Search results

Despite general agreement that shared decision making is a desirable component of school restructuring, reform efforts have failed to emphasize the importance of information use in decision processes. Consequently, teacher decision authority is unlikely to result in new and creative approaches to practice. Reports on a study in which teachers and principals in 24 restructuring schools responded to surveys assessing their level of involvement in shared decision making, the kinds of information they used in reaching collaborative decisions, and their perceptions of the usefulness of various sources of information in their school improvement efforts. Results revealed a generally high level of involvement but little valuing of information beyond the collective knowledge of the group. However, where multiple information sources were sought and utilized, satisfaction with collaborative decision making was greater. Sketches of decision processing in two schools contrast the efficacy of collaboration when information is or is not valued. Discusses implications for school restructuring and presents a model for information use in school improvement.

This study seeks to examine the impact of downsizing and restructuring decisions and processes on perceptions of organisational knowledge and effectiveness after downsizing and restructuring events in “successful” and “unsuccessful” organisations.

The study proposes a conceptual framework hypothesising that the impact of decisions and processes on levels of organisational knowledge are key determinants of effectiveness in post‐downsizing and restructuring organisations. Data were collected using a survey instrument developed through review of literature along with focus group findings. Survey data are factor‐analysed to identify stable constructs for testing hypotheses using regression analysis.

The findings indicate that the significance of the variables tested is found in those organisations considered by employees to be unsuccessful after downsizing and restructuring, rather than in their successful counterparts

The findings indicate that organisations undertaking downsizing or restructuring need to consider the organisational culture and climate with regard to knowledge retention and the potential impact of these initiatives to ensure that employee experiences are constructive. Support strategies such as counselling and training are important, as are job redesign, time for employee handover and documentation of procedures, if knowledge retention is to be maximised.

Although knowledge retention within organisations is generally accepted as desirable, little previous research has considered the impact of downsizing decisions or processes on knowledge retention. Additionally, data collected for this research were drawn from multiple respondents within a large number of organisations, providing breadth and depth of data for analysis.

This study aims to analyze the effect of cognitive load and social value orientation on managers’ preferences when they face with two types of restructuring choices in financially distressed firms: the first belonging to the family of organizational restructuring (massive layoffs) and the second to the family of financial restructuring (debt increases).

The authors investigate experimentally the impact of managers’ cognitive load and social value orientation on the decision to restructure leveraged buyout (LBO) firms in financial distress by using either massive layoffs or debt increases.

By investigating the impact of managers’ cognitive load and social value orientation on the restructuring decision of an LBO firm in financial distress, the research reveals that, on average, cognitively loaded managers prefer massive layoffs over increased debt levels. The massive layoffs seemingly provide a relatively easier way to avoid conflict with influential, residual claimants. In contrast, social value–oriented managers actively avoid massive layoffs and prefer to increase debt.

These results imply that the performance mechanisms emphasized to improve agency relations, for example, in LBOs, have their own limitations during periods of financial distress. This study shows that one of these limits is related to cognitive distortions and personality traits.

In this research, the originality lies in understanding how managers’ internal factors affect their restructuring decision-making, in the case of LBO firms in financial distress.

The purpose of this paper is to examine to what extent and under which conditions restructuring processes allow workers to effectively voice their concerns, with a view to influencing the restructuring logic and transforming its outcomes.

In‐depth case studies with semi‐structured interviews, documentary analysis and a survey, all conducted at firm‐level (taking also into account the impact of the European Workers’ Council when relevant).

Both settings (be it the Swiss flexible labour law and collective labour agreements or the protective professional status enjoyed by the French workers) do not guarantee the enhancement of workers’ capability set in restructuring processes. Whatever the entitlements and the cognitive and political resources available to the workers, two conditions are crucial to enhancing their capability for work and for voice: workers’ ability to re‐build collectives; and an adequate regulatory framework imposing on employers and shareholders the duty to negotiate.

The paper suggests another way of assessing restructuring processes and outcomes based on the capability approach, and demonstrates its greater relevance compared to economic or managerialist views of restructuring, based on efficiency and profitability.

