Explore the vast range of titles available.

Although corporate social responsibility (CSR) practice increasingly addresses gender issues, and gender and CSR scholarship is expanding, feminist theory is rarely explicitly referenced or discussed in the CSR literature. We contend that this omission is a key limitation of the field. We argue that CSR theorization and research on gender can be improved through more explicit and systematic reference to feminist theories, and particularly those from feminist organization studies (FOS). Addressing this gap, we review developments in feminist organization theory, mapping their relevance to CSR. With reference to six major theoretical perspectives in CSR scholarship, we note feminist research relating to each. Drawing upon FOS theory and CSR theory, we then develop an integrated theoretical framework for the analysis of gender issues in CSR. Our framework enables us to identify research strengths in the gender and CSR literature, as well as gaps therein, to open new conversations and to posit future research directions for this emerging area of scholarship. Our paper illustrates how a better grounding of CSR in feminist theory can contribute to CSR research more broadly.

\"In our increasingly complex world, the turbulent forces affecting educators have become vastly more dynamic, creating complex challenges but, perhaps paradoxically, also unique opportunities. Reframing how to understand the drivers of turbulence, Applying Turbulence Theory to Educational Leadership in Challenging Times provides aspiring and practicing educational leaders with the theory and tools for understanding Turbulence Theory and its application to school contexts. Renowned author Steven Jay Gross explores how you can apply turbulence theory to respond to critical incidents, as well as how to address the tensions across various stakeholders, including the central office, principals, teachers, students, families and communities. With over 20 innovative, case-based examples and discussion questions, this book explores how turbulence can be leveraged or minimized to increase creative opportunity and address dilemmas in schools\"-- Provided by publisher.

The labor movement sees coalitions as a key tool for union revitalization and social change, but there is little analysis of what makes them successful or the factors that make them fail. Amanda Tattersall-an organizer and labor scholar-addresses this gap in the first internationally comparative study of coalitions between unions and community organizations. She argues that coalition success must be measured by two criteria: whether campaigns produce social change and whether they sustain organizational strength over time. The book contributes new, practical frameworks and insights that will help guide union and community organizers across the globe. The book throws down the gauntlet to industrial relations scholars and labor organizers, making a compelling case for unions to build coalitions that wield \"power with\" community organizations. Tattersall presents three detailed case studies: the public education coalition in Sydney, the Ontario Health Coalition in Toronto, and the living wage campaign run by the Grassroots Collaborative in Chicago. Together they enable Tattersall to explore when and how coalition unionism is the best and most appropriate strategy for social change, organizational development, and union renewal.Power in Coalition presents clear lessons. She suggests that \"less is more,\" because it is often easier to build stronger coalitions with fewer organizations making decisions and sharing resources. The role of the individual, she finds, is traditionally underestimated, even though a coalition's success depends on a leader's ability to broker relationships between organizations while developing the campaign's strategy. The crafting of goals that combine organizational interest and the public interest and take into account electoral politics are crucial elements of coalition success. The labor movement sees coalitions as a key tool for union revitalization and social change, but there is little analysis of what makes them successful or the factors that make them fail. Amanda Tattersall-an organizer and labor scholar-addresses this gap in the first internationally comparative study of coalitions between unions and community organizations. Tattersall argues that coalition success must be measured by two criteria: whether campaigns produce social change and whether they sustain organizational strength over time. The book contributes new, practical frameworks and insights that will help guide union and community organizers across the globe. The book throws down the gauntlet to industrial relations scholars and labor organizers, making a compelling case for unions to build coalitions that wield \"power with\" community organizations. The book centers on three detailed case studies: the public education coalition in Sydney, the Ontario Health Coalition in Toronto, and the living wage campaign run by the Grassroots Collaborative in Chicago. Together they enable Tattersall to explore when and how coalition unionism is the best and most appropriate strategy for social change, organizational development, and union renewal. Power in Coalition presents clear lessons. Tattersall suggests that \"less is more,\" because it is often easier to build stronger coalitions with fewer organizations making decisions and sharing resources. She finds the role of the individual is traditionally underestimated, even though a coalition's success depends on a leader's ability to broker relationships between organizations while developing the campaign's strategy. The crafting of goals that combine organizational interest and the public interest and take into account electoral politics are crucial elements of coalition success. For more about Power in Coalition, visit the author's wesbite: http://powerincoalition.com.

