Change and crisis

[
all Dr. Amoo feedback after ailing with D grade
1-Dear hmni
Please I have posted some material on CLR, which you could find helpful.
See this in the week 4 LS.

Dear all
You are asked in this Critical Literature Review (CLR) to undertake a summary of your selected 6 – 8 published research articles that sheds conceptual light on your workplace-based problem.

I have suggested that you could try to organise this initial part of your review in a table. The headings of the columns in the table then could be what is being required in the Critical Literature Review Handout.

Some students were a bit unclear what I meant by this, and so I have sought permission from a past DBA student to use an extract of his work to show you how you could so this. Please see below.

Please note this is just the summary, and so after this then do the critical review by comparing and contrasting the views of the various 6 – 8 authors you have chosen. Please remember, this could mean you will agree with some authors; and also you could disagree with other authors.
I have also noted that in doing the comparing/contrasting of authors’ views, you could virtually follow what you were doing when you draft you Literature Synthesis; i.e. (1) Critically evaluates key arguments from both a scholarly and a practitioner-oriented point of view; (2) Critiques underlying assumptions evident in the articles and identifies any new insights for practice and scholarship; (3) Extends the thinking and application of your review with additional resources and experiential analyses.

And please remember, the purpose of the review is then to come out with your own view – that is why it is called a re-view. This is why the final part of what you should do in a literature synthesis or review is noted as “Extends the thinking and application of your review with additional resources and experiential analyses” – i.e. what is your own view?

Hope this helps, and all the best.

The sample table is below.

