XIII Workshop Organizzazione Aziendale
Verona, 28-29 Maggio 2012
Università degli Studi di Verona
Desperately seeking performance in organizations
Tracks
1. Top teams: leading the dynamics of performance in organizations
2. Working in turbulent times: new models of team effectiveness in complex scenarios
3. Organizing ideation, creativity and innovation: the role of social networks
4. Innovation and Performance: state of the art and research challenges
5. New way to access and measure performance in innovation
6. Governance of Tourism and Public Management
7. The elusive notion of performance in the public sector
8. Facing health care crisis with high performances: how to turn ties into opportunities
9. Organizational agility and performance in hypercompetitive environments
10. Organizational Performance, values and measures through the lens of Critical
management Studies
11. Seeking Higher Performances in Innovation: ‘Open’ and ‘User-led’ Approaches and
Web Technologies
12. Seeking performance through sourcing strategy
13. Performance and performativity: the social study of information systems in
organizations
14. Ambidextrous MNCs: The related IS and HR architectures
15. From organizing to designing: design sciences and organization design
16. Complexity and Small Business: are Information Systems a suitable tool?
17. The performance of creative and authentic organizations
18. Human Resource Management and Performance: a matter of people, processes and
strategy
19. Corporate Social Responsibility, Organizational Change and Performance
2. Working in turbulent times: new models of team effectiveness in complex scenarios
3. Organizing ideation, creativity and innovation: the role of social networks
4. Innovation and Performance: state of the art and research challenges
5. New way to access and measure performance in innovation
6. Governance of Tourism and Public Management
7. The elusive notion of performance in the public sector
8. Facing health care crisis with high performances: how to turn ties into opportunities
9. Organizational agility and performance in hypercompetitive environments
10. Organizational Performance, values and measures through the lens of Critical
management Studies
11. Seeking Higher Performances in Innovation: ‘Open’ and ‘User-led’ Approaches and
Web Technologies
12. Seeking performance through sourcing strategy
13. Performance and performativity: the social study of information systems in
organizations
14. Ambidextrous MNCs: The related IS and HR architectures
15. From organizing to designing: design sciences and organization design
16. Complexity and Small Business: are Information Systems a suitable tool?
17. The performance of creative and authentic organizations
18. Human Resource Management and Performance: a matter of people, processes and
strategy
19. Corporate Social Responsibility, Organizational Change and Performance
TRACK 1. Top teams: leading the dynamics of performance in organizations
Chairs:
- Luca Gnan, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”
- Marcello Martinez, II Università di Napoli
- Morten Huse, BI Norwegian School of Management & University of "Tor Vergata"
- Margarita Mayo, IE Business School Madrid
Description:
Although research argued that top teams (i.e. top management team, business elites, boards of directors, upper echelons) have little impact on organizational performance (Lieberson, O'Connor, 1972; Aldrich, 1979; Astley, Van de Ven, 1983), other studies suggest suggests otherwise (Romanelli, Tushman, 1986; Finkelstein, Hambrick, 1990). Following the concept of dominant coalition proposed by Cyert and March’s (1963), in fact, scholars (Hambrick, Mason, 1984, Smith et al., 1994) argue that top team have an important impact on organizational outcomes because of the decisions they are empowered to make for the organization.However, notwithstanding the interest on teams’ contribution to organizational performance, most of the studies have focused on the relationships between team demography (e.g. size, tenure) and organizational outcomes (Pettigrew, 1992) rather than on the individual characteristics or team interaction processes that link the input and outcome variables (Smith et al., 1994; Lawrence, 1991; Pfeffer, 1983). There has been a call for research on the processes of top teams (Pitcher et al., 2000; Pye, Pettigrew, 2005) in order to understand why and how top team processes affect team effectiveness and, consequently, the organizational performance (Roby, Lanzetta, 1958; Hackman, Morris, 1975; Herold, 1980). The track aims to provide further impetus to the study of the role and the contribution of top teams to the organization’s performance and it welcomes papers (work in progress or finished research; both empirical and theoretical work) from scholars eager to investigate this topic into private and public organizations in different social, cultural, political and economic contexts.
We therefore welcome papers investigating:
Keywords: Top team, Team processes, Team/Organizational Performance
Suggested areas:
Chairs:
- Luca Gnan, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”
- Marcello Martinez, II Università di Napoli
- Morten Huse, BI Norwegian School of Management & University of "Tor Vergata"
- Margarita Mayo, IE Business School Madrid
Description:
Although research argued that top teams (i.e. top management team, business elites, boards of directors, upper echelons) have little impact on organizational performance (Lieberson, O'Connor, 1972; Aldrich, 1979; Astley, Van de Ven, 1983), other studies suggest suggests otherwise (Romanelli, Tushman, 1986; Finkelstein, Hambrick, 1990). Following the concept of dominant coalition proposed by Cyert and March’s (1963), in fact, scholars (Hambrick, Mason, 1984, Smith et al., 1994) argue that top team have an important impact on organizational outcomes because of the decisions they are empowered to make for the organization.However, notwithstanding the interest on teams’ contribution to organizational performance, most of the studies have focused on the relationships between team demography (e.g. size, tenure) and organizational outcomes (Pettigrew, 1992) rather than on the individual characteristics or team interaction processes that link the input and outcome variables (Smith et al., 1994; Lawrence, 1991; Pfeffer, 1983). There has been a call for research on the processes of top teams (Pitcher et al., 2000; Pye, Pettigrew, 2005) in order to understand why and how top team processes affect team effectiveness and, consequently, the organizational performance (Roby, Lanzetta, 1958; Hackman, Morris, 1975; Herold, 1980). The track aims to provide further impetus to the study of the role and the contribution of top teams to the organization’s performance and it welcomes papers (work in progress or finished research; both empirical and theoretical work) from scholars eager to investigate this topic into private and public organizations in different social, cultural, political and economic contexts.
We therefore welcome papers investigating:
Keywords: Top team, Team processes, Team/Organizational Performance
Suggested areas:
| • | top teams dynamics and behavior (including motivational and cognitive bases, leadership, power, influence and members’ interactions); |
| • | the strategic and performance outcomes of top teams’ characteristics; |
| • | entrepreneurial top teams or top teams in entrepreneurial contexts (e.g. start-ups, venture-backed firmed, family firms, and so on) and organizational performance; |
| • | people management processes within teams (compensation, evaluation, turnover and succession, selection, formation); |
| • | the impact of historical influences and institutional pressures on top teams formation, composition and working processes; |
| • | the impact of changes in the characteristics of top teams on organizations' behaviors and outcomes (social performance, business ethics, strategy, strategic renewal, ambidexterity…); |
| • | comparative papers that address the issues related to Top Teams in different countries. |
| • | Organizational Behaviour |
| • | Group Dynamics |
| • | Group Processes |
| • | Group performance |
| • | Corporate governance |
| • | Public Governance |
TRACK 2. Working in turbulent times: new models of team effectiveness in complex
scenarios
Chairs:
- Elisa Mattarelli, Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia
- Fabiola Bertolotti, Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia
- Andrea Prencipe, Università G. d'Annunzio
Description:
Academic and managerial literature emphasizes the importance of teams for organizational success. Organizational teams, in fact, produce goods, deliver services, recommend improvements, design new products, and determine the strategic direction of their organizations (Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Mathieu et al., 2008). As a consequence, unraveling the antecedents of team effectiveness, traditionally measured in terms of task performance, satisfaction of team members and other social outcomes (e.g., cohesiveness, Hackman, 1987) has been of primary importance. However, investigating processes and effectiveness in teams is particularly difficult in modern workplaces, characterized by multiple factors of complexity. For instance, multitasking is becoming increasingly commonplace in modern organizations. The increased use of job rotation, the need for continuous learning and development of complementary skills, and the direct participation of employees in organizational decision making place increasing demands on an organization’s employees (Lindbeck and Snower, 2000). Moreover, today organizations ask professionals to be simultaneously engaged in multiple teams (a situation defined as MTM, Multiple Team Membership, Mortensen et al., 2011) that force individuals to divide their attention across different priorities and activities, thus affecting the effectiveness of single teams. To make the picture more complex team members are rarely co-localized. Some individuals may work from home, from different offices or in different countries (Golden and Raghuram, 2010; Hinds and Lyon, 2011). In such situations, the intense use of collaborative technologies for interacting, combined with geographical distance and cultural differences, influences operational and social processes and, in the end, affects team effectiveness. The aim of this track is to further investigate the antecedents of team effectiveness in terms of design factors, operational and social processes in contexts characterized by new forms of complexity, e.g. multitasking, multiple team membership, distribution of team members, cultural differences, and intense technology use.
Keywords: Team effectiveness, multitasking, distribution
Suggested areas:
scenarios
Chairs:
- Elisa Mattarelli, Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia
- Fabiola Bertolotti, Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia
- Andrea Prencipe, Università G. d'Annunzio
Description:
Academic and managerial literature emphasizes the importance of teams for organizational success. Organizational teams, in fact, produce goods, deliver services, recommend improvements, design new products, and determine the strategic direction of their organizations (Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Mathieu et al., 2008). As a consequence, unraveling the antecedents of team effectiveness, traditionally measured in terms of task performance, satisfaction of team members and other social outcomes (e.g., cohesiveness, Hackman, 1987) has been of primary importance. However, investigating processes and effectiveness in teams is particularly difficult in modern workplaces, characterized by multiple factors of complexity. For instance, multitasking is becoming increasingly commonplace in modern organizations. The increased use of job rotation, the need for continuous learning and development of complementary skills, and the direct participation of employees in organizational decision making place increasing demands on an organization’s employees (Lindbeck and Snower, 2000). Moreover, today organizations ask professionals to be simultaneously engaged in multiple teams (a situation defined as MTM, Multiple Team Membership, Mortensen et al., 2011) that force individuals to divide their attention across different priorities and activities, thus affecting the effectiveness of single teams. To make the picture more complex team members are rarely co-localized. Some individuals may work from home, from different offices or in different countries (Golden and Raghuram, 2010; Hinds and Lyon, 2011). In such situations, the intense use of collaborative technologies for interacting, combined with geographical distance and cultural differences, influences operational and social processes and, in the end, affects team effectiveness. The aim of this track is to further investigate the antecedents of team effectiveness in terms of design factors, operational and social processes in contexts characterized by new forms of complexity, e.g. multitasking, multiple team membership, distribution of team members, cultural differences, and intense technology use.
