Search results

When Jim Collins and Jerry Porras were researching the early history of some of America's greatest corporations for their book Built to Last, they kept coming across a common denominator: Peter Drucker.

The purpose of this paper is to offer an integrated framework for understanding agility. Agility has become an increasingly important capability in today’s changing business world. In this paper, the authors suggest “3, 4’s” to better define agility. Agility can be defined through four dimensions (create the future, anticipate opportunity, adapt quickly and learn always); agility occurs with four stakeholders (strategy, organization, leader and individual); and agility is sustained through four Human Resource (HR) tools (people, performance, information and work).

Using this integrated framework, executives can better define, assess and invest in creating agility as a capability.

The authors studied leading Chinese and US high-tech organizations to discover how they respond to changing market conditions.

The research for this agility framework is described in their book, Reinventing the Organization: How Companies Can Deliver Radically Greater Value in Fast-Changing Markets.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an interview with Rita Gunther McGrath, Columbia Business School Professor, and author of The End of Competitive Advantage: How to Keep Your Strategy Moving as Fast as Your Business.

The paper takes the form of an interview.

In the following interview, Rita Gunther McGrath discusses the demise of traditional strategy practices, proposing a more flexible approach in response to the volatile environment in which we live.

McGrath signals the end of sustainable competitive advantage, suggesting that businesses must organize for the “waves of transient advantage” that are now commonplace.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether corporate social responsibility (CSR) really adds value to corporate financial performance (CFP) in the pharmaceutical industry. Most pharmaceutical companies currently practice CSR by taking a “triple bottom line” approach of environmental, social, and economic strategies to manage their businesses and produce an overall positive impact.

A survey was developed based on professional experience, Carroll’s construct, the study’s hypotheses, and industry studies. The survey, composed of 45 questions using a seven-point Likert scale, was conducted among pharmaceutical professionals to evaluate whether CSR affects performance. Responses totaling 140, including 20 companies, were coded, taking into account the respondent’s corporate position and firm size.

Survey respondents strongly agreed that CSR adds value to CFP and should be viewed as a long-term investment. CSR programs should be implemented regardless of company size. CSR is effective because it invests in stakeholder management, such as with customers, government, investors, and activists, creating positive relationships which improve reputation and profitability.

This perception study shows the need for further quantitative analysis of CSR and CFP metrics specific to the pharmaceutical industry.

CSR programs should be implemented regardless of company size, and sheer size does not dictate whether CSR programs can be successful. This paper also sheds light on potential managerial implications that originate from these findings that may help pharmaceutical companies manage their scarce resources more effectively.

In today’s competitive economic environment, where increasingly stakeholders including investors scrutinize pharmaceutical firms’ environmental and social performance, CSR is a crucial strategy. The findings can help corporate managers make strategic CSR decisions to optimize benefits for their organization.

While numerous studies have addressed the link between CSR and corporate performance across industries, definitive studies have not examined the pharmaceutical industry.

The paper provides an invited “Viewpoint” from Professor Susan Vinnicombe, along with contributions from Professor Sharon Mavin, on women leaders’ progress on UK company boards and suggests areas for future research.

Draws on data from the annual UK The Female FTSE Board Report (2021) and The Hidden Truth Report (2022), tracking gender diversity on UK company boards. Professor Vinnicombe outlines reflections on progress, and jointly the authors highlight suggested areas for future women-in-leadership research.

The authors argue against the continued use of the business case for gender diversity and suggest a research agenda for future women-in-leadership research concerning: gender-aware Chairs of Boards and Chief Executive Officers and men allies; access and appointment to senior board roles; and bias in senior appointments. We suggest a return to examining barriers to women’s progress in middle management, the role of middle managers/leaders and the uptake and impact of established flexible ways of work at executive levels. New research is possible into how women leaders in top positions have a positive influence on gender diversity yet are discriminated against by various publics. The authors recommend further intersectional research as a priority for women-in-leadership research to enable further theorizing and feminist progress.

Professor Sue Vinnicombe has dedicated her academic career to questioning barriers to women’s progress in management/leadership and actively influencing organisational practice. Sue was influential in the field before her first co-authored papers were published in Women in Management Review (our predecessor) in 2001 and 2002. Professor Sharon Mavin is a previous co-editor of Gender in Management: an international journal. Her first papers were published in Women in Management Review in 1999 and 2001. Sharon is co-editor of the Special Issue, women-in-leadership research and feminist futures: new agendas for feminist research and impact on gender equality.

The purpose of this paper is to report an academic library's efforts to introduce course-integrated assessment into its library instruction program. Applying a leadership change model to the process allows for a step-by-step examination of both organizational change and the creation of cultures of assessment.

Over a period of three years, course-integrated assessment was introduced into an academic library's instruction program. Rather than implementing rapid, superficial change, the process focused on transforming librarians' thoughts and feelings about their teaching and student learning. Dr John P. Kotter's eight-step process for leading organizational change is applied to explain the methodology.

Kotter's leadership change model provides a suitable framework for organizing and implementing organizational change within an academic library. However, the use of his method to create and sustain cultures of assessment proves questionable. This may not be fault of his method, but a combination of a less than perfect application of his process and unrealistic expectations of how cultures of assessment develop and function.

The paper focuses on one unit within an academic library, rather than an academic library as a whole.

Changing organizational culture, creating cultures of assessment, and/or implementing course-integrated assessment exemplify some of the challenging tasks academic libraries face in their mission to prove value. This case study provides a candid discussion of both successes and obstacles encountered in using a change leadership model to address each of these. It may also inspire other possible uses of such a model within academic libraries.

According to Meredith Farkas, investigations into the application of leadership change models to build and sustain cultures of assessment within academic libraries do not exist in the literature.