You are looking at 1 - 10 of 30 items

  • Author or Editor: Stewart Clegg x
Clear All Modify Search
You do not have access to this content

Jennifer Adelstein and Stewart Clegg

When Peter Drucker (1969, p. 349) identified knowledge as the central component of an innovative economy and society, in many ways he was echoing his fellow Austrian Joseph Schumpeter (1942) in recognizing the power of innovation. It took another 30 years or so for knowledge to be catapulted into a titular role in management. In large part, it was the failure of another project that prepared the path for Knowledge Management (KM). The failed path was Business Process Re-engineering (BPR), and its rethinking of old Tayloristic models unwittingly drove out much tacit knowledge that organizations did not know they had until they lost it. It was in the wake of the widespread failure of BPR projects that concerns with Knowledge with a capital K emerged as mainstream management fare.

You do not have access to this content

Daphne Freeder, Shankar Sankaran and Stewart Clegg

Derived chiefly from a personal interview, this chapter describes the career journey of Dr Sean Sweeney, engineer and expert in construction. His chosen project was the seven-year $300 million development of the Museum of New Zealand. The Museum was conceived as an exemplar of New Zealand’s independent nationhood. It was innovative on several fronts, including its status as the first significant building in New Zealand to be constructed as base-isolated, to withstand earthquakes. This project had a considerable influence on Sweeney's broader philosophical approach to project execution and delivery. Coming from a strong Roman Catholic background, the values espoused by Buddhism also guide Sweeney’s thoughtful approach to the leadership of projects. Sweeney views megaprojects as tests of a project leader’s character. His leadership focus is on fashioning fulfilling and healthy work environs vibrant with creative disagreements and pressures. Despite initial scepticism, the project was ultimately deemed innovative and successful.

You do not have access to this content

Daphne Freeder, Shankar Sankaran and Stewart Clegg

Examined here are the perspectives of the project sponsor and project manager concerning the first phase of a major toll road built to traverse the inner and western suburbs of Sydney, Australia constructed through a public-private partnership; together with the personality, parental influences and experiences that shaped how these two individuals approached their vocations. Both men share a non-conformist style in their work practices that differed from the prevailing norms in their respective job environments. Fiscally and in terms of its completion date, the M4 motorway project was dubbed a success. Project debt was settled nine months prior to the project handover in 2009 (TfNSW 2011; Campbell, 2016). The accomplishments of the project in the social context of impacts on local communities and travel costs were potentially less affirmative. Also explored is Campbell’s advocacy for engineers’ stories to be heard through their association and more generally in the public sphere.

You do not have access to this content

Anjana Anandakumar, Tyrone S. Pitsis and Stewart R. Clegg

You do not have access to this content

Miguel Pina E Cunha, Stewart Clegg and Arménio Rego

You do not have access to this content

Miguel Pina e Cunha, Arménio Rego, Stewart Clegg, Pedro Neves and Pedro Oliveira

You do not have access to this content

Luca Giustiniano, Stewart R. Clegg, Miguel P.e. Cunha and Arménio Rego

With organizational environments becoming more unstable, uncertain and equivocal, the concept of resilience has become increasingly significant for management studies. Resilience connotes organizational, team and individual capacities to absorb external shocks and to learn from them, while simultaneously preparing for and responding to external jolts. This book pinpoints the essential aspects of managerial and organizational resilience and offers insights that stimulate critical thinking. As the concept of resilience is essentially made up of contrasting forces, the volume presents some innovative synthetic interpretation that allows a deeper comprehension of the phenomenon and provides managers and policy-makers with a solid basis for taking their decisions. 
This content is available to you

Luca Giustiniano, Stewart R. Clegg, Miguel P.e. Cunha and Arménio Rego

Organizational contexts are becoming growingly unstable and equivocal, increasingly as likely to host unforeseen and adverse events as to promote those that are uplifting. When crises and tragedies occur to individuals, teams, organizations or communities the responses are frequently framed in terms of ‘resilience’. What, exactly, resilience denotes is less clear. Resilience has become part of contemporary managerial jargon and, as such, it is often misinterpreted or misused. Resilience connotes capacities to absorb external shocks and to learn from them, while simultaneously preparing for and responding to external jolts, whether as organizations, teams or individuals. The book explores and illuminates contradictions related to resilience, rather than refuting them. In articulating organizational resilience, rather than merely reporting what the extant literature has already produced, this book proposes two innovative perspectives: namely, a multi-level diffusion model, and a dialectical interpretation of resilience.

You do not have access to this content

Luca Giustiniano, Stewart R. Clegg, Miguel P.e. Cunha and Arménio Rego

Organizational survival is constantly under potential challenge from risks past and present. To survive and prosper, organizations must transform stressors, jolts and shocks into new and resilient solutions. Extant studies are generally characterized by a high level of specialization, in terms of level of analysis (for example, individuals versus organization), the partiality of perspective (for example, strategic resilience versus disaster recovery), the nature of resilience itself (for example, as a form of reaction versus proaction) or the outcomes it generates (for example, adaptation versus learning). This chapter introduces an integrative framework based on the distinction between adaptive and reactive resilience. The focus is on the identification of resilience as a process – rather than a personal trait (resiliency), or a static property – referring to the achievement and maintenance of ‘positive adaptation’. ‘Learning to learn’, plays a central role in overcoming barriers against doing new things and embracing experimentation out of the comfort zone.