Search results

Stagl, Salas, Rosen, Priest, Burke, Goodwin, and Johnston (this volume) conducted a review of distributed team performance and discussed some of the implications of distributed, multicultural operations for individual, team, and organizational decision making. Expanding upon Stagl and colleagues’ discussion, Alutto (this volume), and Coovert and Burke (this volume) provided thought-provoking commentary on these issues. The current note briefly responds to some of the questions posed and comments made by Alutto, Coovert, and Burke and concludes by calling for a continued dialogue by all stakeholders concerned with fostering effective distributed teams.

Distributed performance arrangements are increasingly used by organizations to structure dyadic and team interactions. Unfortunately, distributed teams are no panacea. This chapter reviews some of the advantages and disadvantages associated with the geographical and temporal distribution of team members. An extended discussion of the implications of distributed team performance for individual, team, and organizational decision making is provided, with particular attention paid to selected cultural factors. Best practices and key points are advanced for those stakeholders charged with offsetting the performance decrements in decision making that can result from distribution and culture.

Joseph A. Alutto is dean, Max M. Fisher College of Business, as well as executive dean of the Professional Colleges, The Ohio State University. He holds the John W. Berry, Sr., Chair in Business. From 1976 to 1990, he was dean of the School of Management, State University of New York at Buffalo. He has published more than 70 articles in leading academic journals and serves on a number of corporate and public sector boards, including Nationwide Financial Services, United Retail Group, Inc., and M/I Homes.

This chapter explores the governance structures of Indigenous societies with special focus on the Meru community in Kenya. The chapter reviews the elaborate structure of governance that ensured and entrenched the basic parameters of a fair society. It outlines the impact caused by colonization and the subsequent loss of social fabrics that bound individual members and the entire community. The colonizers looked at the Indigenous as primitive and backward. They therefore classified them as tribes, natives' ethnic nationalities all of which demeaned the Indigenous communities. From such derogatory perspectives, the Indigenous systems including governance, culture, social, legal and judiciary, philosophy, economic systems were replaced with supposedly more advanced systems to assimilate and “modernize” Indigenous peoples. The chapter will demonstrate how these critical aspects and components of governance existed within the Indigenous governance structures of the Ameru community long before the colonial government. The chapter by use of practical illustrations advocates for decolonial perspectives to the realization of fair governance.

This study aims to explore how professional–cultural knowledge is reciprocally shared between experienced expatriates and novice local nurses. To address this, the situated learning in practice lens is combined with social exchange lens.

An interpretive case study methodology enabled an exploratory approach into the knowledge-sharing practices between experienced expatriates and novice local nurses in Saudi Arabia.

Insights gained in the fieldwork suggest that professional–cultural knowledge sharing (KS) often occurred through three primary practices, namely, developing a professional–cultural meaning, forming clinical competency development opportunities and intervening in unfamiliar professional–cultural situations. In addition, two micro-level conditions shaped the reciprocity of professional–cultural KS practices between expatriate and local nurses, which were individual differences and situational conditions.

This study advances and improves the understanding of two intertwined but rarely studied aspects of knowledge-sharing practices. The exploratory lens sought and gained rich insights into the knowledge-sharing practices between experienced and novice individuals and expatriate and local individuals.

Indigenous governance systems in Africa provide a nuanced approach to the various philosophies that underpin governance structures through a spiritual perspective. In this chapter we debunk colonial narratives of Africa's dependence on colonial constructs of governance. We begin by highlighting the decentralized and centralized Indigenous governance frameworks practiced by different African communities. Communities with decentralized systems such as the Acholi, Luo, Keiyo, amongst others, were well organized at the local level, with the Council of Elders, Chief Priests, and Moral Elders and Chiefs carrying out various functions that ensured the community remained stable and prosperous. In centralized communities, the king had authority over their boundaries. The key aspects that stood out and ensured stability within the centralized systems included community representation, participation in governance, and checks and balances that provided proper societal growth as exemplified by the Bunyoro-Kitara and the Ashanti kingdoms. Even though the governance systems were quite different, the governance mechanisms had similar pillars, features, and principles anchored by humanism, communism, and the spiritual nature of governance amongst the African peoples. We concur that the Indigenous governance system allowed citizens, empires, and kingdoms to flourish. We conclude that African people can further develop the capacity to manage their ideas, resources, and opportunities for sustainable development, through Indigenous governance mechanisms and knowledge systems. We argue that African societies need to legally integrate the Indigenous governance systems in the current prevalent western governance model, create canters for researching Indigenous knowledge at the institutions of higher learning, and that civil society should play a role in ensuring accountability in governance systems.

