Designing high commitment — high performance organizations

In this paper the author suggests a number of reasons why in recent years there appears to have been a shift in thinking away from traditional bureaucratic-scientific forms of organization to alternative types of organizational design. In most cases, that thinking has yet to be translated into practial action. Experiments in organizational design are taking place but progress appears to be hindered by the lack of a sufficiently well understood design theory, a clearly existing model to emulate, and not least by a failure to know how we get from “where we are” to “where we want to be”. The author describes some of the basic characteristics of what have been called “high commitment—high performance” organizations, and concludes by offering a step-model towards the creation of such an organization.     

The Self‐Help Myth: Towards a Theory of Philanthropy as Consensus Broker

This article presents a theoretical and methodological approach to studying how philanthropic power is maintained through the process of negotiating consensus between greatly unequal partners such as wealthy funders and social movement leaders. It is proposed that grant agreements between private foundations and social movement organizations construct idealized spaces of public participation and discursive theories of change that draw attention away from structural inequality and antagonism, ultimately generating consent. Drawing upon archival and ethnographic research on philanthropic investments in addressing migrant poverty in California's Central Valley, the article shows how consensus between foundation staff and farmworker and immigrant organizers promote funding frameworks that exclude questions that challenge relationships of power and systems of agricultural production that contribute to enduring poverty across the region. The Gramscian conceptual frames of “discursive power,” “hegemony as politics,” and “strategic articulation” are presented as a theoretical framework from which to understand the power of private philanthropy as consensus broker during historical moments of crisis.     

Organization as process: Drawing a line between endogenous and exogenous views

This paper offers a classification of process views in organization studies. We start by assuming that distinctions may be drawn between ways that stability of entities is conceptualized in organizational analysis. From this point of departure we explore four different process views, namely: process as flows, process as programmes, process as recursive reproduction and process as connectivity. The first two views—process as flows and process as programmes—tend to build on the assumption that processes take place within relatively stable contexts, such as the organization or the institutional environment. This we refer to as an “exogenous” view. A second type of views of process is what we refer to as “endogenous” views, which are based on the assumption that stabilization of entities resides in the process itself.     

Community-engaged philanthropy: The role of the fundraiser in building equitable communities

In recent years, fundraisers have become increasingly focused on major gift solicitation while donors have been making larger gifts to fewer organizations. As this trend continues, some have begun to question whether major organizations and/or wealthy individuals now have too much control over the work of nonprofits and the communities they serve. While it is true that major gifts are important and can made a noticeable, positive impact, in some cases community members might see their impact as intrusive. In situations such as this, what is the “best” course of action? How should fundraisers consider, balance, and address the perspectives and rights of their organization, donors, and community members? This paper creates a framework for fundraisers as they consider not only their responsibilities to their organization and constituents, but also their responsibilities for promoting equity within their community as a whole. This paper draws on the social-ecological model, as well as concepts from intersectionality, to explore how fundraisers can increase involvement from all community members in a nonprofit's work to create a participatory and community-engaged process, with a special focus on including those who are typically marginalized, rather than maintaining a hierarchical system of power. It also draws on the theories of rights-balanced fundraising ethics, community-centric fundraising, and other ethical frameworks of fundraising and public administration to compare what is being done by fundraisers to what should be done to encourage ethical practices in fundraising. The paper is supplemented by examples of the impact of implementing (or not implementing) community engagement in fundraising practices. This paper aims to create a community-engaged philanthropy framework for fundraisers as they consider not only their responsibilities to their organization and donors, but also their responsibilities for promoting equitable distributions of power within their community. This framework provides specific guidance for fundraisers as to how they can balance these multiple (and sometimes competing) responsibilities while also keeping ethics at the forefront of their actions. It demonstrates how, by taking a community-engaged approach to their work, fundraisers are able to bring about better long-term outcomes for their organization. Specifically, the framework considers: (1) To whom are fundraisers most responsible, and to whom should fundraisers be most responsible—their nonprofit, their donors, or those being served? (2) For what rights of community members must the fundraiser account when soliciting funds, and to what extent is the fundraiser responsible for upholding these rights? (3) In what ways can an invitation from a fundraiser to make a gift also invite some level of power or control over the organization's work? (4) To what extent do fundraisers have the responsibility to maintain an equitable power balance among their constituents, including donors and those served? (5) How can fundraisers help ensure that all community members are able to participate in the organization's work to extent that they are willing and able?     