Keywords: Team effectiveness, multitasking, distribution
Suggested areas:
Back
| • | Multitasking in teams |
| • | Multiple team memberships |
| • | Effectiveness of R&D teams |
| • | Team performance |
| • | Technology use |
| • | Team design |
| • | Social processes |
| • | Operational processes |
| • | Group dynamics |
Back
TRACK 3. Organizing ideation, creativity and innovation: the role of social networks
Chairs:
- Daniele Mascia, Catholic University Sacred Heart, Rome
- Mats G. Magnusson, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm & Institute for Management of
Innovation and Technology, Göteborg
- Jennie Björk, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
Description:
The environment in which organizations behave and perform is widely characterized by turbulence and uncertainty. In light of increasing competition, technical complexity, and institutional instability, firms are urged to actively seek performance throughout innovation. Especially in high tech industries, the survival and growth of organizations is nowadays strongly related to their creative and innovative capabilities. Extant literature suggests that innovation is constituted by complex organizational processes, and that collaborative networks between people and organizations are of quintessential importance for innovativeness. Despite the ample debate and empirical evidence provided in this field, this topic is in our opinion yet far from fully explored. For example, we know that networks between individuals and organizations are at the heart of innovation in many industries. But we know very little about network formation processes, as well as antecedents of specific network ties and structures in high tech industries. In addition, there is scant knowledge about organizational capabilities that build and foster fruitful relationships for innovation. It is frequently acknowledged that organizations need to master exploration and exploitation to achieve innovation, but again we do not know what role collaborative relationships - at both individual and organizational levels - may play in this context. Another unclear issue is the impact of collaborative ties on the absorptive capacity of organizations, another important condition which allows organizations to access, integrate, combine, and transform their knowledge. In addition, we recognize that the ample evidence produced on this topic up has been limited mainly to creativity and innovation as outcome measures, whereas much less attention has been paid to the specific network structures that foster ideation, an important prerequisite of organizational innovation. Some limitations also refer to the industries investigated by prior research, as very little is known about network formation and evolution in emergent industries such as nanotech, nanomedicine, etc. Finally, we recognize that it has been widely documented that loosely coupled, modular, and temporary forms of organizing are important for promoting change and innovation. However, there is a dearth of study on the effective impact of these and other emerging forms such as “project ecology” on innovative performance. This track is aimed at stimulating debate and discussion around these topics, and shedding new light on the specific micro-mechanisms that foster ideation, creating and innovation. This track calls for theoretical and empirical contributions that explore varieties of organizational models which foster ideation, creativity and innovation, with a specific emphasis on network forms of organizing. The track welcomes papers (work in progress as well as research ready to be published) that address issues related, without being limited, to the following areas:
Keywords: Ideation & Innovation, Social Networks, Organizational theory
Suggested areas:
Chairs:
- Daniele Mascia, Catholic University Sacred Heart, Rome
- Mats G. Magnusson, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm & Institute for Management of
Innovation and Technology, Göteborg
- Jennie Björk, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
Description:
The environment in which organizations behave and perform is widely characterized by turbulence and uncertainty. In light of increasing competition, technical complexity, and institutional instability, firms are urged to actively seek performance throughout innovation. Especially in high tech industries, the survival and growth of organizations is nowadays strongly related to their creative and innovative capabilities. Extant literature suggests that innovation is constituted by complex organizational processes, and that collaborative networks between people and organizations are of quintessential importance for innovativeness. Despite the ample debate and empirical evidence provided in this field, this topic is in our opinion yet far from fully explored. For example, we know that networks between individuals and organizations are at the heart of innovation in many industries. But we know very little about network formation processes, as well as antecedents of specific network ties and structures in high tech industries. In addition, there is scant knowledge about organizational capabilities that build and foster fruitful relationships for innovation. It is frequently acknowledged that organizations need to master exploration and exploitation to achieve innovation, but again we do not know what role collaborative relationships - at both individual and organizational levels - may play in this context. Another unclear issue is the impact of collaborative ties on the absorptive capacity of organizations, another important condition which allows organizations to access, integrate, combine, and transform their knowledge. In addition, we recognize that the ample evidence produced on this topic up has been limited mainly to creativity and innovation as outcome measures, whereas much less attention has been paid to the specific network structures that foster ideation, an important prerequisite of organizational innovation. Some limitations also refer to the industries investigated by prior research, as very little is known about network formation and evolution in emergent industries such as nanotech, nanomedicine, etc. Finally, we recognize that it has been widely documented that loosely coupled, modular, and temporary forms of organizing are important for promoting change and innovation. However, there is a dearth of study on the effective impact of these and other emerging forms such as “project ecology” on innovative performance. This track is aimed at stimulating debate and discussion around these topics, and shedding new light on the specific micro-mechanisms that foster ideation, creating and innovation. This track calls for theoretical and empirical contributions that explore varieties of organizational models which foster ideation, creativity and innovation, with a specific emphasis on network forms of organizing. The track welcomes papers (work in progress as well as research ready to be published) that address issues related, without being limited, to the following areas:
Keywords: Ideation & Innovation, Social Networks, Organizational theory
Suggested areas:
| • | The role of collaborative networks for ideation and creativity |
| • | Interpersonal/interorganizational networks and innovation |
| • | Industry-academia interaction and innovation |
| • | Social capital and its impact on innovative performance |
| • | The role of networks in individual and collective learning |
| • | Dynamics of co-authorship (patents and publications) in R&D contexts |
| • | Spatial clustering of ideas and innovation |
| • | Managing distributed- and networked innovation |
| • | Open innovation and online communities |
| • | The interplay between collaboration and competition in innovation |
TRACK 4. Innovation and Performance: state of the art and research challenges
Chairs:
- Gilda Antonelli, Università del Molise
- Daniel Pittino, Università di Udine
- Stefano Consiglio, Università di Napoli Federico II
Description:
Nowadays “Innovation” is the most popular word that is coming out everywhere. Businesses, governments’ programs and recommendations for the economy, entrepreneurs, press and media, public speeches at every level declare a real fondness for the word “innovation”. It seems that only innovative start ups will survive and only established companies that drive to become more innovative will be competitive. The roles of different types of innovation (product, process, and business model) are especially interesting. It appears to be the same at individual level, where one must demonstrate innovation capabilities to be successful in her/his job as at network level, where the innovation can show out from new types of alliance agreements or business models and even focusing on local innovation systems. Recently, some researches started to focus on the problem of measuring innovation performances. However, these measures have some serious limitations. Many of them only provide a narrow view of innovation. Often, the connection between innovation and performance metrics is not studied in depth especially at network and individual level and the role of successful implementation or the evolution of innovation performance over time are not taken into account. Moreover, data collecting is difficult, in particular when comparing among actors at any level. The purpose of this track is to outline the elements that make up innovation performance and to look for qualitative and quantitative indicators from different perspectives of performance. Can companies measure the impact of their innovation activities? Can they benchmark their performance on innovation against that of their peers? Can the long-term effects of innovation strategies be tracked systematically? How to measure the innovation performance of a network of firms or a regional system?
Keywords: Innovation, Performance
Suggested areas:
Chairs:
- Gilda Antonelli, Università del Molise
- Daniel Pittino, Università di Udine
- Stefano Consiglio, Università di Napoli Federico II
Description:
Nowadays “Innovation” is the most popular word that is coming out everywhere. Businesses, governments’ programs and recommendations for the economy, entrepreneurs, press and media, public speeches at every level declare a real fondness for the word “innovation”. It seems that only innovative start ups will survive and only established companies that drive to become more innovative will be competitive. The roles of different types of innovation (product, process, and business model) are especially interesting. It appears to be the same at individual level, where one must demonstrate innovation capabilities to be successful in her/his job as at network level, where the innovation can show out from new types of alliance agreements or business models and even focusing on local innovation systems. Recently, some researches started to focus on the problem of measuring innovation performances. However, these measures have some serious limitations. Many of them only provide a narrow view of innovation. Often, the connection between innovation and performance metrics is not studied in depth especially at network and individual level and the role of successful implementation or the evolution of innovation performance over time are not taken into account. Moreover, data collecting is difficult, in particular when comparing among actors at any level. The purpose of this track is to outline the elements that make up innovation performance and to look for qualitative and quantitative indicators from different perspectives of performance. Can companies measure the impact of their innovation activities? Can they benchmark their performance on innovation against that of their peers? Can the long-term effects of innovation strategies be tracked systematically? How to measure the innovation performance of a network of firms or a regional system?
