Search results

This two-part study aims to contribute to the body of knowledge on team development by examining the development of self-managing teams (SMTs) in healthcare. Based on an exploration of the team development literature, a perspective on SMT development was created, which suggested that SMTs develop along a non-sequential pattern of three processes–team management, task management and boundary management and improvement–that is largely the result of individual, team, organizational and environmental-level factors.

The perspective on SMT development was assessed in a Dutch mental healthcare organization by conducting 13 observations of primary mental healthcare SMTs as well as 14 retrospective interviews with the self-management process facilitator and advisors of all 100 primary mental healthcare SMTs.

Empirical results supported the perspective on SMT development. SMTs were found to develop along each of the three defined processes in a variety or possible patterns or simultaneously over time, depending on many of the identified factors and three others. These factors included individual human capital, team member attitudes and perceived workload at the individual level, psychological safety, team turnover, team size, nature of the task and bureaucratic history at the team level, and management style and material and social support at the organizational level.

This study provides a non-sequential model of SMT development in healthcare, which healthcare providers could use to understand and foster SMTs development. To foster SMT development, it is suggested that cultural change need to be secured alongside with structural change.

Even though various team development models have been described in the literature, this study is the first to indicate how SMTs in the healthcare context develop toward effective functioning.

This article answers the following research question: How do institutional pressures influence the re(actions) of organizations in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic?

The present research was conducted through the search and review of online secondary sources based on a critical and exploratory analysis. The data were obtained from the Global Compact Brazilian Committee (Rede Brasil do Pacto Global, in Portuguese) and analyzed by means of qualitative content analysis with the support of the ATLAS.ti software.

The results have showed the role of organizations in dealing with the impacts provoked by the current COVID-19 scenario. However, the association of actions implemented by organizations is evident in some SDGs, but not in all and not with the same intensity. There is a higher incidence of SDG 3 (Good health and well-being), which is linked to 278 actions. Regarding institutional pressures, we noticed a higher incidence of normative pressures, which may indicate a sense of responsibility towards employees and other stakeholders related to the prevention of the impacts caused by the pandemic.

The findings presented here can encourage companies to better direct their efforts to fight the virus without neglecting the 2030 Agenda.

The authors intend to encourage institutions that may exert coercive, normative, and mimetic pressures to recognize the impacts of their influence and better direct it to the interests of society during and after the pandemic.

This research investigates organizational actions in the context of COVID-19 from an institutional theory perspective.

Drawing from legitimacy and institutional entrepreneurship theory, this study assesses the naming patterns of entrepreneurial firms in the US biotechnology industry.

The authors use a mixed-methods design of content analysis and regression to analyze a sample of 441 entrepreneurial biotechnology firms, for which data were obtained from Net Advantage. The authors track changes to the proportion of firms with naming attributes, such as name length and type of name. The authors also examine variability in those characteristics during the industry's evolution, comparing freestanding to acquired start-ups.

Start-ups select names that are longer, more descriptive, begin with rare sounds or hard plosives and have stronger discipline- or technology-specific links during nascent years of the industry. As the industry evolves, entrepreneurs are more likely to select names that are shorter, more abstract, begin with hard plosives and have stronger industry-specific links. The naming patterns of freestanding and acquired companies differ, and companies that conform to industry pressures tend to remain independent.

Unlike extant studies that assess established industries, the current study identifies shifting trends in the naming patterns of entrepreneurial firms in an emerging industry. By focusing on start-ups, the authors expand research on organizational naming practices, which focuses traditionally on name choices and name change patterns of incumbents. By using marketing and linguistics methods when analyzing organizational name attributes, naming patterns in these attributes are identified, including name length, name type, starting letter of the name and link to the industry.