Relationships and transactions are the next important aspect of network analysis. This approach is commonly call cybernetic, after the science of control and communication in animals and machines.®® Interdependence among participating units leads to the establishment of networks. As Sharkansky notes,®^ hierarchical authority relationships, decision making by command and fixed accountability are inimical to an interdependent relationship, since interdependence relies on bargaining, negotiation and compromise. Transnational networks should ideally be characterised by formally autonomous authority relations, diffuse accountability, and decision making by negotiation. Decision making typically requires the participation and coordination of several organisations at both the international and national level®*. Thus both organisationtheory and international organisation have strong inputs in the analysis of the relationships between these two levels. Certain developments in international relations literature demonstrate a greater concern with a structural approach as opposed to the previous concern with leadership based studies.®^ In order to cope with what threatens to become an overwhelmingly complex environment externally, decision makers are forced to adapt problem solving devices.^® Haas’ concept of fragmented issue linkage^* posits an essential interconnectedness of the decision making process, as opposed to previously conceived disconnected ad hoc decisions. As a response to growing interdependence and complexity in modem politics, Gordenker and Saunders believe that international organisations would respond by
The labels used to define this field in the UK have changed from ‘educational administration’ to ‘educational management’ and, more recently, to ‘educational leadership’ (Gunter 2004). These changes were reflected in the title of the UK’s professional association, now called the British Educational Leadership, Management and Administration Society (BELMAS), and the Society’s international journal, Educational Management, Administration and Leadership (EMAL). In England, this shift is also exemplified by the opening of the National College for School Leadership in 2000, described as a paradigm shift by Bolam (2004). Bush (2008: 276) asks whether these are just semantic shifts or whether they represent a more fundamental change in the conceptualization of principalship? This leads to questions about the components of organisationtheory and how they link to administration, management and leadership in education.
Notes on a General Theory of Administration by Edward H. Litchfield (1956) exemplifies this well. Litchfield suggests that: “the years since World War II have seen an unprecedented increase in our knowledge of selected aspects of administration” (3). And while Litchfield goes on enumerating the already long list of fields and disciplines that have contributed to knowledge about organisations, he underlines two problems: “First, it will be noted that most of the new thought has come from the fields of mathematics, engineering, anthropology, sociology, or one of the emerging behavioural sciences. Relatively little has been contributed by academic students of administration per se…” (4). The author goes on: “Second, it is equally apparent that these additions to our knowledge have been concerned with selected parts of administration and not with the whole. Indeed, for the most part, their contribution to administration was incidental to another purpose” (4). Litchfield believes the field is at a “critical juncture”, and finds solace in the thought that, “Talcott Parsons and others [are] elaborating at least the beginning of a comprehensive theory of social action which might provide an over-all framework within which to develop a more specific theory of administration” (5).
For the theoretical reasons set out in Chapter 2, this study expresses discomfort with the Tuckman and Chang (1991) revenue concentration metric (CONC in Table 4.9 above). Therefore, two alternative indicators, based on Wicker et al. (2015), are used to examine evidence for the revenue diversity hypothesis of this thesis. Total revenue variance (equivalently, volatility) is partitioned into systematic (SVAR) and unsystematic (UVAR) components (Table 4.20 below). SVAR is formulated as a proxy for the risk of the university's revenue stream that cannot be diversified away—no matter how many additional revenue sources are added—because the university is unavoidably exposed to changes in broad economic conditions. There is no expectation of an association between SVAR and financial condition, because high systematic variance (in terms of this theory's high risk–high return interpretation) is appropriately rewarded by higher revenues. UVAR represents the university-specific revenue stream risk. Implicit within the construct of UVAR is the proposition that the institution has taken on a risk component that could have been mitigated through better revenue mix decisions. Therefore, theory indicates that UVAR has an inverse association with financial condition.
The question concerning co-operation between the local political level ( ) and schools seems to involve some problems about the di ﬀ e- rent roles. When school leaders turn out to be in this ‘field of force’, it seems unavoidable that they should have some knowledge of these roles. School leaders also have to handle stakeholders ( ) of di ﬀ erent kinds. The main groups of interest must however, be seen to be pupils. This makes pedagogy a central area of knowledge for school leaders. We must also see schools in a context, both in a local society ( ) and in a related context, sometimes called the global society ( ) (see for example Bauman ; Beck ; Giddens ). The relation be- tween the actors ( + ) and the surroundings ( + + ) has been the subject of above all of theories on new-institutionalism (March & Ol- sen ; ; Powell & DiMaggio ; Etzioni ; Selznick ) and for system theory-oriented researchers (Senge ).