School principals have difficulty embracing the competing demands of school restructuring. These demands include being accountable for the outcomes of other decision‐making groups within, or external to, the school community; having strong views while making decisions collaboratively; and using group processes without wasting the time, commitment, motivation and goodwill of those involved. The three sets of tensions were named the accountability, autonomy, and efficiency dilemmas, respectively. This paper outlines the development of an instrument to determine the saliency of particular domains of decision making in which these dilemmas are experienced by school principals. The instrument was trialled in Australia and New Zealand using Rasch analysis to check the fit of items. The instrument is currently being applied in The Netherlands, Australia and Taiwan, with other countries to follow.

Although decentralisation during crisis is more beneficial in the long run, still economic downturn increases the probability of centralisation. The purpose of this paper is to understand the sub-micro reasons of centralisation during recession.

To answer the research question, a qualitative methodology was applied based on interviews with senior managers of six English and seven Hungarian manufacturing companies.

In the time of crisis, companies centralise because they would like to gain efficiency. The short-term advantages of concentration of authority (such as whole company focus, easier communication and higher decision speed) override its longer term downsides such as less innovation and flexibility.

Cost cutting-driven centralisation can always generate faster results than a hazardous sales increase-driven decentralisation. A rapid centralisation can seem a safer and better choice than a stronger innovative capability of which results can be harvested only in the future. If companies centralise in the time of crisis and delegate during prosperity, adaptation to economic cycles can be crucial. This can gain competitive advantage if the companies can perceive economic situation and restructure their authority better than their competitors.

The paper would like to contribute to the quantitative-dominated literature with a descriptive, qualitative study analysing the root causes of change in concentration of authority.

Describes the practices, thoughts, and feelings of shared‐governance principals as they confront the challenges of school restructuring. The focus is on the principals’ perspective on shared governance and democratic schooling; the challenges of becoming involved in collaborative decision making with teachers, parents, and students; and the principals’ own professional growth as they strove to become “one among equals” with their colleagues. The data discussed here were drawn from a qualitative study of principals in nine schools affiliated with Glickman’s League of Professional Schools in Georgia. A protocol of open‐ended interview questions designed by the researchers, according to general guidelines for grounded theory inquiry, provided principals with the opportunity to identify and describe in detail their perspective on shared governance leadership in schools. Inductive analysis of the data generated a description of the implementation of shared governance that includes five salient themes: meanings, becoming involved, letting go of power, supportive processes, and supportive structures. Discusses findings in terms of the relevant empirical and theoretical literature.

Over the past decade the policy debate over improving U.S. public education has focused on market solutions (charter schools, privatization, and vouchers) and teacher evaluation through high stakes standardized testing of students. In this debate, teachers and their unions are often characterized as the problem. Our research offers an alternate path in the debate, a perspective that looks at schools as systems – the way schools are organized and the way decisions are made. We focus on examples of collaboration through the creation of long-term labor-management partnerships among teachers’ unions and school administrators that improve and restructure public schools from the inside to enhance planning, decision-making, problem solving, and the ways teachers interact and schools are organized. We analyzed how these efforts were created and sustained in six public school districts over the past two decades, and what they can teach us about the impact of significant involvement of faculty and their local union leadership, working closely with district administration. We argue that collaboration between teachers, their unions, and administrators is both possible and necessary for any meaningful and lasting public school reform.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the role played by leadership in divestment decision making and indeed during the corporate restructuring phase for retail organisations. In doing so, the paper aims to contribute to a growing body of research that seeks to develop understanding of the factors leading to retail divestment and the nature of corporate response to divestment.

A multiple case approach is utilised. The cases are selected from a database of international retail divestment activity over a longitudinal period.

The paper demonstrates that divestment can be a response to “failure”, however, support is also provided for the assertion that divestment can be a strategic decision to devote resources more efficiently elsewhere, either at home or abroad. A key finding is the role of leadership and managerial stability in relation to divestment and restructuring at home and abroad.

The themes presented in this paper are developed from observational data. The validity of the themes should be examined further through in‐depth, qualitative case studies of divestment activity. Future research could examine the role of new CEOs both in relation to the divestment itself and during the process of restructuring following divestment.

The role of leadership and managerial stability in divestment and corporate restructuring processes are highlighted. Insights are provided into the organisational response to divestment actions and the implications for further international strategies.

Academic debate on divestment has highlighted a wide range of reasons that lead to retailers divesting international operations and the strategic value of divestment. This paper adds to existing knowledge by examining the role of leadership within the divestment process.