Search results

The purpose of this paper is to understand how employees make sense of a structural change in a public organisation, in order to understand which practices form this change and how individual elements (rules, understandings etc.) may shape the process of such changes.

The research is based on: a two-wave interview method, where the same individuals from different levels of the organisation were questioned in both 2012 and 2014; and an analysis of the formal documents created during the decision-making process. Schatzki’s (1996) approach is used as the basis to identify teleo-affective structures, practical understandings and rules as constitutive elements of the practices that comprised the structural change in the organisation.

The analysis revealed two main practices – structural reorganisation and the sharing of information and involving employees – that shaped the process of structural change within the organisation. These practices are formed of positive and negative ways of doing, some of which have become in-house habits and a few which have become rules of the organisation. There were competing understandings and enactments of named elements in the organisation, indicating that organisational practices exist beyond individuals and that it takes a collective effort to change them.

The retrospective interview technique and use of employees’ subjective sense-making did not allow us to fully grasp how practices unfolded during the process of a change to the everyday workings of the organisation, which could only be accomplished by direct observations.

The research highlighted those processes that influence one of the potentially most important changes to any organisation, that of organisation structure – both extensive and compact – which has thus far seldom been studied. The authors empirically tested Schatzki’s (1996) approach to practices and provided a set of categories for analysing practices during such changes.

This chapter provides some concluding reflections on the different experiences of structural change encountered by the TARGET partners. The various TARGET partners had different roles in the structural change processes: seven organisations designed, implemented and monitored gender equality plans (GEPs) for the first time, two organisations provided tailored support to implementing institutions and one organisation evaluated GEP implementation. This edited volume provides an account of these diverse experiences of engaging with and catalysing structural change in very different research organisations operating in extremely different contexts both within the EU and beyond. The volume thus contributes to the growing body of literature generated from structural change projects by offering a specific focus on the TARGET approach. The TARGET process of structural change – undertaken through the development and implementation of tailored, evidence-based GEPs – was found to be strengthened through formal top management commitment and by taking a reflexive approach that was powered by communities of practice and supported by financial resources, gender expertise as well as gender and organisational change competences. Engaged institutions thus managed to overcome unfavourable conditions and implement tailor-made, context-specific interventions, some of them in areas at the cutting edge of topics and issues linked to gender equality in research and innovation such as tackling sexual harassment, sustainability and integrating the gender dimension into research content and curricula.

European Union (EU) central and eastern economies have gone through a process of structural change since 1989, when the post-communist transition started. This process was afterwards reinforced by the three EU enlargement waves that took place in 2004, 2007 and 2013. Though exhibiting low levels of aggregate productivity, this group of countries joined the EU with higher levels of human capital than the southern member states, an advantage that should have accelerated real convergence towards the EU15. However, evidence to date suggests that the convergence process came to a halt in 2007–2008 when massive capital inflows stopped, highlighting the fragilities of the growth strategies implemented so far. In these peripheral countries, structural change has been characterised by an expanding services sector alongside growing income inequality. The two strands of literature on these issues highlight that: (a) an expanding services sector may not be detrimental for growth, quite the opposite, depending on services composition and on the capacity of services sub-sectors to incorporate information and communication technologies (ICTs); and (b) inequality is negatively related to growth through the fiscal policy, socio-political instability, borrowing constraints to investment in education and endogenous fertility channels and positively through the savings channel and incentives. We analyse the nexus between structural change, inequality and growth in this group of countries highlighting income inequality as a potential mechanism that connects the other two variables. We provide a descriptive quantitative analysis of the profiles of structural change and income inequality in our sample and apply dynamic panel methods to investigate the existence of causality among services sector expansion, inequality and aggregate productivity considering a maximum period between 1980 and 2010.

Organizational change theorists tend to focus on substantive changes and frequently ignore or underplay the significance of the features of structural inertia. The effect of this preoccupation has minimized our understanding of frequently occurring patterns of limited structural change. The purpose of this paper is to encourage theorizing and debate about limited structural change.