Keywords: Innovation, Performance
Suggested areas:
| • | Innovation performance qualitative and quantitative metrics |
| • | Innovation of local systems |
| • | Innovation performance management |
| • | Group performances |
| • | Determinants of innovation performance |
TRACK 5. New way to access and measure performance in innovation
Chairs:
- Alessio Maria Braccini, LUISS (Italy)
- Michele Missikoff, CNR (Italy)
- Patrick Sitek, BIBA (Germany)
Description:
Starting from Schumpeter’s pioneering work which has shown how innovative efforts foster new market opportunities, improved performance, and organizational growth, innovation in general, and technological evolution in particular, has been since long time a frequently discussed research topic (Kim and Penning, 2009). However innovation is difficult to sustain: it is a high-risk endeavour that does not always turn to an improvement of organizational performance (Garud et al., 2011). Many times innovation projects fail without producing expected benefits. Especially with reference to innovation projects including IT investments, researchers have striven for many years to investigate the relationships between investments and organizational performances (Aral and Weill, 2007). A plethora of different methods and metrics have been employed producing both convincing evidences but also, sometimes, elusive and contradictory results (Melville et al., 2004; Oh and Pinsonneault, 2007). These results stress the need to identify and investigate organizational characteristics and conditions that can moderate the relationship between investments in innovation and performance (Bharadwaj, 2000; Aral and Weill, 2007). Within the above scenario this track intend to provide an opportunity for academics and practitioners to explore and deepen the study of organizational factors that mediate or enable innovations to improve organizational performance. The track invites submissions of studies investigating potential relationships between specific organizational characteristics and their potential to favour or impede innovation projects that eventually contribute to performance improvements. The track welcomes both empirical and theoretical papers, following both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, within the context of small, medium, large firms or public administrations.
Keywords: Innovation performance, Innovation success, Organizing for performance
Suggested areas:
Chairs:
- Alessio Maria Braccini, LUISS (Italy)
- Michele Missikoff, CNR (Italy)
- Patrick Sitek, BIBA (Germany)
Description:
Starting from Schumpeter’s pioneering work which has shown how innovative efforts foster new market opportunities, improved performance, and organizational growth, innovation in general, and technological evolution in particular, has been since long time a frequently discussed research topic (Kim and Penning, 2009). However innovation is difficult to sustain: it is a high-risk endeavour that does not always turn to an improvement of organizational performance (Garud et al., 2011). Many times innovation projects fail without producing expected benefits. Especially with reference to innovation projects including IT investments, researchers have striven for many years to investigate the relationships between investments and organizational performances (Aral and Weill, 2007). A plethora of different methods and metrics have been employed producing both convincing evidences but also, sometimes, elusive and contradictory results (Melville et al., 2004; Oh and Pinsonneault, 2007). These results stress the need to identify and investigate organizational characteristics and conditions that can moderate the relationship between investments in innovation and performance (Bharadwaj, 2000; Aral and Weill, 2007). Within the above scenario this track intend to provide an opportunity for academics and practitioners to explore and deepen the study of organizational factors that mediate or enable innovations to improve organizational performance. The track invites submissions of studies investigating potential relationships between specific organizational characteristics and their potential to favour or impede innovation projects that eventually contribute to performance improvements. The track welcomes both empirical and theoretical papers, following both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, within the context of small, medium, large firms or public administrations.
Keywords: Innovation performance, Innovation success, Organizing for performance
Suggested areas:
| • | Organizational factors mediating performance |
| • | Innovation Success/Failure Case(s) |
| • | Organize Innovation for Performance |
| • | Best Practices supporting innovation management |
| • | KPI for Innovation |
TRACK 6. Governance of Tourism and Public Management
Chairs:
- Paolo De Vita, Università del Molise
- Massimo Franco, Università del Molise
- Massimo Bianchi, Università di Bologna - Facoltà di Economia di Forlì
- Angelo Presenza, Università “G. D’Annunzio” di Chieti-Pescara
Description:
Public administration and public policy are interdisciplinary fields that interrelate with organization studies in a number of different ways. The panel explores current trends in the relationship between public administration and tourism, with particular interest in performances measurement and evaluation. Tourism is often considered a strategic path of economic development by both policy makers and local stakeholders. Governments in countries at all stages of development are increasingly dependent on it, but it is of special significance in countries intent on achieving sustainable development. This leads to questions about the general role of governments, questions about what governments conceive to be their particular responsibilities in relation to tourism and how they evaluate and measure their performances (economic and social), and questions about the relationship between tourism and public sector management. The public sector, in collaboration with other stakeholders, continually seeks to develop an understanding of issues concerning the ongoing provision of tourism opportunities for its citizens as well as the efficient and effective use of public funds so that the issue of performance and, more specifically, performance measurement, monitoring, and management become a key aspect. We are especially interested in discussing the outcome of challenges local government faces in volatile times. The aim is to find answers to questions arising in organizing and carrying out managerial responsibilities and performances in tourism local government. The focus of this track is to establish and debate the ways in which the governance of tourism can be understood, depicted, assessed and delivered. The possible models and frameworks for tourism governance and outcomes evaluation and the relationships among the various actors involved in tourism and related sectors are the subject of interest.
Keywords: Tourism governance, New public management, Performance
Suggested areas:
Chairs:
- Paolo De Vita, Università del Molise
- Massimo Franco, Università del Molise
- Massimo Bianchi, Università di Bologna - Facoltà di Economia di Forlì
- Angelo Presenza, Università “G. D’Annunzio” di Chieti-Pescara
Description:
Public administration and public policy are interdisciplinary fields that interrelate with organization studies in a number of different ways. The panel explores current trends in the relationship between public administration and tourism, with particular interest in performances measurement and evaluation. Tourism is often considered a strategic path of economic development by both policy makers and local stakeholders. Governments in countries at all stages of development are increasingly dependent on it, but it is of special significance in countries intent on achieving sustainable development. This leads to questions about the general role of governments, questions about what governments conceive to be their particular responsibilities in relation to tourism and how they evaluate and measure their performances (economic and social), and questions about the relationship between tourism and public sector management. The public sector, in collaboration with other stakeholders, continually seeks to develop an understanding of issues concerning the ongoing provision of tourism opportunities for its citizens as well as the efficient and effective use of public funds so that the issue of performance and, more specifically, performance measurement, monitoring, and management become a key aspect. We are especially interested in discussing the outcome of challenges local government faces in volatile times. The aim is to find answers to questions arising in organizing and carrying out managerial responsibilities and performances in tourism local government. The focus of this track is to establish and debate the ways in which the governance of tourism can be understood, depicted, assessed and delivered. The possible models and frameworks for tourism governance and outcomes evaluation and the relationships among the various actors involved in tourism and related sectors are the subject of interest.
Keywords: Tourism governance, New public management, Performance
Suggested areas:
| • | Local governments, public-private collaboration and tourism planning and evaluation |
| • | New public management, hybrid organizations and tourism |
| • | Performance measurement innovation: Tools and measurement for the tourism field |
| • | Knowledge management in destination governance |
| • | The role of public institutions in tourism innovation systems |
| • | Public sector support of and involvement in entrepreneurship and innovation |
| • | Inter-institutional collaborating networks |
| • | Public infrastructures and tourism |
| • | Public administration and event management |
| • | Public administration and cultural heritage management |
| • | The role of networks in international project management for cultural heritage |
TRACK 7. The elusive notion of performance in the public sector
Chairs:
- Luca Solari, Università degli studi di Milano
- Maddalena Sorrentino, Università degli studi di Milano
Description:
The public administration (central and local, healthcare, and higher education) is an area in which it is essential to govern complexity to operate successfully. The increase in that complexity in the past decade has, above all, highlighted the importance of accountability, based on verified and documented results, to justify the use of collective resources. To spur positive change in public services, the movement known as New Public Management (NPM) considers it crucial to orient performance. Nevertheless, the countries that have embarked on this vast political and managerial experiment have all encountered limitations and drawbacks. For example, aside from the general pressure to be cost-effective, accountable and transparent, the implementation of NPM across sectors such as healthcare, justice and higher education reveals highly different dynamics in terms of the implementation processes and the results achieved. According to widespread opinion, one of the greatest critical factors of the reforms proposed of late in Italy is that of having created what, in theory, is an “open” system of public administration, which in practice, however, retains most of the basic framework of the traditional, self-referential model to which has been added a superstructure of principles, criteria and systems taken from the corporate world. ‘Failure’ is a frequent occurrence for which two broad types of explanation are advanced. While the first points to managerial incompetence in the use of NPM techniques, an alternative interpretive key underscores the structural constraints that management practice faces in the public sector. The Track aims to use multidisciplinary contributions - based on different theoretical and empirical approaches - to investigate the processes adopted in both research and practice to design, implement and assess performance evaluation systems. The Track hopes to attract papers (in Italian or English) that offer - hopefully in a distinctive way - stimuli for organizational reflection and action.
Keywords: New Public Management, Public organizations, Performance management systems
Suggested areas:
Chairs:
- Luca Solari, Università degli studi di Milano
- Maddalena Sorrentino, Università degli studi di Milano
Description:
The public administration (central and local, healthcare, and higher education) is an area in which it is essential to govern complexity to operate successfully. The increase in that complexity in the past decade has, above all, highlighted the importance of accountability, based on verified and documented results, to justify the use of collective resources. To spur positive change in public services, the movement known as New Public Management (NPM) considers it crucial to orient performance. Nevertheless, the countries that have embarked on this vast political and managerial experiment have all encountered limitations and drawbacks. For example, aside from the general pressure to be cost-effective, accountable and transparent, the implementation of NPM across sectors such as healthcare, justice and higher education reveals highly different dynamics in terms of the implementation processes and the results achieved. According to widespread opinion, one of the greatest critical factors of the reforms proposed of late in Italy is that of having created what, in theory, is an “open” system of public administration, which in practice, however, retains most of the basic framework of the traditional, self-referential model to which has been added a superstructure of principles, criteria and systems taken from the corporate world. ‘Failure’ is a frequent occurrence for which two broad types of explanation are advanced. While the first points to managerial incompetence in the use of NPM techniques, an alternative interpretive key underscores the structural constraints that management practice faces in the public sector. The Track aims to use multidisciplinary contributions - based on different theoretical and empirical approaches - to investigate the processes adopted in both research and practice to design, implement and assess performance evaluation systems. The Track hopes to attract papers (in Italian or English) that offer - hopefully in a distinctive way - stimuli for organizational reflection and action.
