Suchergebnisse

Introduction 1. Relational Leading 2. Leadership In Relational And Distributed Practice 3. Communication As Relational Practice Of Leading 4. Dialog And Power 5. Relational Creation Of Leadership Identity 6. Leaders Use Of Maps, Guiding, And Momentary Meaningful Actions 7. Developing The Competence To Lead In Everyday Situations 8. Relational Leadership: Ontology And Practice

The new edition of Relational Psychotherapy offers a theory that's immediately applicable to everyday practice, from opening sessions through intensive engagement to termination. In clear, engaging prose, the new edition makes explicit the ethical framework implied in the first edition, addresses the major concepts basic to relational practice, and elucidates the lessons learned since the first edition's publication. It's the ideal guide for beginning practitioners but will also be useful to experienced practitioners and to clients interested in the therapy process.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to work on the relational innovation. Innovation is a key factor in understanding organizations. Emerged as a growth paradigm, it is a good indicator of their priorities. Considered in a more pragmatic way, it has been noticed that other forms of innovation linked to relationships are developing alongside the most formal technological one.FindingsHighlighted in the 1960s, administrative innovation aimed to account for the stakeholders involved and how, by modifying the relationships, they were able to change the configurations of the organization. Since then, the authors mentioned the concept of organizational innovation which has been extended and modified. The term is still being discussed, but it has already appeared in the continuation of previous research.Originality/valueThe authors put forward a related and different form of organizational innovation: a relational innovation. This one seems to be linked to relational patterns of the organization. This theory paper aims to present relational innovation.

Is equality a distributive value or does it rather point to the quality of social relationships? This article criticizes the distributive character of luck egalitarian theories of justice and fleshes out the central characteristics of an alternative, relational approach to equality. It examines a central objection to distributive theories: that such theories cannot account for the significance of how institutions treat people (as opposed to the outcomes they bring about). I discuss two variants of this objection: first, that distributive theories fail to account for the importance of how institutions cause good shortfalls and, second, that they fail to account for the normative attitude of social and political institutions expressed in different ways of treating people. The article argues that the causal variant of the objection has only very limited reach, and endorses the expressive variant: the attitudes expressed by institutions in their treatment of persons, such as contempt or neglect, generate potentially unjust social relationships and hierarchies. This should be the focus of a relational egalitarian approach to social justice. The article proceeds to explain how it is possible that artificial agents such as institutions have attitudes and how these attitudes are not reducible to those of the individuals that sustain them, and argues that distributive theories cannot be so modified as to account for such attitudes. It concludes by indicating several directions for the development of more worked-out conceptions of relational equality on this basis. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Ltd., copyright holder.]

Is equality a distributive value or does it rather point to the quality of social relationships? This article criticizes the distributive character of luck egalitarian theories of justice and fleshes out the central characteristics of an alternative, relational approach to equality. It examines a central objection to distributive theories: that such theories cannot account for the significance of how institutions treat people (as opposed to the outcomes they bring about). I discuss two variants of this objection: first, that distributive theories fail to account for the importance of how institutions cause good shortfalls and, second, that they fail to account for the normative attitude of social and political institutions expressed in different ways of treating people. The article argues that the causal variant of the objection has only very limited reach, and endorses the expressive variant: the attitudes expressed by institutions in their treatment of persons, such as contempt or neglect, generate potentially unjust social relationships and hierarchies. This should be the focus of a relational egalitarian approach to social justice. The article proceeds to explain how it is possible that artificial agents such as institutions have attitudes and how these attitudes are not reducible to those of the individuals that sustain them, and argues that distributive theories cannot be so modified as to account for such attitudes. It concludes by indicating several directions for the development of more worked-out conceptions of relational equality on this basis.

Generating inequalities -- Observing inequalities -- Relational inequality theory -- Organizational inequality regimes -- Exploitation -- Social closure -- Relational claims making -- Organizational surplus and rising inequalities -- Expanding the moral circle -- In closing -- References

Die gegenwärtige Soziologie leidet unter einer Reihe bedeutender Einschränkungen: So fokussiert sie allein die Dimension des Handelns, Kommunizierens, Selektierens und Konstruierens, an der sie, noch dazu nur Menschen, teilhaben lässt. Diese aktivistischen Vorurteile und anthropologischen Egoismen gilt es zu überwinden.Die vorliegende Studie zeigt auf, dass die Existenzweisen und Weltverhältnisse von Subjekten, Systemen und Netzwerken nicht aus deren Aktivität hervorgehen, sondern aus sozialen Beziehungen – und diese können sowohl interaktiv als auch interpassiv sein. Das ermöglicht der hier entwickelten relationalen Soziologie außerdem, die Vielfalt der menschlichen und nicht-menschlichen Akteure und Passeure in den Blick zu nehmen.Zwei empirische Fallstudien illustrieren abschließend die theoretische und methodologische Leistungsfähigkeit des vorgeschlagenen Perspektivenwechsels. Die Beziehungen zwischen Menschen und Tieren in sogenannten indigenen Gesellschaften lassen sich damit ebenso verstehen lernen wie die immersiven Versenkungen von Hochfrequenzhändlern in ihre algorithmischen Systeme.

