Search results

This study aims to examine the economic factors that determine innovation pattern in centralized and decentralized economies and organizations.

Empirical evidence on innovation in the centralized economy of the Soviet Union is reviewed. Existing theoretical literature in this area relies on the incentives of decision-makers in centralized organizations and on the concept of soft budget constraint in centralized command economies and hard budget constraint in market economies. This study advocates applying the hierarchy/polyarchy model of innovation screening to explain the pattern of innovation in centralized economic systems.

Screening and development of innovation projects can be organized in a centralized or decentralized fashion. The differences in innovation between centralized and decentralized economic systems may be explained by elements of the principal-agent theory, the soft budget constraint model, and the theory of decision-making in hierarchies and polyarchies. Empirical evidence shows a sharp slowdown in both innovation and economic growth in the Soviet economy following the economic decision-making reform of 1965. The theoretical explanation most consistent with this evidence is the hierarchy decision-making model.

Comparisons of innovation in centralized and decentralized economies traditionally relied on decision-makers' incentives and the concept of soft budget constraint. Upon analysis of empirical evidence from the centralized Soviet economy, this study advocates explaining innovation patterns based on decision-making theory of hierarchy.

This paper explores how adaptive organizations, companies capable of continuously adapting their organizational model, dynamically solve the universal problems of organizing.

The authors applied grounded theory to data acquired from six interpretative case studies, collected in two rounds of interviews (15 in total), then completing and validating the study’s evidence through triangulation with several secondary data sources.

In adaptive organizations, polyarchies and intrapreneurial employees are essential to shape the division of labour, leading to high levels of autonomy and empowering individuals and teams, while reducing bureaucracy and hierarchy. In terms of the integration of effort, digital solutions are preferred to social proof in the provision of information, while the authors note that incentives are always geared towards developing strong higher-order dynamic capabilities.

This paper has some limitations that could be addressed in future research, including longitudinal studies to analyse the link between the universal problems of organizing and a company's dynamic capabilities.

Adaptive organizations go beyond tech firms in responding to the universal problems of organizing work by making specific use of digital technologies.

The paper studies how companies should organize themselves so that they continuously adapt to an ever-changing competitive environment.

To clarify our analysis, we start with a conceptual explanation of synarchy and the key terms that we need to use in this chapter. Synarchy is a neologism that combines synthesis with anarchy. We will first look at how these two contrasting ideas are linked. In juxtaposition, they provide a basis for understanding contemporary public administration in a global and comparative context.

Many bureaucracies still exist, and not just in the public sector. Increasingly, however, we would argue that they are more likely to evolve towards polyarchic forms because of the growing centrality of stakeholder resistance, especially that which is premised on empowerment of key employees. We suggest that managerial responses to this resistance are transforming bureaucracies through process of accommodation: upper echelon managers invent responses to contentious acts and voices so as to reintegrate ‘resisters’ while rewarding them for contesting decisions in a cooperative way. Understanding these processes help us understand why traditional bureaucracy is currently transforming itself as a result of the emergence of new forms of resistance in the workplace.

The purpose of this paper is to meet the challenge of modeling knowledge organization by introducing a new, unifying, way of thinking about the organization of knowledge. Building on ideas set forth in the behavioral theory of the firm we present a modeling framework in which the central idea is to represent the organization of knowledge as a structure that defines the flow of information among members with limited levels of cognitive skill. Such a structure is referred to as an architecture. The need to design architectures that help their members make less errors by rejecting bad alternatives and accepting good ones is an important but largely overlooked issue in knowledge management. The present article offers an approach to think about this issue in a systematic way. The use of the proposed modeling framework is illustrated through examples. The article omits a treatment of the technical details of the proposed modeling framework. A useful way of designing organizations that make less error is outlined. This paper advances a new way of thinking about knowledge organizations that may be relevant for both researchers and practitioners.

To derive from the environmental risk and knowledge management literatures a model that integrates organizational form, democratic vision and epistemological needs of public agencies responsible for addressing environmental risks. To analyze the knowledge management practices of the United States Department of Energy (USDOE) that is responsible for cleaning up landscapes contaminated by 50 years of plutonium production.

The model was used as a framework for a case study analysis of the USDOE knowledge management practices.

Conceptual: a vision of democracy and an understanding of the type of knowledge process can facilitate organizational constancy. Organizational forms should be matched to knowledge process and democratic vision. Empirical: USDOE has behaved erratically in addressing environmental risks viewed through this model of knowledge management.

The model idealizes democratic visions, epistemological processes and organizational forms. Care should be taken in making predictions for the success or failure of an organizational approach based solely on this model.

Practically, the model aids scholars in making connections between knowledge management and public sector environmental risk management literatures; and provides managers with a systematic framework for relating democratic context knowledge production processes to particular organization forms. Use of this model particularly during agency restructuring may facilitate resolving environmental risks though improving organizational legitimacy, constancy, and knowledge generation capacity.

This is a first attempt at integrating two related but so‐far disconnected literatures (environmental risk management and knowledge management).