This paper presents a conceptual explanation of the different patterns of limited structural change that arise in organizations undertaking change. It reviews and comments on how different patterns occur at the organization level as a result of the adjustment of component forces around pattern profiling centers of gravity.

A pervasive finding in change literature is that organizations tend to fall back on more of the same, even when they undergo some major structural change. The paper proposes a framework encapsulating four competencies that synergistically complement each other as a foundation for explaining different patterns of limited structural change.

The paper argues for advancing theory accounting for limited structural change, moving away from the dichotomy of change as normal and limited change as atypical. Normative rational change actions and bounded change actions interact and coexist in parallel. A focus on explaining limited change is a starting point for advancing our understanding of this coexistence.

Accounting for quality and improved organizational performance has recently received attention in management control research. However, the extent to which process innovation changes have been integrated into management control research is limited. This paper contributes to that integration by drawing from institutional adaptive theory of organizational change and process innovation strategies. The paper utilizes a 2 by 2 contingency table that uses two factors: environmental conditions and organizational change/learning strategies, to build a process innovation framework. A combination of these two factors yields four process innovation strategies: mechanistic, organic, organizational development (OD) and organizational transformation (OT).

The four process innovation typologies are applied to characterize innovations in accounting such as activity based costing (ABC). ABC has been discussed as a multi-phased innovation process that provides an environment where both the initiation and the implementation of accounting change can occur. Technical innovation can be successfully initiated as organic innovation that unfolds in a decentralized organization and requires radical change and double loop learning. Implementation occurs best as a mechanistic innovation in a hierarchical organization and involving incremental change and single loop learning. The paper concludes that if ABC is integrated into an OD or OT intervention strategy, the technical and administrative innovation aspects of ABC can be utilized to manage the organization’s operating activities.

The Ethiopian economy is characterized by erratic and poor performance with negative growth rates, seven times over the period 1981-2010. This trapped per capita income at 358 USD in 2010 staying far away from middle-income country status. A lot of unsolved debates regarding perpetual growth, structural change and sectoral allocation of resource emerged overtime. The purpose of this paper is to examine the alternative effects of induced sectoral total factor productivity and makes comparisons of various sectoral growth options.

This study uses a recursive dynamic computable general equilibrium model based on neoclassical-structuralist thought. It also calibrates coefficients that capture the impacts of openness, imported capital and liberalization on sectoral total factor productivity growth using a model of vector auto-regressive with exogenous variables.

Future economic growth rate is expected to grow at a declining trend and to be dominated by the service sector. If it keeps growing on the current path it will expose the economy to a severe structural change burden problem. Openness induced agricultural total factor productivity highly improves the welfare of households while imported capital goods induced industrial total factor productivity is also better in fostering structural change of the economy. The broad-based growth option that combines the induced total factor productivity of all sectors also enables the economy to achieve more sustainable growth, rapid structural change and welfare gain at the same time.

There are intensive and charged debates regarding alternative sectoral growth options. However, the debate does not derive from a rigorous analysis and holistic economy-wide approach. It is rather affiliated with politics. Therefore, the paper is original and investigates these issues meticulously.

The paper extends the organizational learning framework: Structural-Functional (SF)-single-loop or Conflictual-Radical (CR)-double-loop learning to the management accounting literature. The sociological approach of organizational learning is utilized to understand those contingent factors that can explain why management accounting innovations succeed or fail in organizations.

We view learning as enhancing an organization’s strategic competitive advantage by making it better able to adopt and diffuse innovation in respond to changes in its environment in order to manage improved performance. The success of management accounting innovations is contingent upon whether its learning process involves SF-single-loop or CR-double-loop learning to adopt and diffuse process innovation.

The paper suggests that the learning strategy that the organization chooses is the reason why some management accounting innovations are more successfully adopted than others and why some innovations are easily diffused in some organizations but not in others. We propose that the sociological approaches to learning provide an alternative framework with which to better understand the adoption and diffusion of process innovations in management accounting systems.