A Joint Stock Company form of business organisation is a voluntary association of persons to carry on business. Normally, it is given a legal status and is subject to certain legal regulations. It is an association of persons who generally con- tribute money for some common purpose. The money so contributed is the capital of the company. The persons who contribute capital are its members. The proportion of capital to which each member is entitled is called his share, therefore members of a joint stock company are known as shareholders and the capital of the company is known as share capital. The total share capital is divided into a number of units known as ‘shares’. You may have heard of the names of joint stock companies like Tata Iron & Steel Co. Limited, Hindustan Lever Limited, Reliance Industries Limited, Steel Authority of India Limited, Ponds India Limited etc.
What this debate by the participants in and around the staging of the WSF highlights is the naïveté, perhaps somewhat insidious, of presuming that the open space is a space without struggle, devoid of politics and power (also see De Angelis, Dowling and L. Sullivan, this issue). In fact, it is a space, or rather an openness, which must be struggled for. The continual and repetitive desire for fixity amid the motion of politics, of people, of discourse and the world means that one cannot define the boundaries of a space (itself a function of power), declare it open and expect it to remain so. The open space is not a space without movement, it is a space within and amid movement, never static but part of the perpetual motion of social life. The WSF, as its critics and counter-spaces reveal, is part of the struggle to define exactly what the struggle is. Is it a struggle against corporate-led globalisation, all forms of globalisation, capitalism, the domination of one state by another or the entire imperialist system of states? Is it a struggle for the reform, overthrow or transformation of existing institutions and organisation and according to whose interests? These are precisely the questions which are up for grabs and why the WSF must be situated as endemic to the crisis in signification: not outside of it, or occurring as its redress. The alternatives offered depend entirely on how one is framing the question and what is being struggled for is what is at stake in the WSF. It is a difference in emphasis between postmodernism, that emphasizes plurality without foregrounding structural inequality, and a post-structuralist perspective which brings the question of foundations to the centre of its inquiry (Young, 1990). This means that what becomes important, and what we have to be vigilantly mindful of, is not simply that the space exists, but how and to what ends the space for mobilisation and resistance is used. This is a question I feel we should ask tirelessly of ourselves and others: it bears both the mark of politics, i.e. as the struggle for meaning and power, and the mark of personal responsibility. How are we, each of us going to engage, how we are obliged to engage, or where exactly is the space for our engagement? These questions do not end with the closure of the Forum, but carry over into all the networks and political activity engendered and participating ‘there’, and this is especially so given the diversity of positions and movements involved.
Since Morgan’s early work on metaphors a small number of researchers have explored organisations metaphorically for example, Bolman and Deal (1997) and Palmer and Dunford (1996). Surprisingly, this theoretical development has not extended to the perspective that it is because we employ narratives to portray the world that we use metaphors (even though these may are only partial) to assist in our account and interpretations of organisations. Organisations are described and redescribed through the continually changing narratives members inherit, produce and reauthor. By accepting the view that narratives are central to all human endeavours, we open our eyes to a deeper understanding of most aspects of organisational life, from leadership to conflict, and from learning to change. These are all anchored in rich narratives. In this paper, the LO is reconceptualised holistically using narrative theory with significant input from the French philosopher, Paul Ricoeur. Furthermore, what seems to have been left unattended in the consideration of the LO is the issue of power in determining what learning takes place in organisations. The insights of the French sociologist and anthropologist Pierre Bourdieu contribute to our understanding about the operation of power in organisations generally and the LO specifically. No only will the use of metaphor, narrative and social theory enhance our thinking about the LO conceptually, but it will open up practical possibilities for practitioners and consultants alike.