Keywords: New Public Management, Public organizations, Performance management systems
Suggested areas:
| • | Multidimensionality of performance management (PM) systems in the public sector |
| • | Organizational strategy and PM: What do they mean for public managers? |
| • | Performance measurement vs. Performance evaluation |
| • | Pitfalls and challenges in implementing performance management systems in the higher education sector |
| • | Resistance to PM systems |
| • | Management in high-performance public organizations |
| • | Managing citizen expectations of public service performance |
| • | Performance management in Italian public organizations after the “Brunetta Reform” |
| • | Organizational performance: does management matter? |
| • | The rhetoric of change |
| • | How much do the computer-based information systems used by the public administrations support the principles that underpin performance management? |
| • | Implementing New Public Management within and across contexts |
TRACK 8. Facing health care crisis with high performances: how to turn ties into
opportunities
Chairs:
- Paola Adinolfi, University of Salerno
- Gerardine Doyle, University College Dublin
Description:
A prolonged economic and financial crisis is affecting western countries, highlighting the weakness of their welfare systems and putting into pressure their sustainability. The health care sector, in turn, is going through a difficult period, constrained by scarce resources, on the one hand, and increasing needs, on the other. Legislative interventions have not proved to be adequate to solve the problems of public health care: inefficiency, inappropriateness and wastes continue to be an evident weakness of national health services. This track aims at investigating the determinants of the economic and financial performance of National health services. Possible research questions include: what is the impact of managerial reform in the health care sector on its performance? Are there other dimensions beyond the economic and financial ones which are of interest for the health care sector? Is it possible to exploit existing theoretical framework or to device new approaches, theories and models in order to reach a deeper understanding of health care organizations’ performance? Are equal opportunities able to affect performances in health sector? Could current economic and financial crisis turn into an opportunity to improve health care performance?
Keywords: Health care, Crisis, Waste
Suggested areas:
opportunities
Chairs:
- Paola Adinolfi, University of Salerno
- Gerardine Doyle, University College Dublin
Description:
A prolonged economic and financial crisis is affecting western countries, highlighting the weakness of their welfare systems and putting into pressure their sustainability. The health care sector, in turn, is going through a difficult period, constrained by scarce resources, on the one hand, and increasing needs, on the other. Legislative interventions have not proved to be adequate to solve the problems of public health care: inefficiency, inappropriateness and wastes continue to be an evident weakness of national health services. This track aims at investigating the determinants of the economic and financial performance of National health services. Possible research questions include: what is the impact of managerial reform in the health care sector on its performance? Are there other dimensions beyond the economic and financial ones which are of interest for the health care sector? Is it possible to exploit existing theoretical framework or to device new approaches, theories and models in order to reach a deeper understanding of health care organizations’ performance? Are equal opportunities able to affect performances in health sector? Could current economic and financial crisis turn into an opportunity to improve health care performance?
Keywords: Health care, Crisis, Waste
Suggested areas:
| • | Organization Theories & Performances |
| • | New Public Management & Performances |
| • | Information Systems & Performances |
| • | Communication & Performances |
| • | Innovation & Performances |
| • | Equal Opportunities & Performances |
TRACK 9. Organizational agility and performance in hypercompetitive environments
Chairs:
- Mirella Migliaccio, Department of Studies of Economic, Legal and Social Systems, University of Sannio
- Francesca Rivetti, Department of Strategies and Quantitative Methods, Second University of Naples
Description:
In last decades organizations have faced a strong environmental dynamism, primarily due to technological, economic, political, and social changes, often unpredictable. In these circumstances change should cease to be episodic, becoming instead a constant in the life of organizations. In other words, in order to create and preserve competitive advantage, it is necessary to give sense and to respond quickly to environmental changes. However, often organizations are unable to cope continuously with these changes. Often they persist in their behaviors, sometimes they respond to changes in an ineffective or not sufficiently quick way. On the basis of these considerations, in recent decades has emerged the concept of organizational agility, which enables the organization to thrive in a continuous changing environment. In this sense, organizational agility can be the key to long-term success under conditions of uncertainty. Despite the growing interest in the topic, there is still lack of clarity on many aspects of agility. Particularly, definitions are often ambiguous, while its impact on the whole organization and its influence on performance are largely unexplored. The relevance of the topic, given the current competitive scenario, and the need of clarity around this, make it particularly interesting for management scholars, who are trying to answer the following questions: What is organizational agility? How does it impact firm performance? How can organizations develop agility? How can organizations leverage agility?
Keywords: Organizational agility, Uncertainty, Competitive Advantage
Suggested areas:
Chairs:
- Mirella Migliaccio, Department of Studies of Economic, Legal and Social Systems, University of Sannio
- Francesca Rivetti, Department of Strategies and Quantitative Methods, Second University of Naples
Description:
In last decades organizations have faced a strong environmental dynamism, primarily due to technological, economic, political, and social changes, often unpredictable. In these circumstances change should cease to be episodic, becoming instead a constant in the life of organizations. In other words, in order to create and preserve competitive advantage, it is necessary to give sense and to respond quickly to environmental changes. However, often organizations are unable to cope continuously with these changes. Often they persist in their behaviors, sometimes they respond to changes in an ineffective or not sufficiently quick way. On the basis of these considerations, in recent decades has emerged the concept of organizational agility, which enables the organization to thrive in a continuous changing environment. In this sense, organizational agility can be the key to long-term success under conditions of uncertainty. Despite the growing interest in the topic, there is still lack of clarity on many aspects of agility. Particularly, definitions are often ambiguous, while its impact on the whole organization and its influence on performance are largely unexplored. The relevance of the topic, given the current competitive scenario, and the need of clarity around this, make it particularly interesting for management scholars, who are trying to answer the following questions: What is organizational agility? How does it impact firm performance? How can organizations develop agility? How can organizations leverage agility?
Keywords: Organizational agility, Uncertainty, Competitive Advantage
Suggested areas:
| • | Organization Design & Performances |
| • | Innovation & Performances |
| • | Strategic management |
TRACK 10. Organizational Performance, values and measures through the lens of Critical
Management Studies
Chairs:
- Riccardo Mercurio, Università di NapoliFederico II
- Hugh Willmott, University of Cardiff
- Marcello Martinez, Seconda università di Napoli
- Gianluigi Mangia, Università di NapoliFederico II
Description:
Critical Management Studies (CMS) offers a range of alternatives to mainstream management theory with a view to radically transforming management practice. CMS came into use to describe a critical approach directed at current manifestations of `management' and includes epistemological critiques of established methodologies as well as alternative crtical voices on management knowledge and its dissemination. With the dominance of the positivist conception of scientific method, managerial research has been istituzionalised as generalizable and producing a a de-contextualized knowledge. The notion of ‘abstract management’ as disembedded and divorced from the context and as such applicable to any organization (Townley, 2002) has come to be the principal paradigm of managerial action. Contextually, particular attention has been given to the increased economic significance of valuation systems and the process of organising value through the creation of categories, accounting schemes, procedures, standards, rankings and other valuation devices. In this vein, CMS identifies and challenges the orthodox view that regards management as a technical activity and organisation as a neutral instrument for achieving shared goals. By subverting orthodox accounts of management, this stream opens a perspective on possible and alternative ways of thinking about management, from standpoints that are less remote and distanced from the everyday worlds. We invite theoretical contributions as well as empirical studies and we expect applications to
extend across a wide range of analysis, including, for example:
- Critical perspectives on managerialism and managerial techniques;
- new forms of work organization;
- discourses and Critical Managemet Studies;
- critical perspectives on class, gender and race;
- conflict and resistance in organizations
- identities and subjectivity at work
- critical public sector management
- critical orientations on virtual worlds
- perspective on management education and research production
- critical approach on art and aesthetic in organizations
- critical epistemologies and methodologies;
Keywords: Critical management, studies, Measurement performance
Suggested areas:
Management Studies
Chairs:
- Riccardo Mercurio, Università di NapoliFederico II
- Hugh Willmott, University of Cardiff
- Marcello Martinez, Seconda università di Napoli
- Gianluigi Mangia, Università di NapoliFederico II
Description:
Critical Management Studies (CMS) offers a range of alternatives to mainstream management theory with a view to radically transforming management practice. CMS came into use to describe a critical approach directed at current manifestations of `management' and includes epistemological critiques of established methodologies as well as alternative crtical voices on management knowledge and its dissemination. With the dominance of the positivist conception of scientific method, managerial research has been istituzionalised as generalizable and producing a a de-contextualized knowledge. The notion of ‘abstract management’ as disembedded and divorced from the context and as such applicable to any organization (Townley, 2002) has come to be the principal paradigm of managerial action. Contextually, particular attention has been given to the increased economic significance of valuation systems and the process of organising value through the creation of categories, accounting schemes, procedures, standards, rankings and other valuation devices. In this vein, CMS identifies and challenges the orthodox view that regards management as a technical activity and organisation as a neutral instrument for achieving shared goals. By subverting orthodox accounts of management, this stream opens a perspective on possible and alternative ways of thinking about management, from standpoints that are less remote and distanced from the everyday worlds. We invite theoretical contributions as well as empirical studies and we expect applications to
extend across a wide range of analysis, including, for example:
- Critical perspectives on managerialism and managerial techniques;
- new forms of work organization;
- discourses and Critical Managemet Studies;
- critical perspectives on class, gender and race;
- conflict and resistance in organizations
- identities and subjectivity at work
- critical public sector management
- critical orientations on virtual worlds
- perspective on management education and research production
- critical approach on art and aesthetic in organizations
- critical epistemologies and methodologies;
Keywords: Critical management, studies, Measurement performance
Suggested areas:
| • | Organization design |
| • | Measurement of performance |
| • | Organizational theories |
| • | Human resources |
| • | Organizational behaviour |
| • | Epistemology and methodology |
TRACK 11. Seeking Higher Performances in Innovation: ‘Open’ and ‘User-led’
Approaches and Web Technologies
Chairs:
- Concetta Metallo, Università degli Studi di Napoli "Parthenope"
- Riccardo Bonazzi, Université de Lausanne - Suisse
- Alberto Francesconi, Università di Pavia
Description:
A number of studies (i.e. Rigby and Zook, 2002; von Hippel, 2005; Chesbrough and Crowther, 2006) have outlined the benefits of opening firm’s boundaries to external knowledge sources. They suggest that the ability to combine internal and external knowledge can improve the innovation processes. In particular, literature suggests the innovation locus can lie in places where technical knowledge, marketing experience and customer activities intersect. Undoubtedly, the Web technologies can favour the communication and collaboration among firms, customers and Web users to explore new knowledge to nurture the innovation processes. At the same time, the knowledge exploration is not sufficient and firms need to learn how to identify, assimilate and concretely exploit this knowledge in new business opportunities. Our track aims at answering questions such as:
· How can firms be organized for open and user-led innovation?
