Search results

The purpose of this paper is to establish a critical synthesis of the dynamics of narcissistic leadership in organizations. Moreover, this paper offers suggestions for research aimed at providing greater insight into this form of leadership.

The paper comprises a review of the latest scientific research in the field of narcissistic leadership. In strictly methodological terms, this synthesis can thus be classified as a literature review.

The paper presents details of four factors that can trigger manifestations of narcissistic leadership: idiosyncratic, cultural, environmental and structural factors.

Based on a comprehensive review of the literature, this paper proposes an analysis of the dominant characteristics and dynamics of narcissistic leadership, essentially from the point of view of a pathological narcissism of the overt (grandiose) type. It would be interesting to extend the exploration to another form of narcissistic leadership – namely, covert (vulnerable) leadership.

Through its exploration of the nature and limits of narcissistic leadership, this paper proposes avenues of research that could have interesting managerial applications.

To the author's knowledge, this is the first synthesis to propose an integrated research model that incorporates the antecedents, components and consequences of narcissistic leadership in organizations.

Any endeavor to circumscribe, with a certain degree of precision, the nature of the relationship between social science and critical theory would appear to be daunting. Over the course of the past century, and especially since the end of World War II, countless efforts have been made in economics, psychology, political science, and sociology, to illuminate the myriad manifestations of modern social life, from a multiplicity of angles. It is doubtful that it would be possible to do justice to all the different variants of social science, in an assessment of their relationship to critical theory. Moreover, given the proliferation of critical theories since the 1980s, the effort to devise a “map” that would reflect the particular orientations and intricacies of each approach to critical theory also would be exacting, in its own right.¹

Any endeavor to circumscribe, with a certain degree of precision, the nature of the relationship between social science and critical theory would appear to be daunting. Over the course of the past century, and especially since the end of World War II, countless efforts have been made in economics, psychology, political science, and sociology to illuminate the myriad manifestations of modern social life from a multiplicity of angles. It is doubtful that it would be possible to do justice to all the different variants of social science in an assessment of their relationship to critical theory. Moreover, given the proliferation of critical theories since the 1980s, the effort to devise a “map” that would reflect the particular orientations and intricacies of each approach to critical theory would also be exacting in its own right.¹

The purpose of this paper is to describe through innovation system foresight and systemic innovation approach to address key systemic issues of European Union (EU) Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) concerning the sustainable development and economic resilience: the authors highlight the need for a systemic approach to innovation policy for the sustainable islands’ growth.

This research focuses on a multiple case study of selected OCTs, members of the Association of the OCTs. Specifically, this paper illustrates the foresight approach implemented in six OCTs in the context of the Territorial Strategies for Innovation project funded by the 10th European Development Fund.

The focus is on innovation system foresight and systemic innovation: the authors argue that key innovation elements of the individual OCTs can be used as crucial components of an emerging innovation system while this specific type of foresight can assist the governments of respective OCTs in the selection and design of specific instruments in relation to the formulation of their innovation strategies and policies.

This paper is based on work undertaken by the Territorial Strategies for Innovation project team during a three-year period dedicated to supporting the governments of OCTs both in defining and in implementing their innovation strategies. Its main contribution is to develop the concept of innovation system foresight and systemic innovation for the OCTs. The work presented here is considered to be of value by highlighting specific innovation elements for achieving sustainable and inclusive growth in OCTs.

To show that systems theory (ST) has surfaced as innovation of worldview and thinking, aimed at holism. After ST's subordination to narrow specialists using it inside traditional disciplines, if at all, humankind needs a new innovation of ST. An option is offered.

Mulej's Dialectical ST is applied as worldview and methodology of requisite holism using Mulej's Dialectical System concept.

Mulej's Dialectical System concept applies to synergies of several STs, not only viewpoints. Here, six soft STs and the social responsibility (SR) concept are combined around human subjective starting points aimed at holism and innovation, including ethics of interdependence. Combination offers new insights.

Research is limited to soft STs and implies knowledge of more STs and SR as well as participants' readiness for creative interdisciplinary co‐operation.

