Search

In this study, we widen the understanding of how the dialectics of distributed leadership develop as part of discursive interactions in an interorganizational setting directed at renewal. Using a dialectical perspective, we analyzed developmental meetings of an entrepreneurship hub and identified three dialectics, namely disagreement versus encouragement, organizational dependency versus interorganizational engagement and status quo versus transformation, by which the discussion reached the resolution. Our study widens the current understanding of distributed leadership and offers a nuanced account of how dissent and consent act as equally important forces for the development of the distributed leadership practice, as well as for reaching the collective resolution directed at organizational renewal. Our study also highlights the significance of co-created visual representations for converting complex discursive dialectics into a more tangible form. More generally, our study opens an approach in leadership to study tension-laden organizational dynamics in discursive and processual terms, especially in complex interorganizational contexts.

This study is an investigation of the bright and dark sides of entrepreneurship, with a focus on well-being experienced by entrepreneurs operating in work communities of various sizes. The results show that a central element in the well-being experiences of all entrepreneur groups was autonomy. In addition, the solo entrepreneurs derived a positive experience from their professional capabilities, while micro and small business entrepreneurs emphasized business success. Significant differences in well-being experiences were linked to the entrepreneurs’ social support networks and their capacities for health management. Of the entrepreneur groups, the micro business entrepreneurs were most stressed, while the small business entrepreneurs were the only group capable of taking care of both the firm’s business planning and their personal well-being. This paper complements the existing literature by examining the benefits of entrepreneurship, but it also covers the negative aspects of it, thereby enriching the existing theoretical understanding of entrepreneurial well-being.

Aligning itself with the interactive perspectives in research on science’s social impact, this article combines the concept of productive interactions with the method of framing. We argue that this provides a more nuanced picture of the productive interactions between researchers and stakeholders in the social sciences. This approach offers a way to address changes in human valuation and meaning-making in politically controversial issues where social impact is acquired through complicated processes of public press discussion over long periods of time. The social impact of research is demonstrated with reference to the debate between researchers and societal stakeholders about urban segregation in Helsinki, Finland. The case shows how researchers challenged the established housing policy and opened room for alteration of the public understanding of urban development and segregation. The article illustrates how productive interactions, strengthened with the notion of framing, support the achievement of the social impact of science.

Close interaction between universities, industries and governments has given rise to hybrid organizations incorporating economic development alongside scientific research and higher education. We will approach this phenomenon and the related organization-theoretical problems by looking at two cases of discipline making to discuss the potential of the concept of organizational field introduced by the neoinstitutionalist school of organization theory. As this concept presumes the Bourdieusian theory of social fields, we will consider possibilities of reflective contesting of the states of doxain discipline making in regard to organizational aspects of disciplinary boundaries in the university-centered system of higher education, its demarcation to business and schooling, as well as to the related ideology of professionalism and science policy. We will also comment on the Bourdieusian conceptuality inscribed in the neoinstitutionalist metaphor of organizational field from the perspective of systems theory inspired by Luhmann. This is because we believe that further development of the semantic focus in the problem of disciplinary boundaries would benefit from Luhmannian tools designed to grasp organizations as social systems that facilitate interrelations of differentiated function systems relevant for discipline making in current technoscience.

The proliferation of network research has confused the meaning of the concept of network. To enhance conceptual clarity, this paper distinguishes between four concepts of network: economic, social, socio-economic, and objectual. Each of these has a different understanding of the fundamental character of networks. They also differ in relation to methodological choices, understanding of the historicity of networks as well as trust and sociality within networks. Each of the concepts also regards different things as essential: in the economic concept, this is oscillation between market and hierarchy; in social, embeddedness of economic activity in non-economic sociality; in socio-economic, sociality and trust within economic activity; and in objectual, joint creation of use values by network partners. The article argues that the objectual concept of network is stronger than the others to make sense of the contents of network exchange, motives of the participants and foundations of trust in network collaboration.

Research on organizational humanness has emphasized individual characteristics and structural forces. An acontextual focus on humanness has manifested in conflicting and sometimes even contradictory situations where work can simultaneously be a chore, a source of meaning, a place of maltreatment, or an opportunity for self-actualization. This research aims to explore humanness in organizations and, by doing so, to create a situational and contextual understanding of how humanness manifests in organizations. The dissertation draws from the discussions of dignity, dehumanization, and practice theories to conceptualize organizational humanness. The study findings locate organizational humanness in the practices. Humanness is not characteristic of an individual but something employees enact through everyday activities. As employees enact practices in different contexts and situations, organizational humanness is not a stable entity but always in the making through the reconciliation of changing perspectives on humanness. Different perceptions of humanness embedded in practices have an impact on organizational outcomes. This study links the dehumanized perception of employees with the deterioration of ethical climate and trust. Meanwhile, the recognition of human dignity, dignity as merit, and dignity as an identity play an important role in helping employees experience their work as meaningful. This research contributes to humanistic management and business ethics by providing a fresh perspective on humanness in organizations. The results highlight the unintentionality, contextuality, and situationality of humanness. As part of the practices, humanness is deeply embedded in the organization’s everyday activities and is thus the responsibility of everyone, not just managers. Tiivistelmä Ihmisyyden tutkimus organisaatioissa on toistaiseksi painottanut yksilön ominaisuuksia ja sosiaalisia rakenteita. Nämä asiayhteydestä irrallaan olevat lähestymistavat ovat tuottaneet ristiriitaisia ja jopa paradoksaalisia havaintoja, joiden mukaan työ voi samanaikaisesti olla puurtamista, merkityksellisyyden lähde, paikka kaltoinkohtelulle ja mahdollisuus itsensä toteuttamiseen. Tämä tutkimus pyrkii ymmärtämään ihmisyyttä organisaatiossa ja siten luomaan asiayhteyteen sidottua ymmärrystä siitä, miten ihmisyys organisaatioissa ilmenee. Tutkimuksen löydökset kytkevät ihmisyyden organisaatioissa organisaation käytäntöihin. Ihmisyys ei ole yksilön ominaisuus, vaan jotain, mitä ihmiset tuottavat jokapäiväisellä toiminnallaan. Koska työntekijät soveltavat käytäntöjä erilaisissa asiayhteyksissä ja tilanteissa, ihmisyys organisaatioissa ei ole pysyvä olotila, vaan jatkuvasti muutoksessa, kun työntekijät sovittelevat yhteen ristiriitaisia käsityksiä ihmisyydestä. Tutkimus yhdistää epäinhimillistävän näkemyksen työntekijöistä eettisen ilmaston ja luottamuksen rapautumiseen. Samalla arvostus työntekijää kohtaan ihmisenä, ammattilaisena ja yksilönä on tärkeässä roolissa työn merkityksellisyyden kokemisessa. Tutkimus edistää keskustelua humanistisesta johtamisesta ja liiketoiminnan etiikasta tarjoamalla uudenlaisen tavan lähestyä ihmisyyttä organisaatiossa. Lopputulokset korostavat ihmisyyden tahattomuutta, asiayhteyttä ja tilannesidonnaisuutta. Osana käytäntöjä ihmisyys on sulautuneena organisaation toimintamalleihin ja näin myös jokaisen vastuulla — ei pelkästään esimiesten.