This chapter falls into line with the study about the possible incentives of interventions and their impact on democratic institutions to emphasize the need to differentiate between different military interventions and their effects on democratic institutions in the target states. The chapter theoretically builds on the Selectorate Theory (Mesquita et al. 2003) and also dialogues with liberal (Hoffmann 1997) and realist perspectives (Choi 2016) on foreign policy related to the liberal world order, human rights, economic and security interests.

Using composite indices, the paper examines the nexus between militarization, globalization and liberal democracy. The democratic peace theory, the conflict inhibiting effects of international trade – a key and dominant facet of globalization – and the democracy promoting globalization hypothesis form the theoretical underpinnings of the empirical investigation.

To probe into the issue at hand, the paper adopts a dynamic panel VAR estimation procedure. Given the usual data constraints, the sample consists of 113 countries, and the estimations span the period 1995–2019.

The findings from the dynamic panel VAR estimations suggest the presence of a negative and statistically significant nexus between the level of globalization and the level of militarization. No statistically traceable nexus between globalization and liberal democracy was found.

The findings offer empirical support to the hypothesis that the strong links of interdependence shaped by globalization reduce the need for military preparedness. The results lead to a tentative inference in favor of the doux commerce thesis. Nonetheless, given that the estimations span a historically specific period – the entire post-bipolar era – the inferences that stem from the findings should be treated with caution.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the composite indices Bonn International Centre for Conflict Studies (BICC) militarization index, the globalization index of the Swiss Economic Institute (Konjunkturforschungsstelle) (KOF), LibDem, polyarchy have not hitherto been jointly used in previous studies to examine the nexus between militarization, globalization and liberal democracy.

What has been called “the McDonaldization of universities” (another name for top-down and strong corporate managerialism) has gained momentum as a model for governing and managing universities. This trend exacerbates the traditional tension between academic freedom and managerial control – a major challenge for the administration of academic institutions. The ideas of Charles Darwin represent an opportunity for overcoming such a challenge. However, traditional managerial models show inadequate, pre-Darwinian assumptions for devising organizational designs. This paper aims to show not only the opportunities but also the challenges of embracing a Darwinian paradigm for designing social systems. The case of managerialism in universities is an illustrative example. The paper proposes evolutionary guidelines for designing universities capable of maintaining managerial control while warranting academic freedom.

The paper proposes to understand the tension between academic freedom and managerial control in universities as the same tension between freedom and control that Karl Popper identified as successfully handled by evolutionary processes. The paper uses Darwinian theory, understood as a broader theory for complex systems, as a heuristic for designing social systems – universities in this case – able to adapt to changing environmental conditions while handling equilibrium between freedom and control. The methodology articulates the Popperian model of knowledge with the Darwinian scheme proposed by David Ellerman known as “parallel experimentation” for suggesting organizational forms in which university administrators and faculty can interact for generating free innovations in pseudo-controlled organizational arrangements.

A salient characteristic of strong managerialism is its pre-Darwinian understanding of survival and adaptation; such an approach shows important flaws that can lead universities to unfit designs that changing environments can select for elimination. As an alternative, the philosophy behind the ideas of Charles Darwin provides guidelines for designing innovative and adaptive social systems. Evolutionary principles challenge basic tenets of strong managerialism as Darwinian designs discard the possibility of seeing managers as knowledgeable designers that allegedly can avoid mistakes by allocating resources to “one-best” solutions through ex ante exhaustive, top-down control. Instead, a Darwinian model requires considering survival as a matter of adaptability through continuous experimentation of blind trials controlled by ex post selection. The key is to organize universities as experimenting systems that try new and different things all the time and that learn and improve by making mistakes, as an adaptive system.

Governing and managing universities require to acknowledge the uniqueness of academic institutions and demand to look for appropriate forms of organization. The proposal of this paper opens possibilities for exploring and implementing action-research initiatives and practical solutions for universities. Studies in management and administration of higher-education institutions must take into account the characteristics of this type of organizations and should consider wider spectrums of possibilities beyond the core ideas of managerialism.

University managers face a special challenge for achieving equilibrium between managerial control and academic freedom. Darwinian models of management invite to reconsider several management creeds, for instance, that “errors are bad things” – instead of innovation triggers and learning opportunities or that “one solution must fit all” – instead of considering bottom-up, different and adaptive solutions triggered by local academic units, each facing different environments.

Currently, there is no clear picture for governing universities. This paper introduces principles and guidelines for facing the current challenge that strong managerialism represents if universities are expected to maintain academic freedom and also survive in volatile environments.

This paper focuses on the strategic role of elites in managing institutional and organizational change within English public services, framed by the wider ideological and political context of neo-liberalism and its pervasive impact on the social and economic order over recent decades. It also highlights the unintended consequences of this elite-driven programme of institutional reform as realized in the emergence of hybridized regimes of ‘polyarchic governance’ and the innovative discursive and organizational technologies on which they depend. Within the latter, ‘leaderism’ is identified as a hegemonic ‘discursive imaginary’ that has the potential to connect selected marketization and market control elements of new public management (NPM), network governance, and visionary and shared leadership practices that ‘make the hybrid happen’ in public services reform.