Search results

This article examines the strategy formation in the Finnish government’s pandemic management during the COVID-19 pandemic, addressing a research gap by exploring the possibilities for strategy formation in guiding government policy formation.

Utilizing perspective of strategic planning and emergent strategies influenced by the authorizing environment, the article emphasizes the importance of strategy development in government. The management of COVID-19 pandemic serves as a case study for investigating public strategies in policy formation, underscoring the significance of the authorizing environment in integrating predefined strategic plans with emergent strategic avenues.

The management of pandemics has led to changes in legislation and modes of government decision-making, resulting in learnings for coordinating subnational governments and allocation of resources. The government actions evolved from extracting components from predefined strategic plans and drawing on the experiences of other countries. The emergent properties emerged from amalgamating these elements into an umbrella strategy with a variety of new responses.

The examination focuses on the view from the nexus of government. Although, informed by the subnational developments and stakeholder responses, the study adopts a bird’s eye view on the COVID-19 management.

The examination raises needs for legislative changes, improvement of cross-sectoral coordination within central government and improvement for the decision-making capability within subnational government.

By focusing on the Finnish government’s measures in pandemic management, this article contributes to the discourse on pandemic management. The findings provide insights for strategic crisis management in the public sector.

In addressing policy problems, it is difficult to disentangle public policies from private efforts, business institutions and civic activities. Societies may acknowledge that all these domains have a role in accomplishing social aims, but there are fundamental problems in understanding why, how and with what implications this occurs. Drawing upon the insights from the papers of this special issue, the authors aim to advance the understanding of governance and accountability in different contexts of hybridity, hybrid governance and organizations.

The authors conceptualize common theoretical origins of hybrid organizations and the ways in which they create and enact value by reflecting on the articles of the special issue. Furthermore, the authors propose agendas for future research into hybrid organizations.

Hybrid organizations can be conceptualized through two types of lenses: (1) the dimensions of hybridity (ownership, institutional logics, funding and control) and (2) their approaches to value creation (mixing, compromising and legitimizing).

This article provides more detailed and comprehensive understanding of hybridity. This contribution has also important practical implications for actors, such as politicians, managers, street-level bureaucrats, professionals, auditors and accountants who may be enveloped in various hybrid settings, policy contexts and multi-faceted interfaces between public, private and the civil society sector.

Hybridity lenses reveal novel connections between four types of hybrid institutional contexts: state-owned enterprises (SOEs), non-profit organizations (NPOs), social enterprises (SEs) and municipally owned corporations (MOCs). This paper provides theoretical instruments for doing so.

This paper aims to analyse performance measurement ambiguities in hybrid universities. In accounting research, performance measurement of universities has been discussed in detail, and there is some research on impacts of hybridity in institutional systems. However, there is a particular need in accounting research for more sophisticated theorizations of the ambiguities associated with measuring performance in hybrid organizations. Moreover, there is a dearth of accounting-related interdisciplinary studies conceptualizing the hybridity of universities with important implications for measuring and reporting performance. This paper fills this research gap by providing more elaborate basis for conceptualizing performance measurement ambiguities through the lenses of hybrid universities.

The authors critically scrutinize the promise of performance measurement in hybrid universities and explore why it may result in new policy problems. Questions asked are as follows: How can we better understand those institutional mechanisms through which the promise of performance measurement may ultimately result in new forms of ambiguities and unexpected outcomes, and what are the specific characteristics of hybridity that make those mechanisms possible in universities?

The authors propose a conceptual model for studying universities in hybrid performance settings. The model provides a new inter-disciplinary approach for conceptualizing performance measurement ambiguities in universities when they are influenced by hybridity, hybrid arrangements and hybrid governance.

This paper provides more elaborate basis for understanding hybridity of universities, not only through reforms for combining business, government and collegial professional logics (e.g. corporatization, marketization) or through new hybrid mixes of professions but also as a more comprehensive, inter-disciplinary understanding of institutional structures, logics and practices at modern universities.

The paper sets out to identify the key role that Jan‐Erik Grojer's work on human resource costing and accounting played in linking initial developments in accounting for people with the more recent advances associated with the emergence of the intellectual capital concept.

The paper is in the form of an essay that briefly considers the history of approaches to the challenge of accounting for people.

The recent developments associated with intellectual capital highlight the importance and value of adopting a rather wider conception of accounting for people.