Sample Table for CLR (please do not distribute!!!)
Summary Title and Author(s) Participative design and organisational
sub-groups by Richbell (1979) Antecedents of Team-Based Clan Control
by Kirsch et al (2010) Cultures of management … relationships with organizational performance Wankhade (2012) Summary observations and insights
Setting the context
Who are the author(s)? Are they academics or practitioners or both? Suzanne Richbell, at the time of publication, was a lecturer in Industrial Relations at the University of Sheffield. There is no mention of her competence as a practitioner. Prior to taking up full time academic posts, Ko and Hanley were a consultant and an IT project manager respectively. Kirsch appears to have been a full time academic for her entire, and distinguished, career. Wankhade is a currently a lecturer at the Hope Business School, Liverpool Hope University (2012) and theDirector of the Centre for Research in Emergency Services & Training (CREST). No data was found on his career prior to starting a PhD at the University of Liverpool All of the five authors, at the time of publication, were full time academics. Hence their research could not be considered to action research undertaken by a practitioner who was a participant in the research process (Greenwood and Levin, 2007:3-7)
What else have the authors published and how does their earlier work relate to this article? Richbell references one previous paper and a chapter in a book that are natural precursors to this paper. Kirsch is the most senior of the three authors and has a strong academic record They have previously collaborated on papers related to Information Systems (Kirsch & Haney, 2006 and Ko et al 2005) This paper is Wankhade’s second published paper and both are related to the UK’s Ambulance Service. There is no body of prior published academic research Two of the papers are from the early careers of their single authors and the third is a continuation of an on going research collaboration of the authors which extends their previous work
How well does the article fit with the journal’s aims and scope? Industrial Relations Journal is a peer reviewed research based periodical that focuses on the nature and evolution of employment practices and industrial relations Organization Science publishes research on inter alia organization theory and information science Public Money & Management is published on behalf of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy (Taylor and Francis Online, nd). The paper’s focus of the UK’s Ambulance Service is within the Journal’s remit Civil Service & Public Sector and Public Administration & Management issues
All three articles are suited and aligned with the publishing Journal’s aims
Philosophical and paradigmatic position
What paradigm are the authors working in? Ontologically Relativism and Epistemologically Constructionism Ontologically Internal Realism and Epistemologically Positivism Ontologically Relativism and Epistemologically Constructionism Based on Easterby-Smith et al (2012:25) two of the papers are Relativist while the third is Positivist and Scientific in nature
Knowledge represented as cumulative or paradigm-breaking? The author constructs and then extends her thesis on the basis of existing knowledge Knowledge is cumulative as the paper builds on, inter alia, Ouchi (1980) and aims to validate existing theoretical constructs with empirical research Knowledge is portrayed as cumulative and the author combines culture and performance theories (Schein, 1996) with public sector reports on the health and ambulance services None of the papers is paradigm breaking in nature and they all extend previous theories and related research
Are they located within the positivist or post-positivist tradition? Post-positivist as the data is collected based on interviews and, seemingly but not explicitly stated, qualitative perceptions of the effectiveness of communications Positivist and scientific tradition as the authors develop hypothesise that are then tested using statistical methodologies and analysis of data Post-positivist as the data is collected based on interviews and observations and the analysis is presented as a case study developed using grounded theory Two of the papers are post-positivist and social constructionist, while the third is Positivist (Easterby-Smith et al, 2012:24-25)
Research quality
Is the research on the topics scientifically rigorous? The research cannot be considered scientifically rigorous as the data gathering and analysis techniques are not adequately explained nor is the data not tested against a model or set of hypothesise This paper is true to the tenants of scientific research as a model is developed, hypothesise proposed, quantitative data is gathered and then rigorously tested using objective statistical methodologies The research is not scientifically rigorous as the qualitative data is neither presented nor analysed using a positivist scientific approach but is interpreted using unspecified coding The papers that are social constructionist in approach are not considered to be scientifically rigorous, while the paper by Kirsch et al (2010) is scientifically rigorous.
How is existing knowledge about the topic summarised Combination of systematic and narrative methods More of a systematic review to provide a platform for the new theoretical model which is supported by narrative Combination of systematic and narrative methods All the papers use a combination of systematic reviews and narrative methods to summarise the existing knowledge
How do the articles relate to other published research? Only one or two of the paper’s 29 references appears to be research based and so the paper can be considered to aiming to validating existing theories rather than challenging prior research As previously noted, Kirsch et al (2010) observes that their paper is the first empirical research on their topic and so there is only a small relationship to indirectly relevant research Four of the paper’s 43 references appear to be a research based and so the paper can be considered to b attempting to extend, consolidate and/or validate existing theories rather than challenging prior research The papers only have loose connections to previous research on allied topics as the research in these papers on corporate tribes is comparatively novel
How generalisable is the knowledge that has been created about this topic Very generalizable as the core topic is manager –worker participation and engagement which is common to all organisational contexts Very generalizable as the new theory that integrates social capital as a significant variable for using clan control effectively is applicable to many project and management situations Though the findings are generalizable, they are not unique but are another validation in a new organisational context of Schein’s three cultures model (1996) All three papers create generalizable knowledge though Richbell (1979) and Kirsch et al (2010) extend the existing knowledge more than Wankhade (2012)
Relevance to practice
Are the articles interesting or incomprehensible, dull or thought provoking? Very interesting and well written thought the style reflects the approach taken in academia of the late 1970s Extremely interesting and engaging as the authors provide a well structured systematic overview of the existing knowledge that is followed by a clearly defined scientific research project Easy to read but lacks tight editorial control as previous knowledge is extensively quoted rather than referenced All three articles were engaging especially Kirsch et al (2010) which is a tour de force of a paper and, almost, a model research paper
What impact have the articles had on research (e.g. how many times have they been cited by other researchers) and practice (can you find any evidence of their use by practitioners)? As the paper was published 34 years ago citation data prior to 2000 is not available but since 2000 the paper has had 30 citations as per the Web of Science of which 21 are articles, 4 reviews, 1 book reviews and 1 proceeding paper. Citations, as per Scopus by year are: < 2009: 5, 2010:7, 2011:14, 2012:25, 2013: 9, total of 61 this includes self citations 10.2 citations per year. 8 citations, as per Web of Science, since publication 3 years ago of which 6 are articles and 2 proceeding papers. Citations by year, as per Scopus, are 2012:1, 2013:2, total of 3 1.52 citations per year
This paper has not been cited though it has been viewed 243 times as per the Taylor and Francis Online webpage Richbell (1979) has evidence of a moderate impact over three decades. The impact of Kisch et al (2010) is spreading and, this author, expects it to expand in the coming years as the Journal has a strong citation record. Wankhade (2012) has been published in a lesser Journal and, based on its quality and topic, will not be expected to have a significant long term impact.
What timescales are involved in the publication and dissemination No data available Published online on July 28, 2009 and hardcopy in the March–April 2010 Journal. No additional information on first receipt to final acceptance Published online on 26th March 2012 and hardcopy in September 2012. No additional information on first receipt to final acceptance This author has previous found that article takes between 6 and 18 months from first receipt to final publication. Unfortunately none of this information of was found for the three selected articles

2-Dr. Amo
Word limit of week5 975 max
Dear All

It may be that some of you are concerned about the word count and will it be enough for you to address all the requirements.

Please the word count for this assignment 5 is given as 750. You are allowed up to 25% over, and I have said I can allow even up to 30% – that is 975. So I will say a word count of approximately 1000 words should be the absolute limit.

Also please remember this excludes your references – so actually you should have enough space to present a very good script. In order to meet this limit, I would advice that try and avoid too long and winding introduction and background and rather just be brief and move straight to the key areas of the assignment requirements.
______________________________________________

3-Very important notice of the week5 task 1 assignment
Dr. Amo
Dear Class

Please there 2 types of literatures we are required to use in the problematising write-up

1. The literature and learning from the module (i.e. Change and Crisis Management);
2. Your Critical Literature Review about the workplace issues (i.e. concepts and theories)

The extant literature is the Critical Literature Review about the workplace issues, and please as I noted in my announcements to you, remember to clearly show the part of this extant literature on your workplace issues and how that allowed you to reframe your final problem.