The Social,Spatial, and Economic Roots of Urban Inequality in Africa: Contextualizing Jane Jacobs and Henry George

Unravelling the social and economic roots of urban inequality in Africa has remained a thorny issue in African political economy. Stripped to its bare essentials, the critical questions are who causes urban inequality, what causes it, and how it is caused? While all different, the questions are interrelated. Answering the “who causes inequality” question requires a related analysis of what and why, and that is connected to the how question. Indeed, the how question has two parts—how inequality is caused and how it can be addressed. Both are connected to the why question and to its resolution. Unfortunately, while studies about urban inequality abound, they tend to hive off one aspect or another of the tripartite questions on inequality and, even worse, they study the three questions separately. This article tries to overcome the existing atomistic and piecemeal approach to the study of urban inequality in Africa by contextualizing the work of Jane Jacobs and Henry George, who took a holistic view of urban inequality. It argues that Jacobsianism and Georgism have much to offer in terms of understanding urban inequality in Africa, but neither analysis goes far enough to be able to serve as a solid foundation for policy. Ultimately, it is in their approach to urban analysis—the emphasis on context, on actual urban problems, inductivism, and some of their mechanisms for change such as George's land tax and cautious abstraction, in that order, along with their combined vision—which I call “diversity in equality”—that can add to the insights of postcolonialism in understanding and transforming urban inequality in Africa.     

The making of twenty‐first‐century HR: An analysis of the convergence of HRM,HRD, and OD

Twenty‐first‐century HR is emerging to uniquely combine activities and processes of human resource management (HRM), human resource development (HRD), and organization development (OD)—three fields that “grew up” distinct from each other. Contributing strategically to organizations demands that HRM, HRD, and OD coordinate, partner, and think innovatively about how they relate and how what they do impacts people and organizations. An analysis of the evolutions of these fields helps to explain why the distinctions between them continue to blur and how the similarities among them provide the necessary synergy for HR to be a truly valued organizational partner. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Negotiating “best practices” in package software implementation

Package software is often marketed with the promise of offering cutting-edge “best practices”. However, questions remain as to how diverse groups in an organization arrive at a consensus about what constitutes as “best practices” in package software and how these “best practices” are appropriated to the specific local contexts. In this case study, we examine the incongruence in the technological frames of the diverse groups with respect to these “best practices” and trace how these groups implement specific political and discursive strategies to overcome and resolve these incongruent frames. We find that it is an intricate process that demands not only that management make a concerted effort to create and actively work to coax and sustain allies, but also champion, and advocate for the rhetorical justification behind these “best practices.” The negotiated frames of parties are eventually inscribed into the software itself.     

