Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the nature of the Directed Evolution methodology, illustrate its usefulness in creating systemic change, and how it can be implemented in face of strong resistance to change. The paper aims to demonstrate how comprehensive product/program systems redesign for higher organizational effectiveness can be realized through a well‐defined Directed Evolution implementation.

A novel model and process for Directed Evolution implementation to facilitate systemic change in organizations and in communities are described. After successful implementation in several types of organizational units, the model was examined for congruence with well‐known frameworks in change management.

The paper finds that the model has congruence with several systemic change management frameworks. It complements systems thinking by harnessing organizational knowledge through creative involvement of organizational members, employing five‐phase execution to sustain organizational members’ motivation throughout the program; and realizing comprehensive patent and intellectual property redesign while improving program and product functionality.

The study show‐cases system thinking and new innovation tools and techniques as an excellent systemic change intervention.

This uses a framework of systemic change to understand the contextual factors including stakeholder, social, political, cultural and economic, which contribute to the social and environmental narratives of a conservation organisation that has and continues to undergo transformation.

The social and environmental disclosure annual report narratives for a 27-year period were coded to a framework of systemic change.

The end of apartheid in 1994 meant that South African society required transformation. This transformation impacts and drives the social and environmental accounting disclosures made by SANParks. The social and environmental disclosures coded against a framework of systemic change, fluctuated over the period of the study as the format of the annual reports changed. The systems view was the most frequently disclosed category. The political ecology subcategory which details the power relationships showed the most disclosures. However, 25 years after the end of apartheid, the transformation process remains incomplete. Although the evidence in the paper does not support Joseph and Reigelut (2010) contention that the framework of systemic change is an iterative process, it nevertheless provides a useful vehicle for analysing the rich annual report narratives of an organisation that has undergone and continues to undergo transformation.

This paper makes two primary contributions. First, to the limited developing country social and environmental accounting literature. Second, the development, refinement and application of a framework of systemic change to social and environmental disclosures.

The aim of this paper is to understand how systemic change agents influence the twin digital and green transitions. The authors build on agency-based theories to argue that transition pathways are influenced by a combination of place-based characteristics, the mobilisation and preferences of systemic change agents (such as local clusters), and the institutional and economic context. The conceptual framework defines the different steps of the twin transition, and it identifies how systemic change agents and geographic characteristics determine the direction and speed of the transition pathway.

This paper starts with a literature review to identify the different schools of thoughts on transition pathways and the twin transition, before developing a conceptual framework and deriving policy implications.

First, this paper argues that each transition involves three steps: framing, piloting and scaling. Each of these steps is driven by systemic change agents who engage local actors in trust-based collaboration, pool resources, create network effects and exchange information to source solutions for industry-level challenges. Second, the combination of place-based characteristics and the actions of local systemic change agents define the path of the transition and the new (post-transition) equilibrium. Finally, this paper sets out implications for policymakers who are interested in using systemic change agents to shape transition pathways in their local area.

Further research is needed to provide robust empirical evidence from a range of territorial realities for the hypotheses in this paper. Specifically, the role of systemic change agents, such as trade associations, regional organisations, clusters or research groupings, needs to be investigated more closely. These agents can play a key role in progressing the transition because they already focus on sourcing solutions to joint challenges and opportunities by exchanging information, engaging local actors in trust-based collaboration, pooling resources and fostering network effects and critical mass. Future research should investigate how policymakers can best leverage on these crucial actors to progress or steer transitions and how this varies depending on place-based characteristics. This could include, for instance, training activities, networking and collaboration (e.g. through the European Cluster Collaboration Platform) or clearer sign-posting the key next steps required for the transition.

This paper identifies specific ways in which local actors can influence the direction and speed of transitions at each stage of the transition: at the framing stage, political entrepreneurship can be fostered through collaboration and smooth information flows between different levels of governance, at the piloting stage, commercial and social entrepreneurship require effective knowledge sharing and a wide and open search for solutions which, in turn, may require capacity building at the local level and coordination across stakeholder groups and levels of governance and effective scaling up can be fostered through network effects, joint commitment from a broad range of stakeholders and pooling of resources to achieve economies of scale.