A common lament is that business history has been marginalized within mainstream business and management research. We propose that the remedy lies in part with more extensive engagement with organization theory. We illustrate our argument by exploring the potentialities for business history of three cognitive frameworks: institutional entrepreneurship, evolutionary theory, and Bourdieusian social theory. Exhibiting a higher level of theoretical fluency might enable business historians to accrue scholarly capital within the business and management field by producing theoretically informed historical discourse, demonstrating the potential of business history to extend theory, generate constructs, and elucidate complexities in unfolding relationships, situations, and events.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, NATO's middle powers have been pressured into shouldering an increasing share of the costs of the transatlantic alliance. In Sharing the Burden? Benjamin Zyla rejects the claim that countries like Canada have shirked their responsibilities within NATO. Using a range of measures that go beyond troop numbers and defense budgets to include peacekeeping commitments, foreign economic assistance, and contributions to NATO's rapid reaction forces and infrastructure, Zyla argues that, proportionally, Canada's NATO commitments in the 1990s rivaled those of the alliance's major powers. At the same time, he demonstrates that Canadian policy was driven by strong normative principles to assist failed and failing states rather than a desire to ride the coattails of the United States, as is often presumed. An important challenge to realist theories, Sharing the Burden? is a significant contribution to the debate on the nature of alliances in international relations. --Provided by publisher.

As the field of management studies widens its scale of reflection to consider the socio-ecological ecosystems of which organizations are part, more attention is devoted to grand challenges. While extent literature generally treats them as exogenous objects, our focus here is on unfolding encounters with grand challenges. We conceive grand challenges as concrete problems of arbitration of more-than-human ways of life, where the managerial practices of organizations enact and transform grand challenges. We put forward a posthumanism and pragmatist style of thinking, which, we argue, can help us think with grand challenges and engage in creative ways of composing a common world. Through the story of a problematic situation where tangles of grand challenges abound, we offer a mode of construction that can help us compose what is, in a given situation, a ‘better’ world. This mode of construction is based on three sets of practices, namely, slowing down, multispecies world-making, and being present and grieving losses. It facilitates the emergence of new ways of composing the world, helps account for the implication of other species, and foregrounds the elaboration of worlds in a response-able way. Our paper contributes to the grand challenges literature by proposing a mode of attention and action that engages both management researchers and practitioners in the work of constructing multispecies worlds.

PurposeThis study explores how the projectification of collaboration between nonprofit organizations (NPOs) and local authorities impacts NPOs’ autonomy and long-term missions. It focuses on how project-based funding and governance structures influence organizational identity, resource dependence and capacity to deliver sustainable social value.Design/methodology/approachData were collected through 20 semi-structured interviews, observations and document analysis, using a qualitative case study of a Swedish NPO collaborating with local authorities. Governance, resource dependence and network effectiveness theories guide the analysis of vertical and horizontal relationships, emphasizing how project-based structures shape NPO’ operations.FindingsThe study not only reveals that projectification provides resources and legitimacy but also imposes short-termism, administrative burdens and autonomy constraints. NPOs often align their activities with funders’ priorities and risking mission drifts. Strategies such as funding diversification and flexible governance help mitigate these challenges, highlighting the tensions between external demands and internal goals.Originality/valueThis study contributes to the understanding of how projectification reshapes NPO’ governance and collaboration. It combines empirical findings with theoretical frameworks to offer practical insights for researchers, practitioners and policymakers to navigate project-based collaboration complexities.