Introduction

Leadership is under review and open for criticism in ways not seen for some time. Where is leadership when we need it, we ask? Where are the leaders who can solve our problems? Moreover, change is the new constant, and we need leaders who are prepared to embrace change and ambiguity and help followers deal with change. Sometimes it feels like we are in permanent whitewater. Where are the leaders who can deal with the ever‐changing landscape and help us move to a positive future? Many of them are among us. They are the up‐and‐coming emerging leaders of Generations X and Y. This symposium focuses on these leaders of the future—the emerging leaders among us. What challenges do they face? What kind of leaders do they want to be? How do we best prepare them? The five articles that follow present a variety of views for our consideration, and the authors hope to start a boarder conversation about the next generation of leaders and their leadership challenges. Mhatre and Conger stress that authentic leadership principles are needed in workplaces now and in the future. They remind us that organizations are often composed of individuals born during different times, circumstances,and situations, thereby creating challenges for leaders in those organizations. Current research related to Gens X and Y, cited by the authors, highlights some of the generational differences and preferences. The authors see that the differences could create a “fertile ground for intraorganizational conflict, especially differences in how to manage and work within changing organizational climates.” One potential solution, according to Mhatre and Conger, can be found in the four components of authentic leadership principles: self‐awareness, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing, and relational transparency. If authentic leadership is in place, Gens X and Y can lead authentically, thereby facilitating sustainable and positive work environments. The authors predict positive results for organizations when authentic leadership is in place. Carucci and Epperson also focus on cross‐generational relationships and voice their concern with the negative consequences of labeling various age groups as Millennials, Boomers, Xers, Yers—labels that emphasize the divide. What we need, they argue, is less polarization and more connections. The article explores what it means for leaders of multigenerations to thrive together in partnership. They discuss the “elusive contest between the legacy of incumbent leaders and the potential of emerging leaders and ask us to consider mutual vulnerability as common ground.” They also summarize research on mentoring that looks at the gap between the numbers of emerging leaders who are mentored compared with the large numbers who desire mentors and ongoing relationships. The research follows up on earlier work on this topic explored in their books Leadership Divided and Bridging the Leadership Divide. Their article provides a personal case study demonstrating how generations can come together in partnership, thereby strengthening their organizations as well as the individuals involved. Perucci follows up on some of the themes highlighted by Carucci and Epperson as well as Mhatre and Conger and focuses on the way Millennials (Gen Y) are shaping organizations in the 21st century. Perucci reminds us that as we consider the implications of multiple generations working within the same organization, we must emphasize the crosscultural dimensions of intragenerational leadership. Globalization is reshaping leadership not only at the vertical level (multiple generations working side by side), but also horizontally (communication and technology reshaping the way Millennials interact across national boundaries). He suggests that just as leadership involves leaders, followers, and shared goals, successful leadership also requires an awareness of leading across cultures. He argues that effective leaders will be those who learn to work together “across boundaries in order to solve complex global problems.” Penney's article, “Voices of the Future: Leadership for the 21st Century,” focuses on both Generations X and Y (primarily X) and explores how those emerging leaders see leadership in the future and what kind of leaders they want to be. What leadership qualities/behaviors do they see as important? Themes of collaboration and inclusiveness are important to these emerging leaders, and they place high values on trust and integrity. Because they value inclusiveness, they work more easily across racial, ethnic, and gender differences and lines than did previous generations. The article also discusses what organizations need to do to attract and retain Generations X and Y. More flexible work arrangements are important as is having business organizations committed to corporate social responsibility and green initiatives. The findings come from the recent book Next Generation Leadership: Insights from Emerging Leaders (Penney & Neilson 2010). Tulgan and his colleagues at RainmakerThinking, Inc., have been conducting interviews with young people in the workplace for two decades. His article has a theme similar to Penney's in that he discusses ways to develop new leaders, primarily Generation Y. He addresses issues such as, how do we help them step into leadership roles successfully? He also addresses the question of why some of them are reluctant to take on supervisory roles. The article offers specific suggestions about ways to guide young professionals to prepare them for assuming leadership roles. He suggests that senior leaders should give frequent feedback to the top performers in Gen Y rather than leaving them on their own. He argues that too often we ignore high performers as we focus time and effort on the not‐so‐successful ones. According to Tulgan, more generous reward systems and hospitable work conditions are needed to retain high performers. In addition, he wants senior leaders to do more to help Gen Yers establish their credibility when they are given roles of increased responsibility. Conclusions There is a sense of optimism in play as you read these articles. Although there are differences found between Generations X and Y, overall the next generation of leaders also share some commonalities. They are more collaborative and inclusive than previous generations. And these emerging leaders are bringing a fresh approach to leadership and moving us away from the leader as “hero” or all‐knowing source of power and influence. Their desire for collaboration can help bridge the generation gap between Boomers and young professionals. Each brings particular strengths to their organizations, so as they work together, stronger institutions can be the result. Integrity is also important to emerging leaders, and authentic leadership behaviors hold much promise for strengthening our organizations. These emerging leaders can work well across cultures and are more comfortable with inclusion and diversity than those of previous generations. The authors provide several suggestions for working with and retaining young professionals so that their leadership skills are strengthened. Emerging leaders need support and honest feedback; they want reward systems that differentiate; they request flexible work arrangements. They also want to see corporate social responsibility in place in the business world. Emerging leaders of Generations X and Y are ready to assume leadership roles, but many do not want to lead as they have been led. We must do all we can as senior leaders, as academics, and as colleagues to prepare them for these responsibilities. As we pass the torch to a new generation of leaders, let's be certain they are well equipped for the task and ready to lead.     