· How can knowledge be assimilated, transformed and exploited in new concrete opportunities of
business?
· How can we measure the firm’s ability to explore and exploit external knowledge?
· How can we measure the innovation performances within open and user-led innovation contexts
when traditional measures of innovativeness (i.e. number of patents) are not applicable?’
We are open to theoretical and empirical works - both in progress or advanced - based on qualitative and/or quantitative methods.
Keywords: Open and User-led Innovation, Absorptive Capacity, Web Technologies
Suggested areas:
Approaches and Web Technologies
Chairs:
- Concetta Metallo, Università degli Studi di Napoli "Parthenope"
- Riccardo Bonazzi, Université de Lausanne - Suisse
- Alberto Francesconi, Università di Pavia
Description:
A number of studies (i.e. Rigby and Zook, 2002; von Hippel, 2005; Chesbrough and Crowther, 2006) have outlined the benefits of opening firm’s boundaries to external knowledge sources. They suggest that the ability to combine internal and external knowledge can improve the innovation processes. In particular, literature suggests the innovation locus can lie in places where technical knowledge, marketing experience and customer activities intersect. Undoubtedly, the Web technologies can favour the communication and collaboration among firms, customers and Web users to explore new knowledge to nurture the innovation processes. At the same time, the knowledge exploration is not sufficient and firms need to learn how to identify, assimilate and concretely exploit this knowledge in new business opportunities. Our track aims at answering questions such as:
· How can firms be organized for open and user-led innovation?
· How can knowledge be assimilated, transformed and exploited in new concrete opportunities of
business?
· How can we measure the firm’s ability to explore and exploit external knowledge?
· How can we measure the innovation performances within open and user-led innovation contexts
when traditional measures of innovativeness (i.e. number of patents) are not applicable?’
We are open to theoretical and empirical works - both in progress or advanced - based on qualitative and/or quantitative methods.
Keywords: Open and User-led Innovation, Absorptive Capacity, Web Technologies
Suggested areas:
| • | Models of ‘open’ and ‘user-led’ innovation which try to engage more directly the user in the innovation process exploiting the Web technologies |
| • | Specific instruments and organizational settings (i.e. in terms of structures, culture, systems, processes, set of practices, and so forth) that can favour the ‘open’ and ‘user-led’ approaches seeking higher performances |
| • | A deeper understanding of the firm’s ‘absorptive capacity’ - conceived under a more process oriented perspective as suggested by Lane, Koka and Pathak’s (2006) - linked to ‘open’ and ‘user-led’ contexts |
| • | Methods and instruments to measure innovation performances in ‘open’ and ‘user-led’ contexts |
TRACK 12. Seeking performance through sourcing strategy
Chairs:
- Lucia Marchegiani, Università degli Studi Roma Tre
- Luca Giustiniano, LUISS Guido Carli
Description:
Despite outsourcing has been at the core of the managerial literature for a long time, still authors do not agree on a clear understanding of the antecedents and consequences of the decision to outsource (De Fontenay and Gans, 2008). In fact, outsourcing has been studied from diverse perspectives, ranging from economics to finance and, broadly speaking, management (Rothaermel et al., 2006; Mayer and Salomon, 2006). Though, the direct and positive link between outsourcing and positive performance is not straightforward, and it is questionable what organizational conditions favour the positive outcomes. The academic debate on outsourcing has not yet come to an end. Until recently, outsourcing practices have been embraced with a general favour. Nevertheless, a number of cases have emerged, when outsourcing decisions have been challenged by members of the firms (internal stakeholders). Global outsourcing and offshoring implied transferring to emerging countries not only productive activities, but also know-how and human resources, as well as labour opportunities. Moreover, as multisourcing has emerged in recent years, outsourcers may well leverage on learning effects and set up operating procedures, formalized systems, and routines. Another controversial field covers the sourcing of ideas during the innovation processes. As sourcing strategies may result in inter-organizational networks, the recombination of knowledge accessed through network ties may foster innovation. These issues challenge the benefits of sourcing strategies (Torres et al., 2008). All considered, organizational issues are emerging related to the overall sourcing strategies of firms. Not only, a definite assessment of sourcing strategies and organizational implications is not yet available, Corporate Social Responsibility concerns also arise, as well as relational view of outsourcing, which should be further investigated. In light of these phenomena, this track intends to attract scholars and researchers who are investigating sourcing strategies, knowledge, networks, and process management and the linked strategic implications. Research and theory papers are very welcome, as well as preliminary results of ongoing research projects.
Keywords: Sourcing strategy, Networks, Strategic HRM/CSR
Suggested areas:
Chairs:
- Lucia Marchegiani, Università degli Studi Roma Tre
- Luca Giustiniano, LUISS Guido Carli
Description:
Despite outsourcing has been at the core of the managerial literature for a long time, still authors do not agree on a clear understanding of the antecedents and consequences of the decision to outsource (De Fontenay and Gans, 2008). In fact, outsourcing has been studied from diverse perspectives, ranging from economics to finance and, broadly speaking, management (Rothaermel et al., 2006; Mayer and Salomon, 2006). Though, the direct and positive link between outsourcing and positive performance is not straightforward, and it is questionable what organizational conditions favour the positive outcomes. The academic debate on outsourcing has not yet come to an end. Until recently, outsourcing practices have been embraced with a general favour. Nevertheless, a number of cases have emerged, when outsourcing decisions have been challenged by members of the firms (internal stakeholders). Global outsourcing and offshoring implied transferring to emerging countries not only productive activities, but also know-how and human resources, as well as labour opportunities. Moreover, as multisourcing has emerged in recent years, outsourcers may well leverage on learning effects and set up operating procedures, formalized systems, and routines. Another controversial field covers the sourcing of ideas during the innovation processes. As sourcing strategies may result in inter-organizational networks, the recombination of knowledge accessed through network ties may foster innovation. These issues challenge the benefits of sourcing strategies (Torres et al., 2008). All considered, organizational issues are emerging related to the overall sourcing strategies of firms. Not only, a definite assessment of sourcing strategies and organizational implications is not yet available, Corporate Social Responsibility concerns also arise, as well as relational view of outsourcing, which should be further investigated. In light of these phenomena, this track intends to attract scholars and researchers who are investigating sourcing strategies, knowledge, networks, and process management and the linked strategic implications. Research and theory papers are very welcome, as well as preliminary results of ongoing research projects.
Keywords: Sourcing strategy, Networks, Strategic HRM/CSR
Suggested areas:
| • | Antecedents of sourcing strategies |
| • | Organizational and economic performances related to outsourcing |
| • | Processes design and re-design |
| • | Human Resources Management in light of (out)sourcing strategies |
| • | CSR implications of outsourcing |
| • | Networks formation and sourcing strategy |
| • | Relational view of outsourcing |
| • | Supply Chain |
| • | Sourcing strategy and innovation |
| • | Organizational routines generated by multisourcing |
TRACK 13. Performance and performativity: the social study of information systems
in organizations
Chairs:
- Gian Marco Campagnolo, University of Edinburgh
- Neil Pollock, University of Edinburgh
Description:
The key challenge of modern organizations is to define, measure and audit performances. However, the tools and theories that are used by public and private organizations to describe, define and measure those key organizational performances, do more than just describe a reality. Descriptions, statements and measurements often have also a role in producing the settings in which they are applied (Austin, 1962). The basic example is the clock. Technologies like the clock not only include time as a measure, but they also invented it as a measurable entity and measure it since. In Geertz words (Geertz, 1993) then, performance measures can be seen in certain circumstances as ‘key symbols’, which are both models of something (for example, the nature of a performace) and for something (that guides social and organizational conduct). In highlighting the ‘model of and model for’ relationship, we want to emphasize the reciprocity of performance categories, which are ‘at once the shaping and the shape’ (Dubinskas, 1988). First of all, the performative aspect of performance measures, begs the question as to whether any kind of assessment is possible or - at a more tractable level - whether performatives are ‘successful’ or ‘failing’ in framing the socio-technical configuration they are bringing about. Another aspect of interest is the way the performative nature of measurements evolves over time. In fact, as captured by the notion of reflexivity (Garfinkel, 1967), the fact that the describing is the constituting also means that before a description is tried out in practical circumstances, it is not possible by any mean to anticipate its effectiveness. According to this perspective, descriptors of performance are powerful and fragile at the same time. They are powerful because they do more than just describe a reality but they are fragile because they are entirely dependent on the situation in which they are experimented. The role of information technologies in establishing new descriptors for organizational performance is key in this respect. Digital information technologies provide the opportunity to store, connect and search increasing amount of performance data from different sources and different types of performance. Therefore, a question is to what extent analyses drawing on the concept of performativity and reflexivity need to take into account the varying affordances of the different materials that mediate the act of measuring a performance. Last but not least, another central element of interest in describing the production process of performance measures is their provenance. In our times of uncertainty and globalization, a distinctive number of professional figures have raised in areas related to organizational performance measurement, ranking, assessing and rating. One example is the role of Industry Analysist (Pollock, 2009), whose job is to assess organizational performances in different market domains.