An important implication of the framework is that, if several places are undergoing a parallel or joint transition, the result may not be convergence between these places. Instead, different places may choose different end points and they may proceed at different speeds. For instance, in the context of the European Union’s green and digital transitions, it is unlikely that every region will transition to a similar level of digitisation or make steps in the same direction when it comes to sustainability.

This paper plugs a gap in understanding how systemic transitions unfold and how their speed and direction are influenced by different stakeholder groups. This paper develops a conceptual framework to define twin transition pathways and it analyses prominent place-based factors affecting these pathways.

This study proposes a framework based on salience theory and shows that focusing on one type of risk (idiosyncratic or systemic) can explain overpricing of securities ex ante, and resales at low prices during crisis periods.

The author consider an overlapping generations (OLG) model where each generation lives for two periods and there is no population growth. Agents (investors) start their lives with an endowment W > 0 and have mean-variance utility. They invest their endowment when young and consume when old. Each period, the young investors optimally choose their portfolio from different risky assets acquired from the old generation, all assumed to be in fixed supply.

The author show that investor salience bias can explain excess volatility of asset prices and the resulting fire-sales in periods of financial turmoil. A change in salience – from one component (idiosyncratic) to the other (systemic) – will generate excess volatility. Interestingly, higher risk aversion generally exacerbates the excess volatility of prices. Moreover, the model predicts that if a big systemic shock hits the financial system, due to salience bias the price of systemic assets falls sharply. This relates to the observed fire-sales of assets during the global financial crisis.

The proposed model and results suggest that there may be a scope for intervention in financial markets during turbulences. In terms of ex ante policies the study suggests that investors and regulator should use better risk assessment technologies.

This is the first study constructing a tractable model based on the argument that investor salience may exacerbate the excess volatility of prices during financial downturns. The author relate salience to two types of risk; idiosyncratic and systemic and assume that investors' risk perception is biased towards the type of risk that is currently salient based on prior beliefs or past data. The author show that the diversification fallacy of the precrisis period, where seemingly safe assets were overpriced, can be explained by agents overweighing idiosyncratic risk and ignoring systemic risk.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a commentary and recommendations on systemic approaches to designing and implementing change in organisations.

The paper is a viewpoint on successful change management techniques using action research based on experience in the use of systemic thinking and systems practices.

The use of a systems approach to change using relevant systems practices enables more successful change outcomes.

Change management practitioners should utilise systemic approaches to enable more successful change implementation.

The paper provides valuable advice for practitioners and researchers in change management through the author’s unique experience in systemic change processes.

This paper applies the theory of cascading, interconnected and compound risk to the practice of preparing for, managing, and responding to threats and hazards. Our goal is to propose a consistent approach for managing major risk in urban systems by bringing together emergency management, organisational resilience, and climate change adaptation.

We develop a theory-building process using an example from the work of the Greater London Authority in the United Kingdom. First, we explore how emergency management approaches systemic risk, including examples from of exercises, contingency plans and responses to complex incidents. Secondly, we analyse how systemic risk is integrated into strategies and practices of climate change adaptation. Thirdly, we consider organisational resilience as a cross cutting element between the approaches.

London has long been a champion of resilience strategies for dealing with systemic risk. However, this paper highlights a potential for integrating better the understanding of common points of failure in society and organisations, especially where they relate to interconnected domains and where they are driven by climate change.

The paper suggests shifting toward the concept of operational continuity to address systemic risk and gaps between Emergency Management, Organizational Resilience and Climate Change Adaptation.

Technological process innovation (TPI) is a distinctive organizational phenomenon characterized by a firm-internal locus and underlying components such as mutual adaptation of new technology and existing organization, technological change, organizational change, and systemic impact. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the management of these components at different stages of the innovation lifecycle (ILC) in large manufacturing companies.

The authors adopt an exploratory case-based research design and conduct a multiple case study of five large successful manufacturing companies operating in different industries in Germany. The authors build the study on 55 semi-structured interviews, which yielded 91.5 hours of recorded interview data. The authors apply cross-case synthesis and replication logic to identify patterns of how companies address process innovation components at different ILC stages.