The paper provides a provocative introduction to the topic of accounting for people and as such may be of value to both newcomers to the field and those who are simply intrigued by the idea itself.

The purpose of this paper is to draw on the literature debating research policy, research and the role of researchers, in discussing a single researcher's (Jan‐Erik Gröjer's) research during the 1980s and 1990s.

Jan‐Erik Gröjer's publications during the period are compared with different research modes 1 and 2, communalism, universalism, disinterestedness, originality and scepticism and PLACE within this polarized world, i.e. between demands from different research ideologies universities as well as individual researchers perform their research.

This paper can be read as both a contribution to the debate about the researcher's role and as a tribute to a friend who was able to investigate and practise different roles: normative and critical, theoretical and applied and provocative and humble, to name a few.

Further case studies of single researchers could serve as a valuable input to the discussion of different research ideologies.

The paper could be used in, e.g., doctoral student education when discussing the researcher's role but also when discussing the role of university research in general.

The used research modes have not before been analyzed using a single researcher as a case. It could be useful for individual researchers as well as in discussions about management of universities.

The contemporary relevance of the so‐called Uppsala Internationalisation Model is discussed. This is a framework advanced by a number of Swedish colleagues describing the typical process of “going international”. Johanson and Vahlne respond to the criticisms of the model they proposed in the 1970s and relate it to the Eclectic Paradigm Model and the Networking literature. The concepts of the advantage package and the advantage cycle in the internationalisation context are also introduced.

In this paper we describe the evolution of the Uppsala model, which we see as a gradual substitution of economics-type assumptions with ones derived from the behavioral theory of the firm and from empirical studies of international firm behavior. We rely upon them to introduce a new version of the Uppsala model. To decrease the traditional focus on the activity of manufacturing and increase attention to the entrepreneurial and exchange activities of international companies, we renamed these firms “multinational business enterprises” (MBEs). We end with a plea to improve the relevance of empirical research in the international-business (IB) area by not only relying upon realistic assumptions but also performing longitudinal studies.

From the structural perspective of social‐capital theory, this research investigates how a team's social‐network relationships affect its performance. More specifically, it concerns the type of work‐group‐internal connectedness in instrumental and expressive networks that is associated with enhanced team performance, and whether knowledge mediates these effects.

The research was survey based, involving 76 work teams and a total of 499 employees in 48 organisations. The work teams carried out fairly knowledge‐intensive but only moderately complex tasks, some of which were routine in nature.

Both dense and fragmented instrumental‐network structures affect work‐team performance. However, fragmentation in expressive networks has a negative impact. Furthermore, the mediation results give empirical support to the implicit understanding that only instrumental networks transfer knowledge, especially if they are dense.

The results indicate that social‐network relationships affect team performance and also provide access to social capital (here knowledge). However, instrumental and expressive networks differ in terms of theoretical and practical implications. Future research could overcome the limitations of this study through increasing the sample size and focusing on much more fine‐grained intervening mechanisms (here knowledge sharing).

The recommendation to managers is to stimulate dense instrumental relationships in order to facilitate knowledge sharing and avoid overly fragmented expressive relationships.

First, in examining the social structure of both instrumental and expressive relationships this study responds to the growing call in organisational theory for research into the social content of social networks. Second, the contribution of this research paper lies in directly testing whether team knowledge mediates the effects of advice‐network structures on team performance.

The focus in this paper is on the extent to which bonding and bridging social relationships predict the performance effectiveness and attitudinal (identity) outcomes.

The research was survey-based, involving 76 work teams and a total of 499 employees in 48 organisations.

The analysis reveals a positive relationship between both bonding and bridging relationships and performance effectiveness and attitudinal outcomes. Team identity mediates the relationship between the team ' s social-network structure and its performance effectiveness.

The research investigates the performance effectiveness and attitudinal outcomes of social networks simultaneously, which is rare, but for study-design reasons fails to investigate behavioural outcomes. More extensive data would reveal more about the possible interaction between bridging and bonding.

In order to improve performance effectiveness managerial attention should focus on building a team and social networks.

The research shows that team identity fully mediates the influence of bonding and bridging social relationships. This finding sheds light on the processes that mediate performance effectiveness, which in turn facilitate understanding of how team dynamics lead to differing performance levels. The results also reveal how the type of social network affects the creation of a team identity: individuals identify with the team through the social networks to which they belong both within it and outside. Thus, team identity matters given the evidence suggesting that those who identify more with their work teams perform more effectively.