Search

Measuring organisational culture is important for detecting the values and practices that increase organisational risk (e.g., unethical conduct). Self-report methods (e.g., surveys) are mostly used to study culture: however, due to reporting biases and sampling limitations, and the rapid advance of digital data, researchers have proposed unobtrusive indicators of culture (UICs; e.g., drawn from social media, company reports, executive data) as a supplementary methodology for identifying organisations at risk of failure. A UIC is a single measure of organisational culture drawn from data collected without engaging employees, and research using UICs is in its nascent stage. Although various data sources have been established for studying culture unobtrusively, researchers have yet to explore the application of multiple UICs drawn from different data sources. To investigate this, we developed an experimental battery of 83 UICs drawn from seven data sources (e.g., company earnings calls, employee online reviews, executive data), applying diverse analyses (e.g., natural language processing, quantitative analysis of behavioural data) to measure eight dimensions of culture (e.g., governance, integrity). We then applied the battery to assess 312 large European companies. We found that the UICs could distinguish between companies and different industries, and one dimension (customer focus) was associated with an outcome variable commonly used in culture research (Return on Capital Employed). However, we were not able to establish a coherent set of statistically reliable dimensions due to the clustering of UICs by data source. This clustering likely occurred because data sources reflected the values and practices of different stakeholders (e.g., employees, managers), which underscores a conceptualisation of culture that is focused less on shared values across an institution, and more on the values, priorities, and practices experienced by different sub-groups. Future research could structure UICs according to data sources and apply UICs to examine the causes of organisational failure.

Prey seldom rely on a single type of antipredator defence, often using multiple defences to avoid predation. In many cases, selection in different contexts may favour the evolution of multiple defences in a prey. However, a prey may use multiple defences to protect itself during a single predator encounter. Such “defence portfolios” that defend prey against a single instance of predation are distributed across and within successive stages of the predation sequence (encounter, detection, identification, approach (attack), subjugation and consumption). We contend that at present, our understanding of defence portfolio evolution is incomplete, and seen from the fragmentary perspective of specific sensory systems (e.g., visual) or specific types of defences (especially aposematism). In this review, we aim to build a comprehensive framework for conceptualizing the evolution of multiple prey defences, beginning with hypotheses for the evolution of multiple defences in general, and defence portfolios in particular. We then examine idealized models of resource trade-offs and functional interactions between traits, along with evidence supporting them. We find that defence portfolios are constrained by resource allocation to other aspects of life history, as well as functional incompatibilities between different defences. We also find that selection is likely to favour combinations of defences that have synergistic effects on predator behaviour and prey survival. Next, we examine specific aspects of prey ecology, genetics and development, and predator cognition that modify the predictions of current hypotheses or introduce competing hypotheses. We outline schema for gathering data on the distribution of prey defences across species and geography, determining how multiple defences are produced, and testing the proximate mechanisms by which multiple prey defences impact predator behaviour. Adopting these approaches will strengthen our understanding of multiple defensive strategies. peerReviewed

Investigations of institutional failure in healthcare typically use staff narratives to identify the cultural factors contributing to the incident. But, to what extent can staff, who are embedded in the culture and who were part of the failing, reflect on and report on the culture? We investigate this by comparing 40 witness statements from staff and 53 witness statements from patients and relatives collected by a public inquiry into a major UK healthcare failure (Clostridium difficile outbreak).Through quantitative text analysis, we found that, while staff and external stakeholders both recognised problems in care, they diverged on the factors considered paramount. Staff emphasised underlying factors such as under‐resourcing and training (causal culture), while patients and relatives emphasised corrective behaviours such as communication for identifying and taking precautions against the spread of C. difficile (corrective culture). The results indicate that patients and relatives may be able to report on cultural factors that staff do not report or are unaware of, thus allowing a more complete analysis. Even in light of an institutional failure, staff may have incomplete accounts of the contributing cultural factors, with implications for learning and post incident improvement.

As with other species linked to agricultural environments, many bumblebee species are exhibiting significant population declines. This study assesses the success of colonies of Bombus terrestris audax on farms differing in conservation inputs via agri-environment schemes (AES). B. terrestris audax colonies were placed on farms of three treatments: Conventionally managed, AES Entry-Level Stewardship (ELS), or AES Higher-Level Stewardship. Colonies on AES-compliant farms gained significantly more mass than those on conventional farms, which decreased in mass. Nests on conventional farms were also more likely to become infested by the wax moth Aphomia sociella, followed by ELS-compliant farms. The results suggest that adopting an AES can increase bumblebee colony success through the production of larger colonies and with greater ability to combat parasite infestations.