Search results

This research examines the long-held belief in the adaption-related literature that a firm’s ability to adapt organizational structure to changing environments is related to superior performance. We create and test a construct that reflects an organization’s ability to change structure, which we call Supply Chain Structural Adaptability (SCSA), rather than relying on proxies (e.g. structural form or organizational modularity) used in prior studies.

Quantitative data was collected from 218 firms to test our conceptual model.

We find that SCSA has a mixed effect on profitable growth under various environmental conditions.

We find evidence that refutes two widely held assumptions in organization research, namely, that structural form serves as a reasonable proxy for structural adaptability and that the benefits of adaptive capabilities always increase as environmental dynamism increases.

The authors mobilise stewardship theory, which delves into trust and collaboration dynamics, advocating for long-term gains through actions beneficial to the broader community. Used as a fundamental framework to conceptualise the model, stewardship theory enhances the understanding of the effect of purchasing social responsibility (PSR) practices to foster innovativeness and performance through the supply chain (SC). This study aims to examine the relationship between PSR, SC innovativeness (SC-INNO) and SC operational performance (SCOP). In addition, the moderating effect of sustainability labels on these relationships will be studied.

Based on survey data from 177 organisations analysed through partial least square structural equation modelling, the results suggest that PSR has a positive and significant effect on SC-INNO and SCOP. In addition, SC-INNO plays a partial mediation role since the direct effect between PSR and SCOP is validated. Furthermore, the moderating effects of holding a sustainability label and industry type about PSR and SCOP are supported.

The results indicate a significant positive influence of PSR on both SC-INNO and operational performance. SC-INNO is found to partially mediate the PSR–SCOP relationship. Moreover, sustainability labels and industry type significantly moderate the effects of PSR on SCOP.

The findings extend stewardship theory into the sustainable purchasing and supply management field by providing empirical support for PSR as a reflection of stewardship behaviours by fostering innovation and performance throughout the SC.

This chapter examines two 21st-century Disney fairy tale adaptations, Frozen (2013) and its sequel Frozen II (2019), focussing on the representation of male characters and the discourse on masculinity that can be inferred from both films.

Despite featuring two prominent female protagonists – Queen Elsa and Princess Anna – and dealing with themes such as sisterhood and female bonding, a close reading of the two films reveals that they are as much about masculinity as they are about femininity. For instance, filmmakers introduce heterosexual romance where there was none before, as well as male characters Prince Hans and Kristoff, who are not present in the literary source that they draw from, Hans Christian Andersen's ‘The Snow Queen’ (1844).

Furthermore, these male characters are given names, personalities, and motivations, which cannot be said of previous Disney fairy tale Prince Charming-type figures. Therefore, Hans and Kristoff are proposed to be variations of this archetype and can be read as an attempt on Disney's part to complicate it, undermine the patriarchal masculinity that it stood for in its previous Disney renderings, and propose alternative models for the implied 21st-century audience.

Although Prince Hans is initially presented as a stereotypical Disney fairy tale prince, he is eventually revealed to be a narcissistic lover and a patriarchal villain. Kristoff, by contrast, is the humble, lower-class, sensitive ‘new’ man who is presented as a socially acceptable alternative and finally takes Prince Charming's place by becoming the princess's love interest and partner. Frozen can be read as a cautionary tale that urges young women to choose their romantic (male) partners wisely and warns both male and female audiences against the dangers of fragile patriarchal masculinity.

In this article, we outline our views on the appropriateness and utility of Return on Investment (ROI) for the evaluation of the value of healthcare quality improvement (QI) programmes.

Our recent research explored the ROI concept and became the genesis of our viewpoint. We reflect on our findings from an extensive research project on the concept of ROI, involving a multidisciplinary global systematic literature review, a qualitative and Delphi study with mental healthcare leaders from the United Kingdom National Health Service. Research participants included board members, clinical directors and QI leaders. Our findings led to our conclusions and interpretation of ROI against the broad QI governance. We discuss our views against the predominant governance frameworks and wider literature.

ROI is in-line with top-down control governance frameworks based in politics and economics. However, there is evidence that to be of better utility, a tool for the assessment of the value of QI benefits must include comprehensive benefits that reflect broad monetary and non-monetary benefits. This is in-line with bottom-up and collaborative governance approaches. ROI has several challenges that may limit it as a QI governance tool. This is supported by wider literature on ROI, QI as well as modern governance theories and models. As such, we question whether ROI is the appropriate tool for QI governance. A more pragmatic governance framework that accommodates various healthcare objectives is advised.

This article highlights some of the challenges in adopting ROI as a QI governance tool. We signal a need for the exploration of a suitable QI governance approach. Particularly, are healthcare leaders to be perceived as “agents”, “stewards” or both. The evidence from our research and wider literature indicates that both are crucial. Better QI governance through an appropriate value assessment tool could improve clarity on QI value, and thus investment allocation decision-making. Constructive discussion about the utility and appropriateness of ROI in the evaluation of healthcare QI programmes may help safeguard investment in effective and efficient health systems.

The article raises awareness of QI governance and encourages discussions about the challenges of using ROI as a tool for healthcare QI governance.

