articles

As suggested by Peter Gray and other anthropologists our hunter-gatherer ancestors progressively practiced a system of “reverse dominance” that prevented anyone from assuming power over others. This was opposite to the alpha male and female patterns of some of our primate cousins.

I explore how “We Space” Theory brings to light our evolved predispositions for the practice of “reverse dominance” or self-management in this short article written for Enlivening Edge Magazine.

Dan Siegel stipulates that, “Of all the factors in human life that predict positive outcomes supportive relationships are number one.” I suggest that most of us who have been immersed in the realm of practical management and its theoretical foundations would strongly agree with this general statement. Conversely, Gary Hamel and Michele Zanini state that, “An excess of bureaucracy costs the U. S. economy more than $3 trillion in lost economic output per year.” Bureaucratic systems seldom support self-initiatives no less supportive relationships. So, where are the disconnects in our economic systems? I hope that at least part of the answer to this dichotomy will become clear by the end of this paper.

For some time Gallup polls have shown that worker engagement has been quite low across the board in the business sector of our economy. My intent in this paper is to do a relatively “deep dive” with the help of some pertinent neuroscience discoveries to determine what can be done to rectify the persistent low engagement among people in our places of work.

2014 Outstanding Paper Winner for International Journal of Commerce and Management

The purpose of this paper is to present a general framework for the comprehension and advancement of sociocultural homeostasis (not to be confused with a steady state, but a dynamic constantly evolving process) in order to increase worker engagement, productivity and innovation within the enterprises.

CASE STUDY – Catalytic leadership helped a Swedish CEO introduce organic, self-organizing principles, which helped save the company and pave the way for international success.

After having written a book and several articles about the vital importance of an organizational sweet spot to the success of a venture, I thought it appropriate to put the subject into a historical perspective. In order to accomplish that I provide a general overview of the relationship between free and restricted information flows and corresponding expansions or contractions of societal organizational sweet spots.

Have you ever wondered how work really gets accomplished in organizations? Sometimes it seems like a miracle that anything gets done at all amid all the confusion. This article discusses the dynamics of the day-to-day operations that allow us to get through what, at times, appears to be total chaos and actually produce a product or provide a service. The process is probably best described as “muddling through.”

We need to remember that there are no two people on this planet who are physiologically (mentally or physically) identical. Therefore, each person must first interpret a given situation (process, problem, opportunity or work environment) in their own particular way before they can or will take some action.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a conceptual and flexible framework for the management of knowledge workers in the current information economy.

We are all keenly aware that there are hundreds of I.T. consultants around the world ready to jump to our assistance. Of course, many of these experts can be out of touch with the latest developments in their respective fields, but they still try to dazzle you with their multicolored charts and models. This poses considerable risk, especially to I.T. professionals who are constantly on the lookout for new ideas and methods.

Most organizations are still structured in a hierarchical fashion, and follow a command-and-control approach to management born out of the Industrial Age mind-set. And as a result, teams do not have the power to self-manage themselves and cannot work to their fullest potential during the so-called Knowledge or Information Age. To adapt to this new era, companies must acknowledge that work gets accomplished by informal networks and not by following policies and directives.

Leadership is a key “dynamic” of any well-functioning venture, especially when an organization depends heavily upon the generation and application of new knowledge or intellectual capital. A dynamic phenomenon, it emerges under all sorts of settings and, therefore, is unavoidable just like the continuous development of informal networks in any social group.