Search results

Our prior work has identified a trade-off that new entrants face in obtaining favorable market reception, whereby initial entrants suffer from a deficit of legitimacy whereas later entrants suffer from a deficit of authenticity. This research has also proposed that a single mechanism is responsible for this trade-off: the tendency for customers and other stakeholders to assess the entrant's claim to originality based on the visible work that it has done to legitimate the new product or organizational form. This chapter extends and deepens our understanding of such “legitimation work” by showing how it can illuminate cases that seem in the first instance to defy this trade-off. In particular, we focus on two “off-diagonal” cases: (a) when, as in the case of “patent trolls” and fraudulent innovators, early entrants are viewed as inauthentic despite having a credible claim to originality; (b) when late entrants, as in the case of Dell Computers, mechanical watches and baseball ballparks, are viewed as authentic despite obviously not being the originators. We clarify how each off-diagonal case represents an ‘exception that proves the rule’ whereby audiences attribute authenticity on the basis of legitimation work rather than on the order of entry per se. The last case also leads to an opportunity to clarify why “cultural appropriation” can sometimes project authenticity and sometimes inauthenticity, why audiences bother to make inferences about a producer's authenticity on the basis of visible legitimation work, and why legitimacy is a universal goal of early movers whereas authenticity varies in its importance.

This chapter explores authentic leadership at the ‘edge of chaos’ – a transitional period from one kind of stability to another triggered by the emergence and implementation of newness. The authors argue that continuous, abrupt or unpredictable change at the edge of chaos impacts authentic leadership, resulting in the development of new values, new perspectives on legitimacy and new identities. Kinyanjui and Turcan identify four leader legitimation strategies, when introducing newness at the edge of chaos: feedback loop; conformance; familiar cues; and consistency and repetition. Kinyanjui and Turcan call for future research into the co-emergence of newness at the edge of chaos to equip decision-makers and policy-makers with a better understanding of legitimation strategies in the implementation of newness.

This chapter addresses authentic leadership at the intersection of tradition and modernity with a focus on insider-outsider dynamics. The authors develop a typology of insider-outsider perception of authentic leadership and four leadership types – detached leadership, integrative leadership, entrenched leadership and atomised leadership – to provide a conceptual tool that advances authentic leadership research and leadership-building strategies. Investigating the intersection of tradition and modernity, Lines and Turcan illustrate that authenticity and legitimacy are tightly coupled. Leaders need to develop insider legitimacy by alignment with contextual norms, traditions and customs. Lines and Turcan encourage future research to explore the question: Is leadership more about establishing contextual legitimacy or establishing authenticity?

The very soul of cultural and arts entrepreneurship (CAE) is aesthetic. However, what is the importance of being aesthetic in CAE? An understanding of aesthetics substantially improves both our comprehension of CAE and our capacity to theorise about entrepreneurship and creative industries. Furthermore, when seeking to understand CAE, the authors expand their knowledge about aesthetics, an ordinary but complex and neglected kind of knowledge. The authors mobilise three perspectives in organisational aesthetics theory (sensible knowing, connection, and judgements) to develop and propose initial ways to connect aesthetics to CAE. These perspectives help to explore and explain the vital importance of aesthetics in CAE and its innovation process. Aesthetics is a source of innovation in CAE, and the authors propose to perceive entrepreneurial innovations as aesthetic learning, persuasion, and flow.

The Scandinavian penal exceptionalism literature has focused largely on imprisonment but has yet to explore other aspects of the penal field in detail. This chapter provides an overview of the penal field in Norway and how community sanctions and measures have evolved within it. The author uses the work of Wacquant and Bourdieu to argue that there are three important levels within the Norwegian penal field: political, policy and practice. The author also discusses how drivers from the political and policy levels are affecting community-based penal practice. Using McNeill’s dimensions of mass supervision, the author discusses the implications of these changes for three less-explored aspects of punishment in Norway: the serving of short sentences at home on electronic monitoring, supervision of people under 18 and ‘punishment debt’ enforcement.

The development of electronic monitoring policy over the last decade in Scotland has contributed towards its expansion and the intensification of what McNeill (2019) refers to as mass supervision. Often posited as a solution to relieve problems in the criminal justice system such as prison overcrowding and high remand populations, electronic monitoring can be punitive and problematic, exposing more people to diffused forms of social control and functioning more as a supplementary feature of prisons as opposed to a substitution for prisons. In this chapter, I explore the existing and emerging policy landscape of penal electronic monitoring Scotland, drawing upon qualitative, experiential data about being subject to and enforcing penal electronic monitoring in Scotland (see Casey, 2021) to highlight how policy is enacted in practice. Ultimately, I argue that there are fundamental issues with how electronic monitoring is currently enacted in terms of what it promises, in terms of fairness and in relation to the potential harms of integration. I call for a fundamental and holistic reframing of policy and regulation of penal electronic monitoring in Scotland that avoids siloed approaches towards policymaking, attending to both the social and digital impacts of electronic monitoring in people’s lives, thus contributing to arguments about how ‘mass supervision’ should be moderated and resisted.

This chapter analyses common, contradictory, paradoxical patterns in the evolution and development of authentic leadership that emerged throughout this handbook. The authentic leadership literature has been valuable in focusing on and reawakening a wider discourse on leadership and in particular the need for a reappraisal of leadership values. The adamant, one might say absolutist, claims for the theory have begun to restrict understanding. The chapters in this book reveal dimensions and insights that broaden and diversify potential approaches to contextual understanding and exercising leadership. Reilly and Turcan conclude that authentic leadership is still in its embryonic stage and whether it will fully emerge and become a mature discipline remains to be seen.

This chapter argues that the concept of ‘mass supervision’, and indeed the concept of ‘mass incarceration’ from which it derives, is both quantitatively and qualitatively indeterminate when applied outside of the context of the US. However, the qualitative indeterminacy of mass supervision only holds so long as one treats the word ‘mass’ as being an analogy to mass consumption. This chapter therefore considers an alternative construction of ‘mass’ punishment in terms of mass production. Comparing the philosophies of production associated with Henry Ford and William Morris with the scholarship of Michel Foucault and Fergus McNeill reveals that mass supervision can authentically claim to be qualitatively ‘massive’, given the bespoke and one-on-one nature of traditional supervision. It is thus possible to speak coherently of ‘mass supervision’ in an international context, although this negative conception of a problem invites questions about the best solution that it generally leaves open.