Search results

As any organisation chart illustrates, two essential features of organisations are formal authority and division of labour. “Formal authority” specifies those individuals and positions which have institutionalised power over others, while “division of labour” specifies those individuals and positions who are responsible for certain tasks in an organisation. In these respects organisations are a reflection of their environmental contexts of which class is a major feature (Clegg and Dunkerley, 1980). Broadly speaking what emerges in organisations are two classes of participants. One such class is represented by those who own the means of production (or capital) while the other such class is represented by those who own labour. This difference in capital ownership leads to disparities in the rights, powers and privileges—prerogatives—of the two classes (Clegg and Dunkerley, 1980). In practice, however, the capitalists are represented in organisations by “the management” who act as their agents. Thus the active participants in organisations become “management” and “labour” (Strauss and Rosenstein, 1970). Management with its power base grounded in its role as the owner's agent becomes the “elite” in the organisation.

The proper matching of industry structure to strategy is expected to have a positive impact upon organisational performance. This relationship has not been fully examined in the defence industry. The central aim of this paper is to link the competitive performance of small, high technology defence firms to their ability to adapt to industry structure changes. With this in mind a study was conducted to extend Porter's (1980) framework of the strategic management of industry structural change. The study draws upon the experiences of 40 small, high technology defence firms in the UK. Firms in the sample range from 5 to 200 employees, and £50,000 to £10m sales turnover. The study broadens the findings of exploratory research undertaken in the buying department of two large defence firms. A questionnaire was designed to identify macro level phenomena and detail hypotheses generated by the case studies. The empirical analysis of the creation and sustaining of competitive advantages will focus on strategic determinants, and inter‐organisational variables that influence the performance of small firms in tendering for defence sub‐contracts.

A study of employee involvement in the management and ownership of NVC Australia Pty Ltd indicated high levels of work satisfaction, job security, decision influence, productivity, communication, commitment and involvement. Although only one organisation has been analysed, it is clear that employee ownership and participation provide interesting alternatives for organisations to face the challenges of the present social and economic situations.

Does participation equal power? The management prerogatives of employee‐owners are unequally distributed.

This article seeks to review how objectives are conventionally designed for organizations before detailing a new and proven approach based on the author's many years of research and consulting experience. The practical situation on which the article aims to focus is strategic planning, a process in which CEOs, middle managers and directors on boards find themselves frequently involved.

The outlined objective‐setting methodology is the result of more than two decades of action research. The author has worked with organizations across all sectors – private, public and not‐for‐profit – to develop meaningful and measurable objectives during the course of designing their strategic plans.

Most organizations flounder when it comes to objective setting. They come up with lists of objectives that are a mixture of quantified and non‐quantified items or restatements of mission, vision and values; they are often vague and general and are assembled as one undifferentiated block, i.e. not segmented according to an organization's key stakeholders. No wonder managers find the conventional process of objective‐setting both frustrating and ineffective. In contrast, the author has found that the approach outlined in this article engages participants and produces clear and measurable outcomes.

Organizations in all sectors – business, government and not‐for‐profit – can benefit greatly by re‐thinking their current practices and changing the way they go about designing their objectives. The approach outlined herein has solved many conceptual and practical problems managers face and led to the design of organization objectives that really shape precise strategies.

While it is often claimed that participative management systems have a substantial effect upon employee perceptions and attitudes, and labour productivity, there has been little empirical research conducted on this issue. The purpose of this article is to describe the functioning of a company which changed to a participative management system and to examine the effectiveness of this change. Effectiveness is judged in terms of changes in employee perceptions and attitudes and in labour productivity.

The purpose of this article is to investigate why stakeholder frameworks have struggled for acceptance in strategy and to put forward a clearly articulated framework which, while firm‐centric, acknowledges that stakeholders hold the key to organization success.

The framework outlined is the result of more than two decades of action research. This has involved an iterative process of framework design and field testing with clients to assess validity followed by redesign. This evolution has been conducted in conjunction with a continuous review of progress in the strategy‐related literature.

For many directors, managers, consultants and academics, there is a disconnect between strategy and what is often referred to as “stakeholder management”. In the latter, stakeholders are the first and final focus. Such a perspective might suit the needs and language of fields like public policy, social services, welfare and ethics, but it isn't appropriate for strategy and strategic planning. Being stakeholder‐centric, it holds back the acceptance of a stakeholder framework in strategy. The firm‐centric stakeholder framework for strategy gels with boards, CEOs and senior executives, focusing as it does on the long‐term prosperity and sustainability of an organization.

Organizations in all sectors – business, government and not‐for‐profit – can benefit greatly by re‐orienting their thinking and the way they go about designing strategy and structuring their strategic plans. A firm‐centric stakeholder approach to strategy solves many conceptual and practical problems that directors and managers face in designing organization objectives and shaping precise strategies.

Performance evaluation in production and marketing involves the application of a wide range of measures. These encompass the activities specific to each department type and those in which there is a common organisation‐wide interest. The results of a questionnaire survey of 134 marketing and 155 production managers suggest that accounting data have to be supplemented by non‐accounting data to satisfy managers' information requirements. Hence the utility of accounting data in the task of departmental assessment may be limited. Implications for management accounting are that management reporting must recognise these differential information needs, given the premise that performance evaluation is one of the essential tasks of managerial accounting.

This article aims to take a fresh look at diversification – a growth strategy often disparaged by managers and commentators alike, yet one that is followed successfully by some major organizations.

Data were gathered from a number of successful diversifiers, such as GE, to determine the practices they follow and how these might be applied by other organizations.

Successful diversifiers have seven features, which all CEOs, boards and executive teams can learn from. They select capable division managers; secure competitive advantage at division and business‐unit levels; establish a supportive corporate center for their divisions; install appropriate performance measures; set effective incentives for managers; align the corporate culture to strategic direction; pay the right price in acquisitions; spend time and resources integrating acquisitions with the existing organization.

The value of these findings is that organizations in all sectors – business, government and not‐for‐profit – can benefit greatly by emulating the practices of successful diversifiers and thus boost their own performance.

This case study can be used at the graduate and executive levels.

This case study can be used in entrepreneurship, leadership, social entrepreneurship and human resource management.

Healing Fields Foundation is a non-governmental organisation (NGO) that was co-founded by Mukti Bosco to create an affordable and quality health-care ecosystem, primarily through women. The pragmatism of Mukti and her strong alignment with the core values of the foundation ensured that they emerged unscathed from past challenges. During the second wave of the pandemic in 2021, they employed bikers on a contractual basis to satisfy last-mile delivery demand in rural India. However, owing to the recovery post the second wave, the demand for their services dropped and subsequently their earnings. Being provided with four options by her COO, Mukti is cognisant of the social implications her decisions will have on all the stakeholders in the ecosystem.

A. Identify and prioritise key stakeholders of the organisation for effective decision-making. B. Differentiate effectual from causal reasoning and apply their right balance while making decisions. C. Delineate social entrepreneurs from their for-profit, non-mission-driven counterparts. D. Create value for the organisation’s stakeholders through the management of its diverse workforce. E. Formulate entrepreneurial solutions through the application of relevant concepts and frameworks.

CSS 3: Entrepreneurship.