Keywords: Performance, performativity
Suggested areas:
in organizations
Chairs:
- Gian Marco Campagnolo, University of Edinburgh
- Neil Pollock, University of Edinburgh
Description:
The key challenge of modern organizations is to define, measure and audit performances. However, the tools and theories that are used by public and private organizations to describe, define and measure those key organizational performances, do more than just describe a reality. Descriptions, statements and measurements often have also a role in producing the settings in which they are applied (Austin, 1962). The basic example is the clock. Technologies like the clock not only include time as a measure, but they also invented it as a measurable entity and measure it since. In Geertz words (Geertz, 1993) then, performance measures can be seen in certain circumstances as ‘key symbols’, which are both models of something (for example, the nature of a performace) and for something (that guides social and organizational conduct). In highlighting the ‘model of and model for’ relationship, we want to emphasize the reciprocity of performance categories, which are ‘at once the shaping and the shape’ (Dubinskas, 1988). First of all, the performative aspect of performance measures, begs the question as to whether any kind of assessment is possible or - at a more tractable level - whether performatives are ‘successful’ or ‘failing’ in framing the socio-technical configuration they are bringing about. Another aspect of interest is the way the performative nature of measurements evolves over time. In fact, as captured by the notion of reflexivity (Garfinkel, 1967), the fact that the describing is the constituting also means that before a description is tried out in practical circumstances, it is not possible by any mean to anticipate its effectiveness. According to this perspective, descriptors of performance are powerful and fragile at the same time. They are powerful because they do more than just describe a reality but they are fragile because they are entirely dependent on the situation in which they are experimented. The role of information technologies in establishing new descriptors for organizational performance is key in this respect. Digital information technologies provide the opportunity to store, connect and search increasing amount of performance data from different sources and different types of performance. Therefore, a question is to what extent analyses drawing on the concept of performativity and reflexivity need to take into account the varying affordances of the different materials that mediate the act of measuring a performance. Last but not least, another central element of interest in describing the production process of performance measures is their provenance. In our times of uncertainty and globalization, a distinctive number of professional figures have raised in areas related to organizational performance measurement, ranking, assessing and rating. One example is the role of Industry Analysist (Pollock, 2009), whose job is to assess organizational performances in different market domains.
Keywords: Performance, performativity
Suggested areas:
| • | the performative nature of performance measurements in shaping organizational conduct; |
| • | the evolutionary and contested nature of the process of establishing performance measures; |
| • | analyses of success and failures of performance measures; |
| • | the professionals of organizational performances measurement (rating agent, ranking providers, industry analysts and the like); |
| • | the role of materiality in mediating the process of performance assessment; |
| • | the role of IT and digital technologies in the process of performance assessment. |
TRACK 14. Ambidextrous MNCs: The related IS and HR architectures
Chairs:
- Tatiana Bouzdine-Chameeva, BEM - Bordeaux Business School, FRANCE
- Olivier Dupouet, BEM - Bordeaux Business School, FRANCE
- C. Lakshman, BEM - Bordeaux Business School, FRANCE
Description:
The concepts of ambidexterity and ambidextrous organizations have grown in popularity and research attention in the last decade. Beginning from the work of March (1991) in coining the terms exploration and exploitation and the associated tradeoffs in organizational learning, the discipline of organizational theory has come a long way in terms examining the simultaneous pursuit of both exploration and exploitation, i.e., the pursuit of ambidexterity by way of identifying and investigating the behavioral, contextual, structural, human resources, and information system requirements of ambidexterity. Most recently, Simsek and colleagues (2009), provided a detailed review of the theoretical and empirical literature on the topic and developed a typology of ambidexterity using the dimensions of temporal and structural ambidexterity. According to this review and other studies, although there have been significant advancements and consensus in building related frameworks, on the one hand, there has also been dissensus and some confusion in such advancement, on the other hand. Additionally, although many MNCs (their business units) have been used in the related empirical studies, to contribute to the literature, this literature still lacks comprehensive frameworks that address the critical issue of ambidexterity pertaining exclusively to MNCs spread across many countries of the world. Thus, questions such as, 1) What are the characteristics of an ambidextrous MNC?, 2) Which of the four types in Simsek et al.'s (2009) typology apply to different types of MNCs?, 3) How do MNCs coordinate their international HR activities to create a thriving ambidextrous organization (and how is this different for different types in Simsek et al.'s (2009) typology), 4) What kinds of international/global IS architectures are suitable for creating an MNC's ambidexterity?, and 5) What are the relationships between HR, IS, and Organizational architectures for MNCs in creating and sustaining a globally ambidextrous organization?, have not been examined in the literature so far. We wish to raise these and other critically important questions for the ambidextrous MNC and to discuss some (of our) early initiatives in this regard and offer them up to discussion in this august audience. We suggest that this exclusive focus on the MNC is critical because the general discussion in the literature seems to focus predominantly on business units and their ambidexterity and ignores the MNC consisting of multiple business units, located in multiple institutionally and culturally different country locations, often operating in severely higher levels of environmental complexity, all of which are critical for a global coverage of organizational theory. Each of the individual or group presenters in this symposium focus on either the HR and organizational infrastructure for the ambidextrous MNC, or the IS and organizational infrastructure, or better still, the interactive and dynamic interplay of these three architectures in creating and sustaining ambidextrous MNCs. First, Olivier, Lakshman, and Bouzdine-Chameeva focus on the interactive and combined impact of IS, HR, and organizational infrastructure in the management of ambidexterity for a French MNC in the industrial technology sector. They outline the details of the case study of this MNC and its subsidiaries and the ways in which ambidexterity is created and managed on a global scale. Second, Lakshman focuses on the Swiss-Swedish MNC ABB and the role of top executive leadership in creating the vision and the global organization for its efforts at becoming ambidextrous and the challenges faced enroute.
Suggested areas:
Chairs:
- Tatiana Bouzdine-Chameeva, BEM - Bordeaux Business School, FRANCE
- Olivier Dupouet, BEM - Bordeaux Business School, FRANCE
- C. Lakshman, BEM - Bordeaux Business School, FRANCE
Description:
The concepts of ambidexterity and ambidextrous organizations have grown in popularity and research attention in the last decade. Beginning from the work of March (1991) in coining the terms exploration and exploitation and the associated tradeoffs in organizational learning, the discipline of organizational theory has come a long way in terms examining the simultaneous pursuit of both exploration and exploitation, i.e., the pursuit of ambidexterity by way of identifying and investigating the behavioral, contextual, structural, human resources, and information system requirements of ambidexterity. Most recently, Simsek and colleagues (2009), provided a detailed review of the theoretical and empirical literature on the topic and developed a typology of ambidexterity using the dimensions of temporal and structural ambidexterity. According to this review and other studies, although there have been significant advancements and consensus in building related frameworks, on the one hand, there has also been dissensus and some confusion in such advancement, on the other hand. Additionally, although many MNCs (their business units) have been used in the related empirical studies, to contribute to the literature, this literature still lacks comprehensive frameworks that address the critical issue of ambidexterity pertaining exclusively to MNCs spread across many countries of the world. Thus, questions such as, 1) What are the characteristics of an ambidextrous MNC?, 2) Which of the four types in Simsek et al.'s (2009) typology apply to different types of MNCs?, 3) How do MNCs coordinate their international HR activities to create a thriving ambidextrous organization (and how is this different for different types in Simsek et al.'s (2009) typology), 4) What kinds of international/global IS architectures are suitable for creating an MNC's ambidexterity?, and 5) What are the relationships between HR, IS, and Organizational architectures for MNCs in creating and sustaining a globally ambidextrous organization?, have not been examined in the literature so far. We wish to raise these and other critically important questions for the ambidextrous MNC and to discuss some (of our) early initiatives in this regard and offer them up to discussion in this august audience. We suggest that this exclusive focus on the MNC is critical because the general discussion in the literature seems to focus predominantly on business units and their ambidexterity and ignores the MNC consisting of multiple business units, located in multiple institutionally and culturally different country locations, often operating in severely higher levels of environmental complexity, all of which are critical for a global coverage of organizational theory. Each of the individual or group presenters in this symposium focus on either the HR and organizational infrastructure for the ambidextrous MNC, or the IS and organizational infrastructure, or better still, the interactive and dynamic interplay of these three architectures in creating and sustaining ambidextrous MNCs. First, Olivier, Lakshman, and Bouzdine-Chameeva focus on the interactive and combined impact of IS, HR, and organizational infrastructure in the management of ambidexterity for a French MNC in the industrial technology sector. They outline the details of the case study of this MNC and its subsidiaries and the ways in which ambidexterity is created and managed on a global scale. Second, Lakshman focuses on the Swiss-Swedish MNC ABB and the role of top executive leadership in creating the vision and the global organization for its efforts at becoming ambidextrous and the challenges faced enroute.