Decision analysis of auto emission control

In response to public pressure to reduce air pollution, governments are forced to consider alternate means to limit auto emissions. This paper addresses the problem of evaluating these regulatory policies and choosing the one that is best for society.Economic tradeoffs play an important role in the analysis of emission control policies. Cleaner air comes only at a price, and the judgments as to “How clean?” At what price?” and “At who's expense?” are crucial. Once these value issues are resolved, questions of implementation remain. “How do regulatory policies such as mandatory emission standards for cars compare with a system of emission taxes?” “Are there ways to collect a fee from drivers to compensate those who breathe their pollution, without taxing emissions directly?”Our approach is first to describe a decision-focused analytical procedure for evaluating various policy alternatives. This procedure is then demonstrated with a preliminary analysis of representative emission control plans for the Los Angeles air basin. Both emission standards and market or “pricing” alternatives are considered. These plans include: present (1975) emission standards; an emission tax; an increase in the gasoline tax; a policy of no government control.The preliminary analysis shows market mechanisms to be superior to present emission standards. Many significant advantages of market mechanisms are discussed, though this conclusion is due primarily to—in our opinion—inappropriate value judgments that are implicit in the present standards.The analytical framework is very general, and it can be applied to a wide variety of social decisions involving externalities. The quantitative models developed, though preliminary, can be used by organizations such as regional planning agencies or pollution control boards. However, these models must not be viewed as formulas for answers to social problems. Rather, they are intended as aids for the policy maker that will help him or her balance the many factors that influence the decision and provide insight to the wisest social course of action.     

Utilizing cool posing narrative and technique as leadership strategies among underrepresented individuals

“Cool posing” narrative and technique—or story and style—has implications for changes in how schools and organizations think about leadership. Cool posing is showing restrained emotion to gain advantages through the use of counterpoint to puzzle and baffle rivals. The intention to be paradoxical and confusing aids the narration of appropriate techniques that offset unfavorable situations and images. Cool posing is as much a part of some underrepresented groups' performance as their sense of self, and as valuable. This strategy is frequently exhibited orally through metaphor, which transforms facts into novel accounts of reality. It is as though the ability to comprehend their experience through cool posing provides many with “the only ways to perceive and experience much of the world” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p. 239). Leaders in schools and organizations could benefit by implementing the strategies suggested here that seek stability and flexibility for those underrepresented individuals traditionally studying, working, and living in less than adequate conditions. Findings suggest the consideration of additional intellectual dimensions aside from the traditional logical and mathematical ones as indicators of valid and reliable aptitude. These further dimensions include the interrelated elements of cool posing, which are spirituality (a vitalistic approach to life), verve (high levels of stimulation), movement (the interweaving of rhythm and dance), harmony (one's fate interrelates with others'), emotion (an emphasis on feelings), orality (a preference for both speaking and listening performances), expressive individualism (the cultivation of spontaneous expression), personal time (the belief that time is passing through a social space), and communalism (a commitment to social connectedness) (Boykins, as cited in Majors, 1987/2003a). Leaders need to broaden their ideas of standard leadership and become transformational and transformed to respond to less heard voices that scream as loudly as those that benefit through full representation. Innovative leaders can emerge from underrepresented groups and thrive in industries that become skilled at converting deficit orientations to resource orientations through “patience, a certain flexibility in world view, and a generous tolerance” (Lakoff & Johnson, p. 231). Knowledge from this study may equip teachers and leaders in multiethnic schools and organizations to respond empathetically across racial and ethnic boundaries of difference.     

Consequences of extended work hours: A comparison of moonlighters,overtimers, and modal employees

Stringent corporate controls on employee moonlighting and/or overtime are not uncommon. But are they necessary? Even the concept of overtime may need to be rethought—what about the “normal working hours” of managers and professionals who work hours at home or on the road—hours typically uncompensated?     

Go ahead,leap: Triads and their practical and theoretical import: In response to “To leap or not to leap: Triads as arbitrary subsets of networks of connected dyads” by Anna Dubois

We agree with Dubois that, as supply chain management scholars, the object of our interest is, ultimately, supply networks. However, what is this supply network? Where does it end and where does it begin? It of course depends on research interest—one could study a dyad or a triad or a network of suppliers that exist upstream to an automaker or an industrial network that is stretched out so vast its outer edges overlap with other industries. Different units of analysis allow researchers to tackle different research questions.Then, why the focus on triads? A triad is the smallest network unit where we can observe how a link affects a link or a node affects a link either directly or indirectly connected—the quintessential network dynamics that a dyad by itself cannot capture. Therefore, there is nothing arbitrary about studying triads. If we say that we study networks, we have to begin by studying triads. In this rejoinder, we will present the practical and theoretical significance of triads. Also, we will make reference to supply networks as a “complex adaptive system” to frame triads in the larger supply network.     