The new concept offers a new step toward increased innovation capacity, especially toward innovation of culture toward requisite holism and innovation. This is a crucial precondition for survival in the modern global society and economy.

The authors know neither books nor articles presenting synergies of several STs and SR nor their application to preconditions of innovation.

For sociological perspectives on globalization to do justice to its many facets, they must be informed by an understanding of modern societies as simultaneously complex, contingent, and contradictory – as modern capitalist societies. As is becoming ever more apparent, such an understanding of modern societies is the necessary precondition for identifying the defining features of globalization. Yet, for the most part, the history of the social sciences did not produce research agendas, theories, and methods designed to grasp complexity, contingency, and contradiction as core dimensions of modern social life that continually reinforce each other. The social sciences did not evolve as ongoing efforts to grasp the gravity each dimension exerts on concrete forms of political, economic and cultural life, and how the force of each depends on the constant exchange of energy with the other two. To the extent that scrutinizing the impact of globalization on the future – and possible futures – of human civilization is the primary challenge for social scientists to confront today, the current condition presents a unique, and perhaps most unusual opportunity to conceive anew the promise of each and all the social sciences, as elucidating how the complex, contingent, and contradictory nature of modern societies, in the name of advancing social justice, has engendered a regime of managing “social problems.”

For perspectives on globalization to do justice to its many facets, they must be informed by an understanding of modern societies as simultaneously complex, contingent, and contradictory – as modern capitalist societies. As is becoming ever more apparent, such an understanding of modern societies is the necessary precondition for identifying the defining features of globalization. Yet, for the most part, the history of the social sciences did not produce research agendas, theories, and methods designed to grasp complexity, contingency, and contradiction as core dimensions of modern social life that continually reinforce each other. The social sciences did not evolve as ongoing efforts to grasp the gravity each dimension exerts on concrete forms of political, economic, and cultural life, and how the force of each depends on the constant exchange of energy with the other two. To the extent that scrutinizing the impact of globalization on the future – find possible futures – of human civilization is the primary challenge for social scientists to confront today, the current condition presents a unique, and perhaps most unusual opportunity to conceive anew the promise of each and all the social sciences, as elucidating how the complex, contingent, and contradictory nature of modern societies, in the name of advancing social justice, has engendered a regime of managing “social problems.”

To get beneath the surface of the focal concepts of public relations practice today, the major sociological theories of Jürgen Habermas and Niklas Luhmann have been fruitful as frames of interpretation. Two paradigms for reflection on the public relations phenomenon have been developed on their theories: the inter‐subjective and the social systemic public relations paradigms. These paradigms indicate fundamentally different interpretations of the concepts of conflict and social responsibility, with crucial consequences for the role of public relations in today's social order. Each perspective has its blind spots but the switching of perspectives allows us to see more. Habermas's theories make it possible to disclose the ideal perception which seems to prevail in the self‐understanding of public relations practice while, at the same time, setting out normative ideals for the practice. The ideal in the inter‐subjective paradigm is to re‐establish the system's coupling to the lifeworld. The public relations practitioner must act as an individual through communicative action. Public relations is a matter of ethical issues in a normative perspective. We might also call this the ethical, communicative or normative paradigm of public relations. The keyword is legitimation in post‐conventional discourse society. Luhmann's theories make it possible to disclose the social systemic mechanisms that can be viewed as the framework for public relations practice, and to set out functional conditions for that practice. The functions of the social systemic paradigm are to assist in maintaining the boundaries of the organisation system through strategic reflection and to assist in ensuring that society's differentiated system logics can function autonomously because they also understand how to function together. The sphere of action of the public relations practitioner is defined by the social systems. Public relations is a matter of functional issues in a cognitive perspective. We might also call this the functional, reflective or cognitive paradigm of public relations. The keyword is public trust in the context‐regulated society. This paper is based on a thesis by the author entitled: ‘The Inter‐subjective and the Social Systemic Public Relations Paradigms’, University of Roskilde, April 1996, also to be published in English.