Suggested areas:
| • | What information systems for managing differentiation and integration in an MNC |
| • | Organisational and IS Configurations for exploration and exploitation trade-off |
| • | Organizational Stability-Maneuverability Tradeoffs and “Flight Control Systems” |
| • | Modeling punctuated equilibrium and ambidexterity: a formal comparison (T. Bouzdine) |
| • | IS uses and HR practices in MNC’s communities of practice |
TRACK 15. From organizing to designing: design sciences and organization design
Chairs:
- Paolo Spagnoletti, LUISS Guido Carli University
- Richard Baskerville, Georgia State University
Description:
Design science is grounded in the H.A. Simon book The Sciences of the Artificial in which a distinction is made between the natural sciences and the sciences related to man-made artefacts. These artefacts are necessarily material and can consist of any form of designed intervention (i.e. actions, structures, processes, systems) that can solve a field problem. The key characteristic of natural sciences is that they are explanatory in nature, being engaged in the quest for truth. On the other hand, design sciences, like architecture, engineering, and law, are also prescriptive in nature and are engaged in solving field problems such as “seeking performance in organizations”. Although some debate about these design sciences has been carried out among scholars in the fields of management and organization studies, design research is now in the foreground of conferences and top journals, especially in the information systems field. Indeed in this field a particularly relevant problem involves the explicit prescription for the design and development of a class of IT systems.
This track is aimed to encourage a debate on the potential of design research in the field of organization studies through the exchange of knowledge among the diverse disciplines in which design research is adopted. We invite both conceptual and empirical contributions addressing the design problem of organization systems aimed at:
- using research for supporting organization design
- investigating the process of designing organization systems
- designing organization systems with the purpose of learning social phenomena
Keywords: Design science, Organization design, Research methods
Suggested areas:
Chairs:
- Paolo Spagnoletti, LUISS Guido Carli University
- Richard Baskerville, Georgia State University
Description:
Design science is grounded in the H.A. Simon book The Sciences of the Artificial in which a distinction is made between the natural sciences and the sciences related to man-made artefacts. These artefacts are necessarily material and can consist of any form of designed intervention (i.e. actions, structures, processes, systems) that can solve a field problem. The key characteristic of natural sciences is that they are explanatory in nature, being engaged in the quest for truth. On the other hand, design sciences, like architecture, engineering, and law, are also prescriptive in nature and are engaged in solving field problems such as “seeking performance in organizations”. Although some debate about these design sciences has been carried out among scholars in the fields of management and organization studies, design research is now in the foreground of conferences and top journals, especially in the information systems field. Indeed in this field a particularly relevant problem involves the explicit prescription for the design and development of a class of IT systems.
This track is aimed to encourage a debate on the potential of design research in the field of organization studies through the exchange of knowledge among the diverse disciplines in which design research is adopted. We invite both conceptual and empirical contributions addressing the design problem of organization systems aimed at:
- using research for supporting organization design
- investigating the process of designing organization systems
- designing organization systems with the purpose of learning social phenomena
Keywords: Design science, Organization design, Research methods
Suggested areas:
| • | Why are organizational interventions different when using a design science approach? |
| • | What are typical design science interventions and results? |
| • | What are the challenges and principles in a design science project within the field of organization studies? |
| • | How can design science be evaluated when it is applied to organization field problems? |
| • | What are the advantages and limitations of following a design science approach? |
| • | How can practitioners benefit from and participate in a design science approach? |
| • | What is the demand for design science projects for organization interventions? |
| • | How are design theories translated by the members of the organization into their own roles and routines? |
| • | ... |
TRACK 16. Complexity and Small Business: are Information Systems a suitable tool?
Chairs:
- Paola Bielli, Università Bocconi
- Severino Meregalli, SDA Bocconi
Description:
In Italy and Europe small does not mean simple. In fact, especially in Italy small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) often present a complexity comparable to that of bigger organizations: multiple production sites, international sales offices, customers and suppliers from all over the world, geographically dispersed supply chains, etc. In this environment ICT are a survival kit for SMEs which are playing in a global businesses where the competition of players from any size and any geography is growingly tough. However, both the ICT offer targeted to SMEs and the internal competences of these organizations are not equipped to face this complexity and to lever ICT to manage it, yet. This track solicits contributions with a purely theoretical or case-based background covering the link between complexity, small/medium organizations and ICT. Some possible issues to be discussed are:
-Theoretical frameworks about complexity, SMEs and ICT;
-ERPs and SMEs;
-Best Practices and ICTs in SMEs;
-Reviewing processes via ICTs in SMEs.
Back
Chairs:
- Paola Bielli, Università Bocconi
- Severino Meregalli, SDA Bocconi
Description:
In Italy and Europe small does not mean simple. In fact, especially in Italy small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) often present a complexity comparable to that of bigger organizations: multiple production sites, international sales offices, customers and suppliers from all over the world, geographically dispersed supply chains, etc. In this environment ICT are a survival kit for SMEs which are playing in a global businesses where the competition of players from any size and any geography is growingly tough. However, both the ICT offer targeted to SMEs and the internal competences of these organizations are not equipped to face this complexity and to lever ICT to manage it, yet. This track solicits contributions with a purely theoretical or case-based background covering the link between complexity, small/medium organizations and ICT. Some possible issues to be discussed are:
-Theoretical frameworks about complexity, SMEs and ICT;
-ERPs and SMEs;
-Best Practices and ICTs in SMEs;
-Reviewing processes via ICTs in SMEs.
TRACK 17. The performance of creative and authentic organizations
Chairs:
- Barbara Slavich, IESEG
- Anna Canato, IESEG
Description:
Performance may be perceived differently in different organizations, and monetary aspects may not always prevail. This is the case of those organizations where creativity is perceived as fundamental or the case of those organizations where a strong attachment to a given organizational culture makes monetary performance contingent to the respect of distinctive values and behaviours. In this track we welcome papers that investigate performance in contexts in which its definition, determinants, management and measurement are particularly critical and difficult. It is for example the case of organizations pertaining to the creative or high symbolic industries, where different tensions and trade-offs emerge and need to be managed (i.e. between creative freedom and financial constraints, new ideas generation and absence of rules). We invite papers that present similar cases and shed light on how organizations define, manage and measure performance and how they frame and respond to potential clash between performance metrics and organizational key aspects.
Keywords: Creativity, Organizational identity, Authenticity
Suggested areas:
Chairs:
- Barbara Slavich, IESEG
- Anna Canato, IESEG
Description:
Performance may be perceived differently in different organizations, and monetary aspects may not always prevail. This is the case of those organizations where creativity is perceived as fundamental or the case of those organizations where a strong attachment to a given organizational culture makes monetary performance contingent to the respect of distinctive values and behaviours. In this track we welcome papers that investigate performance in contexts in which its definition, determinants, management and measurement are particularly critical and difficult. It is for example the case of organizations pertaining to the creative or high symbolic industries, where different tensions and trade-offs emerge and need to be managed (i.e. between creative freedom and financial constraints, new ideas generation and absence of rules). We invite papers that present similar cases and shed light on how organizations define, manage and measure performance and how they frame and respond to potential clash between performance metrics and organizational key aspects.
Keywords: Creativity, Organizational identity, Authenticity
Suggested areas:
| • | Creative organizations |
| • | Organizational identity and identity threats |
| • | Authenticity in organization |
| • | Monetary vs non monetary performance |
| • | Organizational culture |
TRACK 18. Human Resource Management and Performance: a matter of people,
processes and strategy
Chairs:
- Bissola Rita, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart - Milano
- Gianecchini Martina, University of Padova
- Bondarouk Tanya, University of Twente
Description:
Significant research attention has been devoted over the past 20 years to understanding how HRM can facilitate the accomplishment of a firm’s strategic goals. Huselid’s (1995) study on the relationship between HR practices and corporate financial performance serves as the seminal work in this area. Numerous researches have built upon this foundation, obtaining consistent and promising, but also conflicting and weak results (Guest, 2011). Limitations of this domain also refer to theoretical base because of its reference uniquely to the Resource Based View perspective (Chadwick & Dabu, 2009). Based on doubtful interpretation of the empirical results, Guest (1997) , made a plea for more theory driven research. Later on, Wright and Boswell (2002) suggested a typology of four HRM research areas based on two dimensions: the level of analysis (individual/group or organizational, also named micro/macro) and the number of HR practices (single or multiple). The suggested four areas of research offer a multilevel and comprehensive framework of analysis for studying the “HRM - firm performance” link not only within each area, but also in the overlaps between the micro and macro domains (Paauwe, 2009). The integration of these two levels suggests designing a differentiated HR architecture within firms aligned with the strategic value of the jobs (Huselid and Becker, 2011). But empirical evidence on this theory still lack. However, it is yet unclear whether the emphasis on financial performance as an outcome variable in the “HRM - firm performance” studies is enough and sufficient to validate the contribution of HRM. Jenssen & Steyaert (2009) put it even stronger, suggesting that the emphasis on the financial performance is misleading, and as an alternative they propose adopting a stakeholders’ perspective on performance. In short, we depart from the idea that the current “HRM - firm performance” studies lack theoretical, methodological, and empirical rigor, and therefore, we call for new conceptualizations on this subject. In this track we address the issues related to the link between HRM and performance, both at different levels of analysis (individual, process, organization) and cross-levels , welcoming papers that enhance the dialogue into this relationship from a theoretical, empirical and/or methodological perspective. Especially we welcome papers open to multiple paradigms of the HRM research including what has been mainstream empirical work. However, the track emphasizes an agenda to challenge traditional thinking in the field of “HRM - firm performance” theories, and encourage contributions that develop new conceptual, methodological, and empirical approaches.Significant research attention has been devoted over the past 20 years to understanding how HRM can facilitate the accomplishment of a firm’s strategic goals. Huselid’s (1995) study on the relationship between HR practices and corporate financial performance serves as the seminal work in this area. Numerous researches have built upon this foundation, obtaining consistent and promising, but also conflicting and weak results (Guest, 2011). Limitations of this domain also refer to theoretical base because of its reference uniquely to the Resource Based View perspective (Chadwick & Dabu, 2009). Based on doubtful interpretation of the empirical results, Guest (1997) , made a plea for more theory driven research. Later on, Wright and Boswell (2002) suggested a typology of four HRM research areas based on two dimensions: the level of analysis (individual/group or organizational, also named micro/macro) and the number of HR practices (single or multiple). The suggested four areas of research offer a multilevel and comprehensive framework of analysis for studying the “HRM - firm performance” link not only within each area, but also in the overlaps between the micro and macro domains (Paauwe, 2009). The integration of these two levels suggests designing a differentiated HR architecture within firms aligned with the strategic value of the jobs (Huselid and Becker, 2011). But empirical evidence on this theory still lack. However, it is yet unclear whether the emphasis on financial performance as an outcome variable in the “HRM - firm performance” studies is enough and sufficient to validate the contribution of HRM. Jenssen & Steyaert (2009) put it even stronger, suggesting that the emphasis on the financial performance is misleading, and as an alternative they propose adopting a stakeholders’ perspective on performance. In short, we depart from the idea that the current “HRM - firm performance” studies lack theoretical, methodological, and empirical rigor, and therefore, we call for new conceptualizations on this subject. In this track we address the issues related to the link between HRM and performance, both at different levels of analysis (individual, process, organization) and cross-levels , welcoming papers that enhance the dialogue into this relationship from a theoretical, empirical and/or methodological perspective. Especially we welcome papers open to multiple paradigms of the HRM research including what has been mainstream empirical work. However, the track emphasizes an agenda to challenge traditional thinking in the field of “HRM - firm performance” theories, and encourage contributions that develop new conceptual, methodological, and empirical approaches.