Communicative power: A linguistic approach to the study of the microdynamics of organizations

This article addresses the question of how communicative power is exercised in an organizational setting which is characterized according to its members as a “feminine” culture type (Hofstede, 1980, Organizational Dynamics, 9(1), 42–63). The purpose is threefold: firstly, to operationalize the concepts of “dominance” and “control” in an organizational setting by using a linguistic approach; secondly, to investigate the contribution of a linguistic approach to organizational research in exploring social interaction and, thirdly, to discuss some practical and theoretical implications for managerial work. The linguistic approach, involving a microanalysis, provided an analytical basis for understanding the fine web of interaction in the organization. In this way it served as an instrument for rendering visible the various steps in the interpretation, and the links between them. Against our theoretically grounded expectations, the empirical results suggest that the distribution of power cannot alone explain the extent to which institutional and cultural resources can be mobilized and organizations changed.     

Pervasive myths in leadership development: Unpacking constraints on leadership learning

Forty years ago, the questions most discussed among those who cared about leadership were “is leadership possible among those who don't have titles and positions?”; “what are the characteristics possessed by effective leaders?”; and “how do we find the people who are the best leaders and help them prepare for positions that will allow them to have an impact?” After many conversations, conferences, research studies, and books, the terrain has shifted among scholars. Now the conversations focus on questions such as “If leadership is a shared responsibility among members of groups, how can the full leadership potential of all be cultivated?”; “What role do collaborators play in empowering positive leadership and defending against those who misuse it?”; and “How can organizations cultivate cultures that support and encourage visionary leadership dedicated to benefitting all?” The shift in the questions that leadership educators now explore, coupled with the breadth and variety of the initiatives dedicated to nurturing it, demonstrate that leadership can be taught. More importantly, the practice of leadership demonstrates that many can pursue leadership and that they must if the opportunities of the 21st century are to be fulfilled. The conversations and the needs for leadership have both shifted and it is now incumbent on those who value leadership most to agree to unifying perspectives that can draw us together in common purpose. From your vantage point, what are the crucial conversations, next steps, and/or thoughts for consideration as we enter the second decade of the 21st century?     

Leadership learning: Crucial conversations,next steps,and thoughts for consideration

Forty years ago, the questions most discussed among those who cared about leadership were “is leadership possible among those who don't have titles and positions?”; “what are the characteristics possessed by effective leaders?”; and “how do we find the people who are the best leaders and help them prepare for positions that will allow them to have an impact?” After many conversations, conferences, research studies, and books, the terrain has shifted among scholars. Now the conversations focus on questions such as “If leadership is a shared responsibility among members of groups, how can the full leadership potential of all be cultivated?”; “What role do collaborators play in empowering positive leadership and defending against those who misuse it?”; and “How can organizations cultivate cultures that support and encourage visionary leadership dedicated to benefitting all?” The shift in the questions that leadership educators now explore, coupled with the breadth and variety of the initiatives dedicated to nurturing it, demonstrate that leadership can be taught. More importantly, the practice of leadership demonstrates that many can pursue leadership and that they must if the opportunities of the 21st century are to be fulfilled. The conversations and the needs for leadership have both shifted and it is now incumbent on those who value leadership most to agree to unifying perspectives that can draw us together in common purpose. From your vantage point, what are the crucial conversations, next steps, and/or thoughts for consideration as we enter the second decade of the 21st century?     

Corporate Responsibility and the Collegial Field

This article is based on 21 interviews of informants actively engaged with corporate responsibility in Sweden. The article introduces a new concept—the “collegial field”—which is helpful in understanding the course of events. With systems that are more open to other organizations, horizontal groupings with common interests become more influential. Collegial fields can also be relevant for understanding other activities in organizations than corporate responsibility.     

