Search results

In response to recent calls to better understand the brain’s role in organizational behavior, we propose a series of theoretical tests to examine the question “can brains manage?” Our tests ask whether brains can manage without bodies and without extracranial resources, whether they can manage in social isolation, and whether brains are the ultimate controllers of emotional and cognitive aspects of organizational behavior. Our analysis shows that, to accomplish work-related tasks in organizations, the brain relies on and closely interfaces with the body, interpersonal and social dynamics, and cognitive and emotional processes that are distributed across persons and artifacts. The results of this “thought experiment” suggest that the brain is more appropriately conceived as a regulatory organ that integrates top-down (i.e., social, artifactual and environmental) and bottom-up (i.e., neural) influences on organizational behavior, rather than the sole cause of that behavior. Drawing on a socially situated perspective, our analysis develops a framework that connects brain, body and mind to social, cultural, and environmental forces, as significant components of complex emotional and cognitive organizational systems. We discuss the implications for the emerging field of organizational cognitive neuroscience and for conceptualizing the interaction between the brain, cognition and emotion in organizations.

This study aims to propose an integrated model to examine the impact of knowledge governance, knowledge sharing and absorptive capacity (ACAP) on project performance in the context of project-based organizations (PBOs). This study also examines the moderating role of social processes on the relationships among these variables.

To test the proposed model, cross-sectional data were collected regarding projects from 133 PBOs in Pakistan’s information technology/software industry. The data were analyzed using the partial least squares – structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) method and PRCOESS tool. Finally, this study also uses causal asymmetry analysis to check asymmetric relationship in the key constructs.

The results generally support the proposed model. Knowledge governance and knowledge sharing are important antecedents for improving the ACAP of the project, which in turn significantly improves project performance. Additionally, social processes positively moderate the relationship between knowledge sharing and ACAP, as well as between ACAP and project performance.

The findings suggest that PBOs should invest in developing a knowledge governance system that guides and stimulates knowledge sharing within and between projects. This would boost the ACAP of projects and lead to superior project performance.

This study addresses the important issue of knowledge management in IT/software projects. It proposes a unique model that integrates the key constructs of knowledge management and describes their effect on project performance.

While strategy was traditionally perceived as exclusive, and limited to small groups within organizations, recently a shift toward greater openness through inclusion of a larger number and variety of actors is emerging. The purpose of this paper is to adopt a social network perspective to develop a theoretical framework on how this increased openness has a varying impact in the different phases of the strategy process.

The author suggests that the strategy process is shaped through social interactions between individuals. Specifically the author conceptualizes how introducing openness affects individuals’ structural and relational characteristics, which impact generating new strategic ideas (variation), and selecting (selection), and integrating them into the existing set of routines (retention).

The framework shows that benefits and costs of increased openness balance differently. While substantial benefits may be realized in the idea generation phase, costs may outweigh the benefits in the selection and retention phase.

Based on the framework, implications can be drawn on how openness should be introduced in the different phases of the strategy process. Specifically the author discusses appropriate open strategy tools based on social technologies, which organizations can use to benefit from openness in the different stages.

Open strategy is a newly emerging phenomenon, which seems to fundamentally change the strategist’s work. More open, inclusive ways of strategizing offer new benefits but also create costs in the strategy process. This paper deepens the theoretical understanding of the consequences of openness in the strategy process.

For social marketers to become effective change agents, evaluation is important. This paper aims to expand existing evaluation work to empirically respond to Gordon and Gurrieri’s request for a reflexive turn in social marketing using reflexive process evaluations: measuring more than “what” worked well, but also evaluating “how” and “why” success or indeed failure happened.

An online survey, adapting Dillman’s tailored design method empirically assesses 13 reflexive process hypotheses. With a response rate of 74 per cent, regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the proposed hypotheses and to identify the significant predictors of each of the reflexive process relationships under investigation.

The study empirically examines and shows support for three reflexive process evaluation constructs – relationships, knowledge and networking. Network involvement and reciprocity; two process dimension constructs do not exert any impact or predict any relationship in the conceptual framework.

This paper expands evaluation theory and practice by offering a conceptual framework for reflexive process evaluation that supports the logic to be reflexive. It shows support for three reflective process evaluation constructs – relationships, knowledge and networks. Another unique element featured in this study is the empirical assessment of Gordon and Gurrieri’s “other stakeholders”, extending evaluations beyond a traditional client focus to an interconnected assessment of researchers, clients and other stakeholders.

Indicators of economic and social phenomena can be useful descriptive and analytical inputs for public policy. The “social indicators movement” has emerged in the last decade and is devoted to the measurement of widely‐ranging dimensions of human welfare. For the most part, questions of systematic measurement for public policy are explored here. Drawing initially on some traditions of measurement in economics, the principal aim is to provide a broad theoretical frame of reference for policy indicator design. Questions of indicator development necessarily involve ideas of suitability or validity of indicators designed for a purpose. Approaches to indicator design for the purpose of enhancing collective decision‐making—including formal model building approaches—are subsumed as special cases once a more general theory is espoused in sections II and III.

In the process of cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&A), the social capital of enterprises is dynamic. In this context, cross-cultural competence plays an important role and can affect the transformation process of social capital and further influence the realisation of M&A performance. However, there is still not enough research on the process of social capital transformation and corporate cross-cultural competence. This study aims to explore the influence mechanism of social capital and the cross-cultural competence of enterprises.

In this paper, four typical manufacturing M&A case studies were analysed and a grounded theoretical analysis process was used to explore the structure of cross-cultural competence and its impact on the dynamic process of social capital.

The results of this study imply that social capital experiences three stages of transformation in the process of M&A. There are also four dimensions of corporate cross-cultural competence, which are composed of various factors. These all affect the dynamic process of social capital through different influence mechanisms.

According to the results, a mechanism model was composed to determine how corporate cross-cultural ability affects the social capital process. This is of practical significance as it can enhance the performance of M&A integration in a cross-cultural context.

Despite the theoretical shortcomings of recent historical work on social processes, the historical discipline has a role to play in the theorization of social dynamics. As the work of the late sociologist Charles Tilly (2008, p. 9) has emphasized, the larger-scale theoretical type of social-process analysis may benefit from a more small-scale historical awareness of “the influence of particular times and places.” In Tilly's view, the sociological accounts of social processes that lack the sense of temporal transitions which characterizes historical analysis will “rarely identify the component mechanisms, much less their combinations and sequences.” By contrast, a historical approach to the “big structures, large processes, huge comparisons” (see Tilly, 1984) of social processes may put forward an analytical program that “couples a search for mechanisms of very general scope with arguments that […] lend themselves to ‘local theory,’ in which the explanatory mechanisms and processes operate quite broadly but combine locally as a function of initial conditions and adjacent processes to produce distinctive trajectories and outcomes.” These local elements of history may aggregate together into a more general pattern of theory: “Mechanisms compound into processes: combinations and sequences of mechanisms that produce some specified outcome at a larger scale than any single mechanism.” The temporal dimension of a historical analysis has a capacity to theorize social processes by telling a story of beginnings that carry forward into points of culmination.

The chapter aims to enhance our understanding of “opportunity” in the context of social entrepreneurship through a paradigm interplay juxtaposing a functionalist thematic analysis and interpretivist sensemaking. This paradigmatic contrasting identifies differences and connections in the tensions of: linearity and simplicity/dynamism and complexity; forward/backward, generalizability/situated relationality, and value-laden/value-neutral. These contrasts deepen our understanding of “opportunity” so that the theoretical and practical implications can be seen.