Reporting of maintenance conditions MOE Part 2.15 & 2.18 Maintenance procedures and quality system MOE Part 2 & Part 3 Maintenance organisation exposition MOE Current Issue Privileges of the approved maintenance organisation MOE Part 1.9 & 1.11 Limitations on the approved maintenance
In Chapter , I spent some time showing how the maintenance mechanisms for within-lineage and cross-lineage cases were very similar. Essentially, what was required was a correlation of cooperators, whether this cooperation be due to direct or indirect bene t. I subsumed both of these factors under the concept of interac- tions that increased the similarity, S, of individuals with some future generation. If we are interested in explaining cooperation then, we might consider the similarities between the enabling conditions for both cross-lineage and within-lineage transi- tions. But when we consider the proximate mechanisms that enable higher levels of organisation, the situation looks diﬀerent. Diversity is important for generating bene t, and producing diversity when all individuals are from the same lineage de- pends on plasticity. Plasticity enables individuals that have the same evolutionary interests (by being similar) to act diﬀerently. It also enables, along with some in- ternal regulation, a robust allocation of tasks under perturbation. Neither of these issues is as pressing in a cross-lineage case. For cross-lineage cases require direct bene ts (individuals are not similar), and the tasks in a cross-lineage mutualism will be well-de ned – one lineage does only one task. Switching explanatory patterns can emphasise very diﬀerent aspects of transitions in organisation.
Division of Labour: Organisation consists of many sub-systems popularly known as “division of labour”. Division of labour implies dividing work into narrow parts to perform the work efficiently. In a way, the idea of division of labour is closely linked to the idea of differentiation of operation or function. Every function is assigned to the employee who most competent to perform the particular function. Human traits like skill, competency, knowledge, experience etc. change from person to person. This differentiation of human traits possessed by organizational members leads to consideration of forming an organization to have people with different skills and knowledge to perform various types of functions to be performed to achieve the common goals, whatsoever it may be.
respective sectors 5 . Their practices are presented, compared with one another, and then reflected against a theory of society of intangible needs proposed by Pentti Malaska . Our primary case is a Finnish IT-consultancy organisation Reaktor, where our data consists of three months of non- participatory ethnographic research from March 2015 to June 2015, supported by six thematic interviews with mem- bers of the organisation made during the same timeframe. The secondary data comes from Buurtzorg, a Dutch home care organisation, where eight employees and founders were interviewed in either individual or pairwise thematic inter- views during one week in May 2016. The Buurtzorg data is complemented by an exhaustive literature review of extant research on the organisation [28, 37]. We use the two case set-up to compare potential similarities across different fields, but also to offer examples of alternative practices within a general human-centric framework. While the novel forms of organising have gained foothold especially in IT, in literature cases of self-managed organisations have been described in over 20 different fields of business , ranging from schools to industrial engineering, and energy systems operators. In the writing of our case descriptions, our aim has thus been to draw attention to the generalizable features, that serve as illustra- tions of how the key functions in organisations: planning, organising, leading and controlling  can be arranged with- out resorting to hierarchical practices.
Spiral dynamics presents a framework for the dynamic forces of work on people. Understanding the deeper structure and motives of people can be significant when managing diversity and complexity (Beck, 2014). When setting goals for an organisation, individual needs of the employees and professionals and a fast changing environment need to be taken into account. These aspects have an influence on leadership (Cacioppe, 2004). Leadership focuses on the mission and goals of the organisation and has an effect on personal development (Keijser, 2009). The theory of Management Drives states that people have thinking patterns en standard habits in their daily life. These thinking patterns result from drivers of people (Drives, 2014). Colours are used in the theory of Management Drives. Each colour represents a motive. In this way new insight can be given. The motives can give an indication on how teams will function in an organisation (Drives, 2014).
MDBC was founded in 1996 and reached 200+ members in 2010. MDBC is categorised as a private bilateral trade or- ganisation and is different from embassies in several ways (explained in the Appendix). As such, cf. (Clark, 2002), MDBC is a non-profit organisation where members are engaged in common business persuit. In the case of MDBC there are annual fees but no initiation fees. All applicatans with a clear link to Malaysia and The Netherlands are ac- cepted to become members. “The Malaysian Dutch Business Council (MDBC) helps to forge and foster business ties between Malaysia and The Netherlands. The broader aim of the Council is to further facilitate investment by Dutch and Malaysian companies in each other's countries and to increase trade opportunities.” (MDBC, Business Directory, 2010- 2011, p. 6). MDBC is a non-commercial private (i.e. non-governmental) bilateral trade organisation. The Board of Directors is the highest power within the organisation but is mostly active on strategic issues. The day to day opera- tions are managed by Mr. M. Winter, and executed by 3 employees and 2 or 3 interns. The organisation currently consists of a little over 200 members.