Leadership: A journey of sustained performance

Forty years ago, the questions most discussed among those who cared about leadership were “is leadership possible among those who don't have titles and positions?”; “what are the characteristics possessed by effective leaders?”; and “how do we find the people who are the best leaders and help them prepare for positions that will allow them to have an impact?” After many conversations, conferences, research studies, and books, the terrain has shifted among scholars. Now the conversations focus on questions such as “If leadership is a shared responsibility among members of groups, how can the full leadership potential of all be cultivated?”; “What role do collaborators play in empowering positive leadership and defending against those who misuse it?”; and “How can organizations cultivate cultures that support and encourage visionary leadership dedicated to benefitting all?” The shift in the questions that leadership educators now explore, coupled with the breadth and variety of the initiatives dedicated to nurturing it, demonstrate that leadership can be taught. More importantly, the practice of leadership demonstrates that many can pursue leadership and that they must if the opportunities of the 21st century are to be fulfilled. The conversations and the needs for leadership have both shifted and it is now incumbent on those who value leadership most to agree to unifying perspectives that can draw us together in common purpose. From your vantage point, what are the crucial conversations, next steps, and/or thoughts for consideration as we enter the second decade of the 21st century?     

Entrepreneurship education as a new model for leadership education

Forty years ago, the questions most discussed among those who cared about leadership were “is leadership possible among those who don't have titles and positions?”; “what are the characteristics possessed by effective leaders?”; and “how do we find the people who are the best leaders and help them prepare for positions that will allow them to have an impact?” After many conversations, conferences, research studies, and books, the terrain has shifted among scholars. Now the conversations focus on questions such as “If leadership is a shared responsibility among members of groups, how can the full leadership potential of all be cultivated?”; “What role do collaborators play in empowering positive leadership and defending against those who misuse it?”; and “How can organizations cultivate cultures that support and encourage visionary leadership dedicated to benefitting all?” The shift in the questions that leadership educators now explore, coupled with the breadth and variety of the initiatives dedicated to nurturing it, demonstrate that leadership can be taught. More importantly, the practice of leadership demonstrates that many can pursue leadership and that they must if the opportunities of the 21st century are to be fulfilled. The conversations and the needs for leadership have both shifted and it is now incumbent on those who value leadership most to agree to unifying perspectives that can draw us together in common purpose. From your vantage point, what are the crucial conversations, next steps, and/or thoughts for consideration as we enter the second decade of the 21st century?     

The leadership labyrinth

Forty years ago, the questions most discussed among those who cared about leadership were “is leadership possible among those who don't have titles and positions?”; “what are the characteristics possessed by effective leaders?”; and “how do we find the people who are the best leaders and help them prepare for positions that will allow them to have an impact?” After many conversations, conferences, research studies, and books, the terrain has shifted among scholars. Now the conversations focus on questions such as “If leadership is a shared responsibility among members of groups, how can the full leadership potential of all be cultivated?”; “What role do collaborators play in empowering positive leadership and defending against those who misuse it?”; and “How can organizations cultivate cultures that support and encourage visionary leadership dedicated to benefitting all?” The shift in the questions that leadership educators now explore, coupled with the breadth and variety of the initiatives dedicated to nurturing it, demonstrate that leadership can be taught. More importantly, the practice of leadership demonstrates that many can pursue leadership and that they must if the opportunities of the 21st century are to be fulfilled. The conversations and the needs for leadership have both shifted and it is now incumbent on those who value leadership most to agree to unifying perspectives that can draw us together in common purpose. From your vantage point, what are the crucial conversations, next steps, and/or thoughts for consideration as we enter the second decade of the 21st century?     

Flexible learning systems and obsolete organization structures: steps towards bridging the gap

This study explores the mismatch between existing learning systems and the members’ needs for learning in a large international organization. It responds to recent research which argues that members’ learning modes need to be understood and catered for in modern age organizations. Rather than arguing from “what should be”, however, it explores “what is”, by analysing the mismatch developing in a classical organization. Based on the findings, an instrumental model is elaborated, which combines structural and cognitive factors. A main argument is that learning systems and organization structure inhibit one another mutually, which prevents lasting change from taking place. The key to resolving mutual inhibition is to engage in a process of inquiry which focuses on the overall structure and also the learning systems. Three characteristics of such a process of inquiry are proposed as requirements for the resolution of mutual inhibition: social context, setting and proximity.