Search

The research literature on university-private partnerships shows that these partnerships can contribute significantly to the building of a knowledge-based economy. At the heart of this contribution is the practice of knowledge transfer. Through the analytical lens of social capital theory, this paper reports on a systematic review of 23 studies, from 2000 to 2021, on partnerships between universities and private sector organisations. The findings reveal inconsistencies in knowledge transfer, especially from the perspective of the cognitive frame of this theory. Based on these findings, a more rigorous theoretical framework is proposed for the enhancement of knowledge transfer in such partnerships, as moderated by the intermediary factor, and future research directions are suggested.

Paradoxical inertia is an organization condition that has received far less attention than organizational change. We investigate, ethnographically, an Australian Intellectual Property service firm, whose Board members proved to be unable to respond strategically to a rapidly changing environment that threatened their organization's survival. In the face of discontinuous change, this failure to address the management of paradoxes threatening embedded routines reinforced a paralysing inertia. Extant research has emphasized how managers handle paradox; we discuss how they fail to do so. The inertia is derived from the finessing of tensions as non-issues. Constituted as non-issues there were non-decisions about these tensions that maintained internal stability and harmony; they did so, however, in world of change increasingly disrespectful of internal concerns for ongoing professional stability and harmony. The inability to become collectively and critically aware of the specific forms of inertia undermined recursive learning and thus the transformation of the sensemaking practices of the Board. MAD statement Paradox theory invites managers to approach the complexities of the world with an integrate both-and type of approach. In this perspective, paradox may offer new solutions to problems by recentering attention from dualistic frames to sophisticated dualities. This reasoning sounds appealing but dualities may be difficult to manage and to sustain. Not much is known yet about the obstacles to a paradoxical mindset. In this article we explore how paradoxical leadership may be easier said than done and highlight reasons, including inertia, that may impede managers from making paradoxes salient and therefore manageable. This helps explain the hardship of paradox management in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines how professionals employed in professional organizations make sense of the disruption of their work. Based on a qualitative study of an Australian intellectual property (IP) law firm, we shed light on the ways in which the discursive practices of professionals may undermine change in professional organizations. We identify three defensive strategies of IP professionals (denial, regression, and projection) resulting from the inability to resolve conflicts between market-based pressures and their entrenched understandings of professional work. In doing so, we show how professionals can become 'stuck' in defensive responses that may further marginalize the role of professional organizations in society. These findings call into question overly deterministic, radical accounts of organizational change that do not take into account the contextual embeddedness of professional organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This paper aims to explore the relationship between the concept of the learning organization and that of the co-creation of value. Design/methodology/approach: The paper is conceptual in nature and draws on data from a case study of a small highly innovative Australian company. Findings: The authors show that, from a value co-creation perspective, the learning organization can be viewed as an open, collaborative, social/economic actor engaged in social/economic activities with other interdependent actors (organizations or stakeholders) in a network or ecosystem of actors to serve its mission/purpose and the well-being of the ecosystem. Research limitations/implications: As a conceptual paper, the authors rely primarily on previous research as the basis for the argument. The implications of the findings are that, as value co-creation practices are founded upon the generation and leveraging of specific intangible capital resources, more research located in alternative research paradigms is required. Practical implications: There are important implications for organizational leadership in that the practices that underpin value co-creation require the leadership to be able to work constructively with multiple forms of systemic and agentic power. Social implications: In increasingly turbulent and hyper-competitive global operational contexts, sustainable value creation is becoming recognized as a collective achievement within a broad eco-system of collaborators. This has implications for the relational capabilities of all collaborators. Originality/value: The authors introduce a new perspective on the role of power management in the facilitation of the co-creation of value. Arguing that value creation is becoming recognized as a "collective achievement", they focus on the collaborative practices that enable such an achievement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]