So for those who did not provide a critical literature review about their workplace-based problem, please you may need to look and provide some brief literature in this assignment 5. And what that also means is that, actually some of what you wrote in your CLR submission (i.e. if you had provided the literature about your workplace themes, concepts and theories) could in this Assignment 5 – Problematising Write up be very useful for you to use. Please if you have to use material from the week 4 assignment, then try and reference it correctly so that it will not appear that you have plagiarised your own work.

The extant (literal meaning existing) literature is the literature on your workplace issues. So could you demonstrate that you are conversant with what others have studied already and wrote about on these topics. I have suggested to some to just search citation index like Goggle Scholar; Web of Knowledge and also the university library and you will come up with very good sources on these issues.

All these are necessary to show that you understand the theories and concepts of the issues on your workplace and what others have already written about it. As noted by Sandberg and Alvesson (2011) and Alvesson and Sandberg (2011) , you have to look into the existing literature as you come out with your research questions and undertake any problematising (please see more sources below).

The reasons for asking you to look at this extant literature on your issues are that if already there is an existing knowledge, then you cannot not say you are going to produce that same knowledge. You can only use and conceptualise that knowledge in a different context based on your research that allows you to use in an actionable manner.

Also as I noted in the general feedback on your CLR submissions, some of you were very crafty and tied to weave their workplace issues around Change and Crisis Management, and that is fine. But please most importantly, what are the other concepts and theories on your workplace. If you do not know the concepts and theories, and what other before had written about your workplace issues, then how can you say that you are going to produce new knowledge. That is why I noted that a very good literature review is the pre-requisite of a very good research project, and this is also required during problematisation.

Please hope this is clear.

Nii

References
Alvesson, M., & Ashcraft, K. L. (2009). Critical methodology in management and organization research. Buchanan, DA et A. Bryman,(Eds.) The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods, 61-77.
Alvesson, M., & Gabriel, Y. (2013). Beyond formulaic research: In praise of greater diversity in organizational research and publications. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(2), 245-263.
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247-271.
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2013). Constructing research questions: doing interesting research: Sage.
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2013). Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research. Journal of Management Studies, 50(1), 128-152.
Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2011). Ways of constructing research questions: gap-spotting or problematization? Organization, 18(1), 23-44.
Suddaby, R., Hardy, C., & Huy, Q. N. (2011). Introduction to special topic forum: Where are the new theories of organization? Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 236-246.
4-Dr. Amo
Dear Students
Please I have completed grading your CLR and so have now posted the grades and comments/feedback. The performance for this Assignment 4 submission was not very encouraging to me.
Clearly, the evidence from your scripts was that you will need some improvements in doing a literature review and I did provide you with some resources on what to do. In the previous weekly Literature Synthesis, you were doing well, and the only explanation why this main literature review was very poor could be that you are yet to develop skills in doing a literature search on the topics that you are studying.
Please I have noted to you how to go about doing this, and simply try and do that through a citation index; journal website or through the university library. Remember, the first thing that you do in a literature review is to do the search, and even if you are able to get two or three very good recent papers on your topic, you can then use that to search of more sources by looking at the references that they have cited in that paper. This is because a very good paper will also review both the old and most recent literature on the topics of their study.
Also, most of you did not make any attempts to address the requirement that was in the CLR handout – and this was also one of the reasons for you getting such low grades.
Finally most importantly, some of you were doing a literature review on the topics of this module (i.e. change and crisis management) and not on your workplace issues. The requirements for the assignment was very clear (and I believe I even again highlighted in the week 4 welcome announcement) – You were asked to “assemble 6 – 8 published research articles and prepare a review that sheds conceptual light on your workplace-based problem”. Please they key phase as I have highlighted here is “sheds conceptual light on your workplace-based problem” So the expectation is that you will look for literatures on the key concepts and theories that pertains to your workplace issues and review how other scholars have studied and written about them.
For those who did not provide any literature on their workplace issues and rather did a review on the very topics we are currently studying, I had no choice but to award a D grade since you have substantially failed to address the main requirements of the CLR.
I have taken time to provide this generic feedback to you on your Assignment 4, because you will need your CLR in the Assignment 5. And so if you did not do a proper literature review on your workplace issues, then the advise is that try and do that and look to include some of it in your Assignment 5, since it is a requirement of the problematising write-up.