The study uncovers the content of four central TPI components across the ILC and identifies differences between the development of core and non-core processes. Based on the findings the authors describe asymmetric adaptation as a theoretical construct and propose that companies seek different levels of process standardization depending on the type of process they develop, which in turn affects whether there is a greater extent of technological or organizational change.

Awareness of existing structures, processes, and technologies, as well as their value in relation to the company’s core and non-core operations is imperative to determining the adequate structure of mutual adaptation.

The authors provide detailed insight on the management of mutual adaptation, technological, and organizational change, as well as systemic impact at the different stages of the ILC. The authors extend prior research by adopting an ILC perspective for the investigation of these four TPI components and by proposing a construct of asymmetric adaptation to capture key mechanisms of process development and implementation.

The purpose of this paper is to apply the organizational learning framework to the management accounting literature to better understand why management accounting innovations succeed or fail in organizations.

A theoretical framework integrating diffusion and organization learning theories is developed. Diffusion theory is used to describe the process whereby the innovation is implemented. Argyris' and Argyris and Schon's theory of organizational learning is used to describe the type of learning – single loop or double loop – required by the innovation. Finally, the works of Attewell, and of Schulz relating to organizational learning, and of Rogers and of Sandberg relating to adoption and diffusion theories, were utilized to identify and understand the potential pitfalls faced by managements implementing an accounting innovation.

The paper advances the notion that an organization's approach to learning and innovation should be of interest to management accounting researchers. The single‐loop (incremental/organizational development (OD)) and the double‐loop (radical/organizational transformation (OT)) learning influences the adoption (stage one) and diffusion (stage two) strategies that are appropriate for the design and implementation of management accounting innovations.

The paper makes an important contribution to the behavioral accounting literature by integrating sociological diffusion and organizational learning behavior literatures and relating them to management accounting research.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of bank mergers on systemic and systematic risks on the relative merits of product and market diversification strategies. It also observes determinants of M&A deals criteria, product and market diversification positioning, crisis threshold and other regulatory and market factors.

This research examines the impact and association between merger announcements and regulatory reforms at bank and system levels by investigating the impact of various bank consolidation strategies on firms’ risks. We estimate beta(s) as an index of financial institutions’ systematic risk. We then develop an index of the estimated equity value loss as the long-rum marginal expected shortfall (LRMES). LRMES contributes to compute systemic risk (SRISK) contribution of these firms, which is the capital that a firm is expected to need if we have another financial crisis.

Large acquiring banks decrease systemic risk contribution in cross-border M&As with a non-bank financial institution, and witness profitability (ROA) gains, supporting geographic diversification stability. Capital requirements, activity restrictions and bank concentration increase systemic risk contribution in national mergers. Bank mergers with investment FIs targets enhance productivity but impair technical efficiency, contrary to bank-real estate deals where technical efficiency change accompanied lower systemic risk contribution.

Financial institutions are recommended to avoid trapped capital and liquidity by efficiently using local balance sheet and strengthening them via implementing models that clearly set diversification and netting benefits to determine capital reserves and to drive capital efficiency through the clarity on product–activity–geography diversification and focus. This contributes to successful ringfencing, decreases compliance costs and maximises returns and minimises several risks including systemic risk.

Policy implications: the adversative properties of bank mergers in respect of systemic risk require strict and innovative monitoring of bank mergers from the bidding level by both acquirers and targets and regulators and competition supervisory bodies. Moreover, emphasis on regulators/governments intervention and role, as it provides a stabilising factor of the markets and consecutively lower systemic risk even if the systematic idiosyncratic risk contribution was significant. However, such roles have to be well planned and scaled to avoid providing motives for banks to seek too-big-too-fail or too-big-to-discipline status.

This research contributes to the renewing regulatory debate on banks sustainable structures by examining the risk effect of bank diversification versus focus. The authors aim to address the multidimensional impacts and risks inherent to M&A deals, by examining the extent of the interconnectedness of M&A and its implications within and beyond the banking sector.