IT WOULD NOT BE beyond the powers of exaggeration to claim that James Joyce is one of the greatest writers of the twentieth century. But it would be doubly difficult—difficult, even, for a star‐spangled Dubliner whose lips had been royally touched—to substantiate such a claim within the limits of a single sentence. It is true Joyce wrote a great number of pages, but he did not write a great number of books. He was a great humorist in the true Irish tradition: a savage satirist in the manner of Swift (though subtler in his technique) and a natural parodist and punster. He could perform miracles with words, and just as Wilde was a master of the epigram, so Joyce achieved endless subtleties and successes with the pun.

The Therapeutic Communities (TCs) movement tends to become from a revolutionary answer to the problem of addiction to another mainstream therapeutic proposal. The author considers that the crisis in 1968 in the seminal TC of Daytop was a pivotal event of this transition. This study aims to evaluate the impact of this historical crisis on the course of the TCs movement, assuming that, to enter into a constructive dialogue that can lead to the overcoming of today’s deadlocks of the movement, an awareness of the history is needed.

The present paper is a perspective/opinion paper and starts with a brief review of the origins of the first TCs for addicts. Emphasis is placed on their inevitable, according to the author, confrontation with the political and scientific status quo of that time. Then, it focuses on the period of the crisis in Daytop TC. The author interprets the events under a whole new scope, based on conversations he personally had with pioneers of that time, on his longstanding experience on the field, and the available literature.

The author attempts a historical and sociological analysis of the course of TCs and the Daytop TC. He concludes with a dispute of the prevailing idea that the Daytop crisis was a product of the confrontation between personal ambitions. He maintains that the collision that took place in Daytop TC was a confrontation between two antipodal perspectives over the notion of therapy. In any case, the subsequent estrangement of the movement from the groundbreaking attributes of the first TCs did not prove to be in the best interests of addicts; it was rather dictated by the need of the leaders of TCs to rescue their professional career.

The present paper attempts to offer a different view from the conventional reading of TCs’ history and their present situation for today’s predicaments of this proposal to be understood and possibly overcome.

This paper traces how in Britain and Germany, for-profit and non-profit businesses coevolved with political-economic institutions. Starting in the late eighteenth century, Britain embraced the logic of liberal capitalism, although the path was not smooth. Over the same period, German states balanced both liberal and social-welfare ideals. Social-welfare ideals did not gain support in Britain until the start the twentieth century. The market logic embodied by for-profit businesses was more congruent with liberal capitalism than with social-welfare capitalism, so business corporations thrived more in Britain than in Germany. Yet in both countries, the growing number and power of for-profit businesses created problems for farmers, workers, and small producers. They sought to solve their problems by launching non-profit businesses – co-operatives, mutual-aid societies, and credit co-operatives – combining the ideals of community, enterprise, and self-help. British non-profits gained support from authorities by emphasizing their self-help and enterprise ideals, which were congruent with liberal capitalism, over the community idea, which was not. In contrast, German non-profits gained support by emphasizing all three ideals, as two were congruent with liberal capitalism and all three with social-welfare capitalism. Our analysis reveals how the success of different forms of business, embodying different institutional logics, depends on prevailing political-economic logics. It also shows how the existence and technical success of various organizational forms shapes elites’ perceptions and through them, societal-level logics of capitalism.