All the Best
Amo
5-Dr amo response
Dear All
As I read your various initial outlines and draft for this problematising – writeup, one thing is clear and that is there seems not to be a focus in the workplace problem that you want to resolve – and maybe in your final draft we may see this. But as at now for most of your postings, it is not clear. But it is very encouraging that some of you have seen this in members postings and have started inquiring about them.
I will be posting from tomorrow, lots of helpful material that can help you in this write-up, but for now please could I suggest that you try and clearly define your initial workplace problem; then tell us how that has been refined and reframed through the learning from this module; any CLR you have done; and finally how your colleagues in this LS have influence this reframing and refining.
And it is very important to give clear examples how the LS contributions has also enable to achieve this. These are the process of arriving at the final problem, and so it could be importantly also to tell us (and please state it clearly) this final workplace problem.

6-Dr. AM
Dear Vanja & Alex
Vanja – thank you for your post.
I was going to ask Alex the very same questions – and that is what is your real workplace issues that you want to convery to us and thus look for a resolution. It is decision- making within the organisation; is it leadership structures; or is it profitability.
There seems not to be a focus – and maybe in your final draft we may see this. But as at now it is not clear.
Please could I suggest that you try and clearly define your initial workplace problem; then tell us how that has been refined and reframed through the learning from this module; any CLR you have done; and finally how your colleagues in this LS have influence this reframing and refining.

Vanja response to alex
(Alex:
How has the literature and the learning set discussions helped you throughout the process, or where do you plan on incorporating those?
Also, what is your “problem” as you go through the process? How do you plan on measuring the last two questions you ask? In particular the question “How does an imporvement in managing syle equate to that of increased profitability?”
Vanja
)

7- Dr amo response to my week 5 task 2
Dear hmni
Thank you for sharing part of your problematising with us. As I read you post, I am drawn to the challenges you are having in framing your workplace problem within any relevant literature. You seems to be using the term socio-political problem in the workplace and when it comes to discussing the literature on this then you are going round and round talking about a whole lot of things, and now even talking about resistance to change.
Could it be that what you are referring to using the term “socio-political” is actually “organisational power and politics” in management terms.

I feel this is what you want to convey to us, and if so please you can then use this term to search for your literature and I can assure you that “organisational power and politics” is well written about in management literature and you may even find that it is linked with “organisations culture”; “organisational climate”; and in some instances “organisational learning”.
So please have a think about this and maybe you could bring a more focus to what you to do so far as shedding conceptual light to your workplace issues.
All the best.

Vanja response to hmni

Dear hmni:
What is your job description within you organization? I am trying to assess your level of leadership vs. those of others involved.
Hill et al (2014) provides some fascinating research on how collaboration is used in order to approach organizational improvement. The article assess the connection between leadership and innovation, and how leadership can be responsible for creating a culture where creativity and willingness to take risks become the norm. How can you take advantage of “collective genius,” with your employees in order to achieve collaborative efforts of all involved in the process? And how can this help you with your current challenges and problem?
Vanja
References:
Hill, L., Brandeau, G., Truelove, E., & Lineback, K. (2014). Collective genius. Harvard Business Review, 92(6), 94-102, 138.
Hmni response to vanja
Dear Vanja,
Thank you for your insightful contribution. I am a director of quality control and based on this the level of leadership is supposed to be collaborative and consultative with other key stakeholders. In this light, leading innovation takes a distinctive kind of leadership, one that unleashes and harnesses the “collective genius” (Hill et al., 2014) of the people in my construction organization. Taking advantage of this model, instead of creating innovation and vision alone, I will create and sustain a culture where innovation is allowed to happen again and again–an environment where people are both willing and able to do the hard work that innovative problem solving requires. Therefore, “Collective Genius” will not only inspire our operations, but will give me the concrete, practical guidance I need to build innovation into the fabric of my problem-solving process.
Reference
Hill A. Linda, Greg Brandeau, Emily Truelove, Kent Lineback. 2014. Collective genius: the art and practice of leading innovation. Choice Reviews Online, 52(05), 52-2635-52-2635

Ali asadi response to hmni,
Hi hmni,
Cho and Marshall (2009) state that through action learning, we learn by taking actions on the real problems. Therefore, action is both learning input and output in the action learning method. Regarding your workplace problem, which one of your actions have had the most impact on your workplace problem? How did this action help you in redefining your and solving problem?
Thanks
Ali
Reference
Cho, Y. & Marshal, T.M. (2009) ‘Action learning research: A systematic review and conceptual framework’,Human Resource Development Review, 8 (4), pp. 431–462, Sage Premier 2009 [Online]. Available from:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/10.1177/1534484309345656 (Accessed: 21 Aug 2015).

TO HAVE YOUR ASSIGNMENTS DONE AT A CHEAPER PRICE, PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US NOW.