need stability to leverage current competences and exploit existing products and services (Benner & Tushman, 2003; Sanchez & Heene, 1996).

Early paradox research in organization theory contained a remarkable breadth of inspirations from outside disciplines. We wanted to know more about where early scholarship found inspiration to create what has since become paradox theory. To shed light on this, we engaged seminal paradox scholars in conversations: asking about their past experiences drawing from outside disciplines and their views on the future of paradox theory. These conversations surfaced several themes of past and future inspirations: (1) understanding complex phenomena; (2) drawing from related disciplines; (3) combining interdisciplinary insights; and (4) bridging discourses in organization theory. We end the piece with suggestions for future paradox research inspired by these conversations.

Cultural portraits usually begin with a description of the context, but as this material is covered elsewhere in this volume, this introduction will be mercifully brief. At any time during the last four decades, there have been dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of Stanford University faculty and doctoral students interested in studying organizations. They have been scattered across the campus, often in small groups within larger schools and departments. They have been based in the Sociology Department and the Organizational Behavior and Strategy areas at the Graduate School of Business. There were always a handful at the Education and Engineering schools, as well as a scattering of individuals doing related work in Psychology, Political Science, and Anthropology. In spite of their numbers, before the Stanford Center for Organizational Research (SCOR) was founded in 1972, many of these faculty, postdoctoral fellows, and doctoral students felt rather isolated. They had little contact with colleagues across campus who shared their interest in organizations and little collective clout when resources were being distributed.