Social and psychological product value perceptions

The distributed value is perceived by the customer as the difference between the total value and the total cost of the product (good, service, idea, information, experience), also corresponding to the perceived value of use of the product, which includes experiences, sensations and mental states. Note that the total cost to the customer comprises all types of costs, financial (price, ability to pay, opportunity cost) and non-financial costs (physical, psychological and social aspects related to the use of the product, such as accessibility, embarrassment, usability, etc.), in which he expects to incur to evaluate, obtain and use the product.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Financing Social Entrepreneurship Franchising Approach

Social organizations mainly cope with social problems that the markets and the states have trouble or even fail to solve and, therefore, social entrepreneurs have been emerging in different locations throughout the world (OECD, 2010). Instead of being driven by financial returns, social organizations are focused on creating social and/or cultural values and they are not moved by its appropriation (European Commission, 2013). Regardless of its non-profitable nature, a social enterprise needs to be financially sustainable, if it is to reach its social goals. However, it is well acknowledged that social organizations struggle to be financially independent through income generation (Zafareiropoulou & Koufopoulos, 2012). As an example, in a recent survey performed to NGO’s operating in Portugal (Project Entrance, 2018), social entrepreneurs have identified financing, as among the most critical problems they have to face. Therefore, social entrepreneurs must look for ingenious ways to solve their financial constraints. In this framework, social franchising has emerged as a strategy to overcome this problem. Moreover, franchising has also been adopted by non-profit organizations as a strategy for growth (Meuter, 2008). The alliance in a network of small social organizations allows them to gather the advantages of big organizations namely in terms of access to capital sources and rapid growth (Zafareiropoulou and Koufopoulos, 2012). However, in spite of the apparent auspicious solution it presents to social entrepreneurship, the franchising arrangements have been showing high failure rates in the social sector (Meuter, 2008).info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Happiness, Value, and Organizational Toughness: Three Concepts in Search of a Theory

Happiness—life satisfaction, subjective well-being, or welfare—is generally considered the ultimate goal of life. Research shows that happiness correlates positively with various resources, desirable characteristics, and favorable life circumstances. Happiness can influence productivity, emotions, health, self-esteem, social skills, creativity, hope, or integrity. As such, happiness seems to affect how individuals may go about their personal and professional lives. As complex social systems rely on competencies, attitudes, and behaviors to fulfill their goals, happiness affects organizations and vice versa in different ways. Resilience, flexibility, plasticity, and eventually organizational toughness can all be seen as emerging coping properties of complex adaptive systems needed to continue meeting their objectives, despite uncertainty and adversity in turbulent periods. These properties are valuable because they account for enhancing the viability and sustainability of individuals and organizations. However, the conceptual mechanisms through which happiness at work connects to value creation and organizational toughness are in short supply. In this chapter, we provide a conceptual model for addressing this complex relationship

The Role of HRM for Innovation

Innovation is fundamental to organization performance and survival in a continuously changing and highly competitive world. In organizations, innovation occurs primary and foremost through purposeful and discretionary actions of knowledgeable and motivated individuals. However, despite some insightful studies, studies addressing the role of HRM in promoting innovation are in short supply. An enabling work environment—resources, motivation, and management practices—may be crucial for creativity and thus innovation. HRM policies and interventions have the potential to promote trust, cooperation, and collective codes and language. Therefore, the aim of this chapter is twofold: 1) to review the role of creativity and knowledge sharing for innovation and 2) to review the role of HRM for stimulating innovation through creativity and knowledge sharing. In so doing, the authors seek to shed light on the conceptual and analytical connections between motivation, creativity, knowledge, innovation, and HRM.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Is Psychological Value a Missing Building Block in Societal Sustainability?

Value creation is a constitutive and defining aspect in organizational ventures. This is unsurprising, as it is required for organizational survival and sustainability. Approaches based on the creation of economic, social and ecological value draw attention to the multiple and multiplicative nature of value creation. While academia still acknowledges the conceptual value of such approaches, a framework that add a psychological dimension to the established Elkington’s triple-bottom line model seems particularly refreshing and inspiring. Relying on the concepts of psychological value and sustainability, this paper presents the outcomes of an exploratory empirical study involving managers and users/customers of four organizations in the social sector in Portugal. This study discusses how managers and users/customers of these organizations make sense of and value psychological value. The outcomes of the interviews with both managers and users/customers shed light into the unexplored, hazy and neglected analytical links that may exist between psychological value and broader perspectives on sustainability. We conclude that this novel approach enhances our understanding about the impact that a social product can have in societal sustainabilityinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Practices of management knowing in university research management

The purpose of this paper is to provide insight into how research managers and directors conceive, adopt and adapt organizational structures to regulate and stimulate academic research. Design/methodology/approach – The study used principles of a grounded theory approach for collecting and analysing data in interviews with research directors and programme managers working at universities within the discipline of Business Administration in The Netherlands. Findings – In total, four clusters of concepts emerged from the data, related to: the definition of organization structures; the effects and by-products of providing structures; academic research as management object; and using organizational structures. The collected clusters show that research universities adopt all kinds of organization structures (formal, informal, narrow, broad, intentional, emergent) and that the perceptions and practices of research managers are crucial for deciding whether these structures may become “seeding” or “controlling”. Originality/value – The “practice turn” in organization studies has highlighted how important work practices of individual knowledge workers are, but so far has not paid systematic attention to the role of management, or has even downplayed that role. Structuration, which is a key management domain, is not inherently “good” or “bad” (seeding vs controlling), nor is avoiding structuration. Research managers as quintessential knowledge managers appear centre stage in making structures work or not. What makes structures “seeding” (or not) is their selection, combination, adjustment and/or intentional ignoration in practices of management knowing. An important mechanism is that of negotiation in attempts to accommodate possibly divergent interpretations. The concept of management knowing introduced and elaborated claims that management knowledge and practices are intertwined and not independent management knowledge categoriesinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Rethinking the liaisons between Intellectual Capital Management and Knowledge Management

ntellectual Capital Management (ICM) and Knowledge Management (KM), two highly popular topics in current management discus sions, are often bracketed together. The common understanding of ICM is that concepts of measurement, reporting and valuation most distinctively define this perspective, whereas KM connects debates about organizational knowledge with possibilities and limita tions of management. That raises the question of how the management focus on knowledge in KM discussions is connected to the valuation and measurement approaches of ICM. An extensive review of the literature shows that knowledge plays a background role in Intellectual Capital (IC) measurement discussions. Referral to knowledge as an intangible asset appears more rhetorical than based on in-depth understanding of what knowledge as an organizational resource or capability is or is not. More particularly, the predomi nant view of knowledge in IC measurement discussions is a neo-functionalist, possession approach, even if flow elements of knowledge are used to supplement stock elements. Critical understanding of knowledge, for instance, as practice-based dispute, are virtually absent from the ICM discussions. What the blind spots identified in the review highlight is that ICM and KM discussions, which are presently mostly developed in isolation, should set up more meaningful and elaborated liaisons than are currently established. Two important areas for building such liaisons include (1) the perusal of the contextual, possibly disputed and power-related nature of knowledge in relation to measurement and (2) developing a systematic approach to understanding what measuring or not measuring does to organizational knowledge.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

THAT OBSCURE OBJECT OF DESIRE: THE MANAGEMENT OF ACADEMIC KNOWLEDGE

For academic administrators, the management of research remains a matter more of hope than expectation. It has proved particularly difficult to measure quality. Managers typically view research as an asset . This essay argues that it is more useful to view research and its management as process , and explores the implications of doing so for managers and researchers alike.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio