Search results

How do decision styles differ from leadership or management styles? This question is addressed by considering situational variables, the decision process itself and a variety of decision style models. The authors conclude that the decision style approach has many applications and is a highly effective management tool.

Women architects in the USA are generally satisfied with their work and feel that they are successful. Responses to a mailed survey form sent to women members of the American Institute of Architects throughout the USA allows a clear and unique profile of the woman architect to emerge. It appears that women architects have different values to women in general, and to women managers; but close to women engineers' values (with the exception of aesthetic value). There are, however, still many obstacles to be overcome by women architects before they achieve parity of treatment with their male counterparts.

Since the first Volume of this Bibliography there has been an explosion of literature in all the main areas of business. The researcher and librarian have to be able to uncover specific articles devoted to certain topics. This Bibliography is designed to help. Volume III, in addition to the annotated list of articles as the two previous volumes, contains further features to help the reader. Each entry within has been indexed according to the Fifth Edition of the SCIMP/SCAMP Thesaurus and thus provides a full subject index to facilitate rapid information retrieval. Each article has its own unique number and this is used in both the subject and author index. The first Volume of the Bibliography covered seven journals published by MCB University Press. This Volume now indexes 25 journals, indicating the greater depth, coverage and expansion of the subject areas concerned.

While there exists a small and perhaps growing cadre of mature library managers skilled in automation, not enough new MLS holders are being educated to support and extend the potential of automation within libraries. The result in too many libraries is the hiring of a non‐librarian to cope with the myriad technical details involved with setting up equipment and interacting with academic and administrative computing, county governments, and business office operations, with the hope that in time this person somehow “will become one of us.” However, something will be lost in future interactions if the librarian‐managers themselves do not know enough to participate knowledgeably in such interactions. Developing new educational initiatives is an important challenge facing those who wish to improve our managerial competence in the automation area.

With a focus on Canada, but framed by similar and shared concerns emerging in the United States, this chapter examines the current status of what constitutes and defines academic freedom for academic librarians and the rights and the protections individual, professional academic librarians have with respect to the freedom of speech and expression of their views in speech and writing within and outside of their institutions. It reviews the historical background of academic freedom and librarianship in Canada, academic freedom language in collective agreements, rights legislation in Canada versus the United States as it pertains to academic librarianship, and rights statements supported by Canadian associations in the library field and associations representing members in postsecondary institutions. The implications of academic librarians using the new communication technologies and social media platforms, such as blogs and networking sites, with respect to academic freedom are examined, as well as, an overview of recent attacks on the academic freedom of academic librarians in the United States and Canada. Included in this analysis are the results of a survey of Canadian academic librarians, which examined attitudes about academic freedom, the external and internal factors which have an impact on academic freedom, and the professional use of new communication technologies and social media platforms.

The purpose of this paper is to argue that in a strategic context organising is a cybernetic process that corresponds leadership and management. The paper reflects on the obverse condition where the lack of correspondence may facilitate failure.

The paper applies Stafford Beer's viable systems model to consider management and leadership's relationship in the organisational context and draws on the practice of leadership and management to support the theoretical assertions.

That management and leadership are key processes in organising that need to be in mutual correspondence in order to sustain the viability of the organisation.

The paper explores management and leadership from a systems perspective and so further practical work could be initiated to consider both successful organising and failure.

The paper is attempting to demonstrate that organisations may need to develop leadership and management contiguously as control and viability drivers; and that the duopoly of management and leadership is at the heart of the cybernetics of organising.

The paper attempts to consider the seminal cybernetic process of organising.

The purpose of this paper is to argue that culture is our primeval management that has its roots the same desire for control that management does. The paper explores the fundamental cognitive systems that allow us to create culture.

The paper applies basic systems concepts to the notion of culture and draws parallels with other cybernetic processes in order to consider the means of developing culture as a systemic possibility and/or inevitability.

Where management is reductive relying on cause and effect to apply its models to organising, culture is emergent and relies on correspondence to develop mutual models of organising.

The paper explores the creation of culture from a systems perspective and so further work could be devised to consider the demise of specific cultures such as the entropy of culture and its radical change in crisis.

The paper is attempting to demonstrate that organisations may need to see culture along with structure and management as a control issue. That culture is at the heart of the individual and in the ether of the organisation and so the cybernetics of culture should not be considered as an adjunct to the management of the organisation but seminal to it.

The paper attempts to consider culture as a cybernetic process of development.

This paper attempts to develop a metaphor to explain knowledge and perhaps the basic construct of knowledge management, in a way that might add to the practical understanding of organisational knowledge.

The paper explores the notion of knowledge, fact and memory in relation to Parmenidian and Heraclitean approaches to stasis and flux.

That remembering and imagining can be the same basic process, such that knowledge is created in the present not necessarily retrieved from our technology.

To consider cybernetic approaches to knowledge management based on learning and self‐organisation as well as “knowledge based” technology.

Whilst in information systems we collect, store and retrieve information, in knowledge systems we create, recreate and recreate the recreating. Here, knowledge management relies more on individual and collective learning than the power of the technology.

The paper attempts to consider knowledge as a process of engagement rather than a resource to be “utilised”.

The purpose of this paper is to argue that leadership cannot and should not be “defined” but rather considered as a process. The paper goes on to refute the notion that leadership can be defined or fully understood in management terms or associations. The paper then attempts to synthesise the construct of leadership as a system of processes.

The paper compares and contrasts management and leadership to three organisational processes; time, culture and change in order to non‐define or synthesise a system of leadership.

Leadership might be more usefully understood as a process of individual and organisational engagement with time, culture and change that differ from management's relationships with these processes. That through these engagements leadership creates organisation whilst management maintains it.

The paper does not explore other systemic constructs that might be equally fruitful such as leadership and management in relation to entropy and negentropy.

The paper is attempting to demonstrate that organisations may need to create leadership in tandem with management rather than find individual leaders “defined” as able to lead.

The paper attempts to consider leadership as a process of interrelationships rather than a separate definable behaviour or competence.

This paper explores the structure and role of management education in teaching and learning management with reference to the structure (hierarchy) and control of the education process. The paper also attempts to question our fear and desire to learn and our fear and desire for learners with reference to the usefulness of management education.