This paper aims to highlight the factors influencing the conceptualisation of return on investment (ROI) from healthcare quality improvement (QI) programmes.

In their previous work, the authors found that the concept of ROI from QI is broad and includes numerous internal and external benefits for organisations. In this paper, the authors developed a framework outlining the factors that influence this conceptualisation of QI-ROI from an institutional theory perspective. The framework is based on the synthesis of their serial studies on the determinants of the concept of ROI from QI. The research was performed from 2020–2023 and involved a global multidisciplinary systematic literature review (N = 68), qualitative interviews (N = 16) and a Delphi study (N = 23). The qualitative and Delphi studies were based on the publicly-funded mental healthcare in UK. Participants included board members, clinical and service directors, as well as QI leaders.

The authors outline a framework of internal and external institutional forces that influence the conceptualisation of ROI from QI programmes in mental healthcare and similar organisations. Based on these factors, the authors state several conjectures. In doing this, the authors highlight the ambiguities and uncertainties surrounding QI-ROI conceptualisation. These challenge leaders to balance various monetary and non-monetary benefits for organisations and health systems. This explains the broadness of the QI-ROI concept.

The authors developed a framework highlighting the forces underpinning the broad, ambiguous and sometimes uncertain nature of the QI-ROI concept. They raise awareness about dilemmas to be confronted in developing or applying any tool to evaluate the value for money of QI programmes. Specifically, the work highlights the limitations of the ROI methodology as a primary tool in the QI context and the need for a more comprehensive tool.

Organizations are confronted with problems and political risks to which they have to respond, presenting a need to develop tools and frames of understanding requisite to do so. In this article, we argue for the necessity of cultivating “political judgment” with a “sense of reality,” especially in the upper echelons of organizations. This article has two objectives: First to highlight how a number of recent interlinked developments within organizational analysis and practice have contributed to weakening judgment and its accompanying “sense of reality.” Second, to (re)introduce some canonical works that, although less in vogue recently, provide both a source of wisdom and frames of understanding that are key to tackling today’s problems. We begin by mapping the context in which the need for the cultivation of political judgment within organizations has arisen: (i) increasing proliferation of political risks and “wicked problems” to which it is expected that organizations adapt and respond; (ii) a wider historical and contemporary context in which the exercise of judgment has been undermined – a result of a combination of economics-inspired styles of theorizing and an associated obsession with metrics. We also explore the nature of “political judgment” and its accompanying “sense of reality” through the work of authors such as Philip Selznick, Max Weber, Chester Barnard, and Isaiah Berlin. We suggest that these authors have a weighty “sense of reality”; are antithetical to “high,” “abstract,” or “axiomatic” theorizing; and have a profound sense of the burden from exercising political judgment in difficult organizational circumstances.

The purpose of the paper is to produce new knowledge about the positions that public libraries both take and are given in the conflicts over politics and identity that play out in contemporary cultural and library policy debates. Using conflicts over drag story hour at public libraries as case, the study seeks to contribute to an emerging body of research that delves into the challenges that public libraries as promoters of democracy are confronting in the conflictual political landscape of today.

The paper presents an analysis of debates reported in news articles concerning Drag story hour events held at Swedish public libraries. Utilizing the analytical lenses of discourse theory and plural agonistics, the analysis serves to make visible the lines of conflicts drawn in these debates – particularly focusing on the intersection of different meanings ascribed to the notion of the reading child, and how fear is constructed and used as an othering devise in these conflicts.

Different imaginings of the reading child and the construction and imagination of fear and safety shapes the Drag story hour debates. The controversies can be understood as a challenge to the previous hegemony regarding the direction and goals of Swedish cultural and library policy and the pluralistic democratic society these policies are meant to promote.

The paper offers new insights into the consequences of the revival of radical right politics, populism and societal polarization, and the different responses from public libraries.

Sharing co-owned information on social network platforms has become a common and inevitable phenomenon. However, due to the uniqueness of co-owned information, the privacy calculus theory based on a single information owner cannot explain co-owned information disclosure. Therefore, this study tries to investigate the underlying mechanism of users’ co-owned information disclosure from a collective privacy calculus perspective.

Through a survey of 740 participants, covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) was used to verify the proposed model and hypotheses.

The results show that personal benefit, others’ benefit and relationship benefit promote users’ co-owned information disclosure by positively affecting personal distributive fairness and others’ distributive fairness perception. Meanwhile, personal privacy risk and others’ privacy risk prevent users’ co-owned information disclosure by negatively affecting personal distributive fairness and others’ distributive fairness perception. Besides, others’ information ownership perception enhances the positive effect of others’ distributive fairness perception on co-owned information disclosure intention. Furthermore, others’ information ownership strengthens the mediating role of others’ distributive fairness.

The findings of this study enrich the research scope of information disclosure and privacy calculus theory and help social network platform developers design collective privacy protection functions.

This study develops a collective privacy calculus model to understand users’ co-owned information disclosure on social network platforms, confirming the mediating role of collective distributive fairness and the moderating role of others’ information ownership perception in the process of collective privacy calculus.