Search results

This paper investigates how a firm’s organizational culture profile (configuration of organizational culture types) influences the effectiveness of operations management (OM) practices in improving their targeted outcomes.

We developed alternative hypotheses based on contingency and paradox perspectives to predict the effectiveness of OM practices in dominant (one prevalent organizational culture type) vs eclectic (opposing organizational culture types at a similar level) organizational culture profiles. They were tested using data from over 7,000 respondents across 330 manufacturing plants in 15 countries.

Consistent with contingency theory, OM practices oriented toward innovation are more efficacious in plants with an adhocracy-dominant organizational culture profile and practices targeting supply chain (SC) control are less effective in a clan-dominant organizational culture profile. Consistent with paradox theory, OM practices oriented toward efficiency or SC control are more effective in plants with an eclectic organizational culture profile.

This study offers relevant practical implications regarding the effectiveness of various OM practices, whether they are used in an aligned dominant organizational culture profile or in an eclectic organizational culture profile.

Previous research on organizational culture provides a limited understanding of the effectiveness of OM practices in the presence of strategic tensions, such as opposing organizational cultures or opposing targeted outcomes. This research concludes that the validity of the contingency or paradox perspective depends on strategic tensions faced, with important implications for research and practice.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an inside-out perspective on the practices and effects of talent management (TM) in a multinational organization.

The study adopts an autoethnographic approach focusing on the experiences of the first author during her employment in a multinational organization. This approach contributes to the literature by providing an insider talent perspective that thus far has not been presented in TM research.

Applying autoethnography as a means to address the inside-out perspective in TM reveals a tension. The authors label this phenomenon the “talent paradox,” defined as the mix of simultaneously occurring opportunities and risks for individuals identified and celebrated as a talent.

The paper may be of value to TM scholars and practitioners, as well as to employees who have been identified as high potentials or talents in their organizations. In contrast with the TM literature’s optimism, the findings illuminate that being identified as a talent may paradoxically produce both empowerment and powerlessness. Attending to personal aspects of TM processes is relevant for organizations as well as for individuals as it enables reflection and sensemaking.

The article introduces selected theoretical approaches to time and temporality relevant to the field of library and information science, and it briefly introduces the papers gathered in this special issue. A number of issues that could potentially be followed in future research are presented.

The authors review a selection of theoretical and empirical approaches to the study of time that originate in or are of particular relevance to library and information science. Four main themes are identified: (1) information as object in temporal perspectives; (2) time and information as tools of power and control; (3) time in society; and (4) experiencing and practicing time.

The paper advocates a thorough engagement with how time and temporality shape notions of information more broadly. This includes, for example, paying attention to how various dimensions of the late-modern time regime of acceleration feed into the ways in which information is operationalised, how information work is commodified, and how hierarchies of information are established; paying attention to the changing temporal dynamics that networked information systems imply for our understanding of documents or of memory institutions; or how external events such as social and natural crises quickly alter modes, speed, and forms of data production and use, in areas as diverse as information practices, policy, management, representation, and organisation, amongst others.

By foregrounding temporal perspectives in library and information science, the authors advocate dialogue with important perspectives on time that come from other fields. Rather than just including such perspectives in library and information science, however, the authors find that the focus on information and documents that the library and information science field contributes has great potential to advance the understanding of how notions and experiences of time shape late-modern societies and individuals.