It has become evident that management accounting researchers need to pay particular attention to an organization’s approach to adoption and diffusion of innovation strategies, particularly when they are designing and implementing process innovation programs for an organization. According to Schulz (2001), there are two interrelated stages of the learning that can shape the outcome of the innovation process in an organization. The first stage is related to the acquisition/production (adoption) of knowledge that results in gathering information, codification, and exploration. This is followed by the second stage which is the distribution or dissemination (diffusion) processes. When these two stages – adoption and diffusion – are applied within an accounting context, they address issues that are commonly associated with the successes and/or failures of management accounting innovations.

Although innovation involves learning, the nature of the learning process does not completely describe the manner in which an innovation affects the organization. Accordingly, we suggest that the two interrelated organizational sociological dimensions of innovations processes, namely, (1) the adoption and diffusion theories of Rogers (1971 and 1995), to approach organizational learning, and (2) the SF (single loop) and CR (double loop) approaches to learning be used simultaneously to describe management accounting innovations.

When an innovation is implemented, it initially can be introduced as an incremental change, one that can be limited in both in its scope and its breadth of administrative changes. This means that situations which are most likely to benefit from its initiation can serve as the prototype for its adoption by the organization. If successful, this can be followed by systemic accounting innovations to instituting broader administrative changes within the existing accounting reporting and control systems.

This chapter discusses the relevance of a community of practice (CoP) for a reflexive gender equality policy and reflects on the different approaches taken within TARGET. It is based on the literature on CoPs and structural change as well as on experiences in transferring this approach to the context of implementing gender equality plans (GEPs) within different types of research organisations. While the notion of the CoP was coined in the 1990s, literature on gender and such communities remained scarce until a recent wealth of research looked at the role played by inter-institutional CoPs in advancing structural change in research organisations. In this chapter, we examine whether and how an institutional CoP approach has been a useful vehicle for gender equality plan development and how the different configurations of internal and external stakeholders within the CoPs have impacted GEP implementation.

This study aims to examine how academic library directors conducted meetings in the change process and the factors influencing the approaches used.

Bolman and Deal's reframing change model provided the foundation for this research. An online survey was sent to 1,010 academic library directors in the USA. The response rate was 59 percent. The qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis. The collected quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed using descriptive (frequencies, percentages, means, standard deviations) and inferential statistics (binary and multinomial logistic regressions).

Most directors used multiple approaches to conduct meetings in the change process. The structural and human resource approaches were the most frequent single approaches. Regression analysis confirms that demographics, human capital, and library variables play significant roles in conducting meetings.

Data in this study were collected from directors in libraries of doctoral granting, master‐granting, and baccalaureate‐only colleges, and universities. Accordingly, the results of the study might not be generalized to college and university libraries outside this classification.

This paper provides a useful overview of the approaches used to conduct meetings in the change process and the factors influencing the approaches used.

Directors may use the results to reflect on different options of the strategies for conducting meetings in the change process and balance the weight of the factors' influences. The results may also help librarians better understand various approaches to conducting meetings in the change process.

The process approach to multi-level organizational behavior is based on the assumption that multi-level organizational behavior is processual in nature. This article defines group and organizational processes and their representation as process frameworks. Both functional and inclusional classes of levels exist, each of which has at least five categories of levels. All ten categories are special cases of process frameworks. This article provides examples of each category level, which it uses to illustrate new models of organizational work, extended models of interdependence, a new typology of theories based on their levels of processes, and a new tool for survey research called knobby analyses. After explaining the basic idea of knobby analysis, the article briefly describes the processual theory of the organizational hologram, the use of linear programming, and causal-chain analysis to provide multi-level explanations of employee opinion data. These ideas are embodied in conducting a strategic organizational diagnosis, which is the first stage of organizational design. Organizational design encompasses multiple stages, each of which itself involves multiple, multi-level phenomena and analyses. The basic point is that the processual nature of multi-level organizational phenomena gives more hope for improvements in theory building and their application if one uses the process approach rather than a variable approach.