Keywords: Strategic Human Resource Management, Performance, HR architectures
Suggested areas:
processes and strategy
Chairs:
- Bissola Rita, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart - Milano
- Gianecchini Martina, University of Padova
- Bondarouk Tanya, University of Twente
Description:
Significant research attention has been devoted over the past 20 years to understanding how HRM can facilitate the accomplishment of a firm’s strategic goals. Huselid’s (1995) study on the relationship between HR practices and corporate financial performance serves as the seminal work in this area. Numerous researches have built upon this foundation, obtaining consistent and promising, but also conflicting and weak results (Guest, 2011). Limitations of this domain also refer to theoretical base because of its reference uniquely to the Resource Based View perspective (Chadwick & Dabu, 2009). Based on doubtful interpretation of the empirical results, Guest (1997) , made a plea for more theory driven research. Later on, Wright and Boswell (2002) suggested a typology of four HRM research areas based on two dimensions: the level of analysis (individual/group or organizational, also named micro/macro) and the number of HR practices (single or multiple). The suggested four areas of research offer a multilevel and comprehensive framework of analysis for studying the “HRM - firm performance” link not only within each area, but also in the overlaps between the micro and macro domains (Paauwe, 2009). The integration of these two levels suggests designing a differentiated HR architecture within firms aligned with the strategic value of the jobs (Huselid and Becker, 2011). But empirical evidence on this theory still lack. However, it is yet unclear whether the emphasis on financial performance as an outcome variable in the “HRM - firm performance” studies is enough and sufficient to validate the contribution of HRM. Jenssen & Steyaert (2009) put it even stronger, suggesting that the emphasis on the financial performance is misleading, and as an alternative they propose adopting a stakeholders’ perspective on performance. In short, we depart from the idea that the current “HRM - firm performance” studies lack theoretical, methodological, and empirical rigor, and therefore, we call for new conceptualizations on this subject. In this track we address the issues related to the link between HRM and performance, both at different levels of analysis (individual, process, organization) and cross-levels , welcoming papers that enhance the dialogue into this relationship from a theoretical, empirical and/or methodological perspective. Especially we welcome papers open to multiple paradigms of the HRM research including what has been mainstream empirical work. However, the track emphasizes an agenda to challenge traditional thinking in the field of “HRM - firm performance” theories, and encourage contributions that develop new conceptual, methodological, and empirical approaches.Significant research attention has been devoted over the past 20 years to understanding how HRM can facilitate the accomplishment of a firm’s strategic goals. Huselid’s (1995) study on the relationship between HR practices and corporate financial performance serves as the seminal work in this area. Numerous researches have built upon this foundation, obtaining consistent and promising, but also conflicting and weak results (Guest, 2011). Limitations of this domain also refer to theoretical base because of its reference uniquely to the Resource Based View perspective (Chadwick & Dabu, 2009). Based on doubtful interpretation of the empirical results, Guest (1997) , made a plea for more theory driven research. Later on, Wright and Boswell (2002) suggested a typology of four HRM research areas based on two dimensions: the level of analysis (individual/group or organizational, also named micro/macro) and the number of HR practices (single or multiple). The suggested four areas of research offer a multilevel and comprehensive framework of analysis for studying the “HRM - firm performance” link not only within each area, but also in the overlaps between the micro and macro domains (Paauwe, 2009). The integration of these two levels suggests designing a differentiated HR architecture within firms aligned with the strategic value of the jobs (Huselid and Becker, 2011). But empirical evidence on this theory still lack. However, it is yet unclear whether the emphasis on financial performance as an outcome variable in the “HRM - firm performance” studies is enough and sufficient to validate the contribution of HRM. Jenssen & Steyaert (2009) put it even stronger, suggesting that the emphasis on the financial performance is misleading, and as an alternative they propose adopting a stakeholders’ perspective on performance. In short, we depart from the idea that the current “HRM - firm performance” studies lack theoretical, methodological, and empirical rigor, and therefore, we call for new conceptualizations on this subject. In this track we address the issues related to the link between HRM and performance, both at different levels of analysis (individual, process, organization) and cross-levels , welcoming papers that enhance the dialogue into this relationship from a theoretical, empirical and/or methodological perspective. Especially we welcome papers open to multiple paradigms of the HRM research including what has been mainstream empirical work. However, the track emphasizes an agenda to challenge traditional thinking in the field of “HRM - firm performance” theories, and encourage contributions that develop new conceptual, methodological, and empirical approaches.
Keywords: Strategic Human Resource Management, Performance, HR architectures
Suggested areas:
| • | HRM and performance at individual level of analysis: the impact of a single functional HR practice (for instance selection, training, recruitment, compensation, performance management) on employees’ performance, engagement and behaviours |
| • | HRM and performance at organizational level of analysis: defining the “bundles” of self-reinforcing practices which explain firm performance |
| • | Comparing contingency, configurational and universalistic approach in the explanation of HRM-performance relationship |
| • | Methodological issues (for instance reverse causality, longitudinal design) in studying the relationship between HRM and performance |
| • | Defining the “relevant performance” in the HRM-performance relationship: financial, organizational of HR-related outcomes? |
| • | Empirical evidence on differentiated HR architectures within firms |
| • | Beyond the RBV: debating on further theoretical foundations to analyse the HRM-performance relationship |
| • | From individual to organizational level and back: cross-levels research on the relationship between HR practices and firm performance |
TRACK 19. Corporate Social Responsibility, Organizational Change and Performance
Chairs:
- Michela Marchiori, Università Rome 3
- Valentina Albano, Università Luiss “Guido Carli”
- Francesco Barbini, Università di Bologna
Description:
What is the relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and corporate performance? This is not a new issue. In fact, there is a significant amount of research about the possible impacts of CSR actions on corporate performance. However, while a significant variety of theoretical approaches, methodologies and data sources have been used, results are still mixed. It can be argue that organizational scholars may provide an actual contribution to the debate. We need more detailed knowledge about how firms actually allocate resources to CSR initiatives, how organizational changes are related to CSR actions and which benefits CSR practices provide to their stakeholders. In other words, it may be that an organizational reasoning represents the crucial “missing link” between CSR-related strategies and its consequences on performance. It is possible, for example, that the influence of CSR investments on corporate performance vary depending on existing organizational characteristics of the company, both at the macro-level (organizational form and design, HR policies etc.) and at the micro-level (work organization arrangements, etc.). Also, it is possible that, in some circumstances, CSR investments trigger (or, are triggered by) organizational changes which, in turns, may have a significant influence on the overall performance of the firm. Moreover, there is a need of tools and methods supporting the evaluation of how consistent CSR practices are to companies’ social goals and values. Thus, this track invites organizational scholars to propose both theoretical and empirical research works that explore these intricate dynamics and contribute to the interdisciplinary debate about the CSR phenomenon.
Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility, Organizational Change, Performance
Suggested areas:
Chairs:
- Michela Marchiori, Università Rome 3
- Valentina Albano, Università Luiss “Guido Carli”
- Francesco Barbini, Università di Bologna
Description:
What is the relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and corporate performance? This is not a new issue. In fact, there is a significant amount of research about the possible impacts of CSR actions on corporate performance. However, while a significant variety of theoretical approaches, methodologies and data sources have been used, results are still mixed. It can be argue that organizational scholars may provide an actual contribution to the debate. We need more detailed knowledge about how firms actually allocate resources to CSR initiatives, how organizational changes are related to CSR actions and which benefits CSR practices provide to their stakeholders. In other words, it may be that an organizational reasoning represents the crucial “missing link” between CSR-related strategies and its consequences on performance. It is possible, for example, that the influence of CSR investments on corporate performance vary depending on existing organizational characteristics of the company, both at the macro-level (organizational form and design, HR policies etc.) and at the micro-level (work organization arrangements, etc.). Also, it is possible that, in some circumstances, CSR investments trigger (or, are triggered by) organizational changes which, in turns, may have a significant influence on the overall performance of the firm. Moreover, there is a need of tools and methods supporting the evaluation of how consistent CSR practices are to companies’ social goals and values. Thus, this track invites organizational scholars to propose both theoretical and empirical research works that explore these intricate dynamics and contribute to the interdisciplinary debate about the CSR phenomenon.
Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility, Organizational Change, Performance
Suggested areas:
| • | CSR and organizational design |
| • | CSR and changes in work organization |
| • | CSR and changes in human resource management |
| • | CSR and performance |
| • | Social impact assessment of CSR practices |
