Search results

In this chapter we develop sustainability implications of the Savall, Zardet, Bonett, and colleagues’ approach, known worldwide as socioeconomic approach to management (SEAM). SEAM can be used as a way of doing management and organizational inquiry into the ecological sustainability of practices with planetary boundaries. We conclude that a socially responsible approach to management needs to consider the hidden costs to an enterprise if it is not being sustainable to planetary resource limits.

The purpose of this paper is to show that steering overall performance requires not only juxtaposing indicators focused on economic, social and environmental performance but also negotiating the measurement of performance metrics with all the stakeholders.

This is an action-research and intervention-research project aimed at experimenting an integrated and negotiated management control system for overall performance. The choice for the case study is a hospital in the Middle East that practices green management and that has to be self-financed while accepting all patients, even those who cannot pay.

The integration of the three dimensions of overall performance requires involving all stakeholders in the implementation of innovative management control.

The case is a pilot experiment and shows the conditions for an appropriate design of an overall performance management control methodology. However, further experiments should be carried out to shed light on the factors that form invariants regarding integrated performance log-books.

The study design is that of a management control methodology that enables the short- and long-run economic impacts of social and environmental performance.

The action-research process has proved to be a learning experience for the hospital and both internal and external stakeholders. However, replicability remains to be proven through experimenting the method in various settings.

This paper shows the need for negotiation of overall performance with all stakeholders to design and implement an appropriate participative approach to management control.

This chapter presents a case study involving a socio-economic Organizational Development (OD) project carried out in a European subsidiary of a large multinational corporation traded on the New York Stock Exchange. This research case study, one of the 1,854 socio-economic interventions undertaken by the ISEOR research center, was chosen for its good illustration of the OD engineering process. It connects the dots between OD and financial performance, between immediate results and the creation of potential. We look at some of the tools and methods, such as overhauling loss and profit accounts and balance sheets with an eye on socio-economic balance, to illustrate socioeconomic tools at work and how they help enhance compatibility between the objectives of all stakeholders, including shareholders. With this case study, we also set out to provide food for thought on the contribution of socio-economic OD to the construction of socially responsible capitalism (Savall et al., 2015).

The purpose of this paper is to address the issues raised by hidden conflicts in a charismatic-led organization. The paper investigates the transformation from a management paradigm of quelling conflict artificially through charismatic leadership to a paradigm of negotiation that favors participation, systematicity, the multiplying of innovation sources and synchronization. The research is based on a specific approach to action research aimed at revealing the inherently masked conflictive energy, and contributing to a more sustainable, peaceful and well-performing construct.

The framework is a specific approach to participatory action research that the authors call socio-economic intervention research.

The results of the research support the proposition that while charismatic leadership quells conflict and jeopardizes the sustainability of the organization, socio-economic intervention research can help transform conflicts into cooperation in this type of organization.

The main contributions relate to shedding light on the hazards of denying conflict in charismatic-led organizations, and the importance of systemic negotiation in transforming conflict into cooperation in the Middle Eastern cultural context.

The purpose of this paper is to show the importance of an integrative approach to CSR.

The paper is based on the qualimetrics intervention-research methodology. It is an exploratory research project.

The intervention-research case study shows an example where an integrative approach to CSR was made possible.

The paper only presents an example of a company. Future research should show how the method that has been experimented to integrate CSR might be implemented.

The paper might help company actors debate and propose an innovative approach to CSR.

The paper provides scientific methods to better negotiate the creation of norms and standards in the field of CSR, enabling to move one step further as regards ISO 26000.

It shows some of the conditions required to bridge the gap between CSR and financial standards.

Attempts to explain the sources of the basic assumption of the socio‐economic approach to management (SEAM): the existence of hidden costs and performance. These are due to the heterogeneity of situations and to the presence of multiple contradictions in these situations. Aims to show how SEAM can help to both spot these two dimensions and to shed light on the operational difficulties for managers to cope with them.

This article presents the socio‐economic model founded and developed by the author since 1973. It focuses on the fundamental hypothesis of the socio‐economic approach to management (SEAM) and demonstrates how the model is a system‐ wide approach to change management.

For more than a century companies’ organizational variables have been studied and researched. Historically, the practice is to focus on the precursors in the management sciences field, Frederick Winslow Taylor, Henri Fayol and Max Weber, the founders of the classical organization theory school. The objective of this article is to determine if the fundamental principles of this school are still present and an integral part of industrial companies today, and if so, to assess their impact. The paper demonstrates how the socio‐economic approach, which was created in 1973, goes well beyond the socio‐technical and organizational‐development approaches to change management, by taking into better account the economic and strategic dimensions of leadership management.

The purpose of this article is to compare and contrast the socio‐economic approach to management (SEAM) with 15 large system change methods. All 16 of these methods are part of the transorganizational development (TD) gameboard (see the Web site at http://web.nmsu.edu/ dboje/TDgameboard.html). Based on this comparison, the paper suggests that SEAM is broader‐based, more integrative, and more postmodern (more multi‐vocal and power‐conscious) than most other TD methodologies.

The research scheme presented here has been implemented in a city with over 250,000 inhabitants. The purpose of the article is to present the SEAM method in an urban setting, considered as a transorganizational field. The main hypothesis behind this research scheme is that any neighborhood is not organized enough to create networks which deliver efficient services, thus resulting in many dysfunctions and even violence in the city.