"This book focuses on the concept and role of relational practices as a way to understand and study processes of organizing. Relational practices are conceived as an ongoing, everyday process resulting in more participative ways of organizing. Participative organizing works from and with the multiplicity of interactions inherent in processes of becoming; it reflects upon and experiments with how the diversity of participants and interactions can provide the potential for defining and redefining organizational realities. A" Through reflective essays and empirical research examples, this book illustrates that relational practices of everyday organizational life are strongly entangled with emotional, embodied, and aesthetic processes. The combination of these corollaries of participative organizing -- as an everyday, complex accomplishment, poised between intervention and invention, and between an affective and aesthetic ecology of belonging and becoming -- provides a new perspective on how the practice of organizing and the organizing of practice can be accomplished and managed in the years to come."

Relational Perspectives on Leading discusses leadership from a relational and social constructionism perspective as practiced on an everyday basis between people. The book pursues a fast growing, practice-based approach - particularly within the Anglo-Saxon parts of the world - to organization studies and organizational phenomena. This approach allows more micro-oriented and incremental aspects of organizational practices to be explored. Key concepts explored within this perspective revolve around plurality, emergence, interpretation, communication, meaning, linguistic turn, practice, coincidence, in-situ, co-construction and the ability to construct new ways to move forward in relation with other. The authors analyse these concepts by integrating theory and practice in concrete organizational examples.

AbstractIn this article, I question the plausibility of Metz's African moral theory from an oft neglected moral topic of partiality. Metz defends an Afro-communitarian moral theory that posits that the rightness of actions is entirely definable by relationships of identity and solidarity (or, friendship). I offer two objections to this relational moral theory. First, I argue that justifying partiality strictly by invoking relationships (of friendship) ultimately fails to properly value the individual for her own sake – this is called the 'focus problem' in the literature. Second, I argue that a relationship-based theory cannot accommodate the agent-related partiality since it posits some relationship to be morally fundamental. My critique ultimately reveals the inadequacy of a relationship-based moral theory insofar as it overlooks some crucial moral considerations grounded on the individual herself in her own right.

AbstractRelationality has become a popular term for addressing diversity, complexity, interconnectedness, and planetary crisis in many academic fields, including international relations (IR). This article shows that fully embracing relationality calls for a distinct set of tools that are discernable in cosmopraxis, an ontological stance derived from Andean thinking that upholds interdependence and co-becoming, being-feeling-knowing-doing, and both-and logics as key principles of existence. Following a discussion of the "relational turn" in academic debates within and beyond IR, we develop our understanding of deep relationality and explain how cosmopraxis works to awaken the relational sensibilities we deem key to broadening and invigorating the study of worldly affairs. Throughout the article, we make use of stories about weaving, a key metaphor of entanglement and interconnection, but also a concrete practice that embodies the principles of cosmopraxis to illustrate our main arguments.

Summary
Diplomacy is defined as implementation of foreign policy through communication, and the ministry of foreign affairs (MFA) is the chief implementer and communicator. This article challenges the conventional definition and argues that diplomacy is relational practice in the first place. The anchoring practice of diplomacy is to make, manage and build up relations. The MFA, therefore, is the pivotal relator who, to maintain a cooperative relationship, needs to follow two principles, both inspired by ancient Chinese philosophical thinking. The first is 'the Confucian improvement', meaning that improvement of self-interest is possible if and only if other-interest is simultaneously improved, and the second, 'the Mencian optimality', holding that self-interest is best realised if and only if a community maintains optimally harmonious relations among its members. The MFA is a good implementer and communicator only if it is able to manage well complex relations in international society.

Radicalization is a process of escalation from nonviolent to increasingly violent repertoires of action that develops through a complex set of interactions unfolding over time. Looking at radicalization mainly through the lenses of a relational approach, this article suggests that social movement studies allow us to bridge structural and agentic explanations in an analysis of the impact of political opportunities and organizational resources, as well as framing, in explaining forms of action and inaction. Available political opportunities influence the reactions of political actors in general to movement demands, thus affecting social movements' strategic choices. Moreover, the availability (or lack) of material and symbolic resources affects the choice of radical repertoire. Finally, organizational resources and contextual opportunities are framed differently by social movement actors, in some cases facilitating radicalization. At the individual level, different paths of radicalization are singled out.

A manager and a worker are in an infinitely repeated relationship in which the manager privately observes her opportunity costs of paying the worker. We show that the optimal relational contract generates periodic conflicts during which effort and expected profits decline gradually but recover instantaneously. To manage a conflict, the manager uses a combination of informal promises and formal commitments that evolves with the duration of the conflict. Finally, we show that liquidity constraints limit the manager's ability to manage conflicts but may also induce the worker to respond to a conflict by providing more effort rather than less. (JEL C73, D74, D86, J33, J41, M12)