Bringing about change is difficult in any organization, but especially so in professional bureaucracies such as hospitals and universities in which highly trained and autonomous professionals, rather than administrators, largely control the core processes. Lacking in most models used to bring about change in organizations is understanding of how individuals and groups actually work through their resistance to change, which is key to whether change in a professional bureaucracy actually occurs. Interview data from professors in the physics department of a large, public university revealed that the department's change process closely resembled that of death and dying identified by KublerRoss in her study of terminally ill patients. Theories from psychoanalysis and group dynamics are used to explain both individual and group-level change. The article concludes by discussing implications for helping professionals and their organizations undergo change and by suggesting areas for future research.Bringing about fundamental change is difficult in any organization, but especially so in professional bureaucracies such as hospitals and universities in which highly trained and autonomous professionals, rather than administrators, largely control the core pro-73 I am deeply indebted to Robert Hanna, Alan Glassman, and Wellford Wilms for their thought-provoking discussions, insightful comments, and constructive feedback on earlier drafts of this article. I am also grateful to Clayton Alderfer and the two anonymous reviewers whose comments and suggestions strengthened the article enormously.Deone Zell is an assistant professor in the

Why should business care about water? Water is a common-pool resource, critical to many business operations, which faces depletion if not sustainably managed. Based on popular and trade press and academic business research, the authors develop a taxonomy of water issues (water quality, quantity, use, sustainable resource management, company and industry management). Through a review of 135 water-related articles published in 49 leading business journals, the authors examine the degree to which business scholars address these issues. They discuss intersections, diversions, and gaps and conclude with insights for future research.

No abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to examine the importance of a balanced or versatile linear and nonlinear pattern of thinking style in contributing to effective innovative capability of individuals and their organizations. Design/methodology/approach -The relationship between these individual thinking style dimensions and the development of an innovative corporate culture that encourages linear/nonlinear thinking style balance and versatility, and how their mutual interaction may contribute to successful innovation management within organizations are considered. Findings -The paper discusses how organizational leaders and other employees through collective development to a balanced linear/nonlinear thinking style can develop a corporate culture that in turn is supportive of organizational innovation. Research limitations/implications -Implications for future research on organizational innovation are discussed involving composition of organizational executives and work group members relative to linear/nonlinear thinking style. Practical implications -Individual linear/nonlinear thinking style balanced skill development and the formation of a supportive and reinforcing organizational culture have important implications for developing organizational intrapreneurship and innovation in medium-sized and larger organizations leading to increased productivity. Originality/value -This paper explores how the collective development of individual linear/nonlinear thinking style balance can contribute to a more supportive corporate culture for organizational innovation.

After decades of attempts to bring scientific rigor to the business school community, market forces are pressuring these institutions to produce research that is relevant as well as scientifically rigorous. At least three factors are responsible for this shift: the ongoing pursuit of revenues, the arrival of media rankings, and the emergence of student as customer. This essay revisits these pressures, which have shown no sign of abating since they were first studied in the late 1990s. Meeting the dual demands of rigor and relevancy is difficult, and faculty who can do so are rare. One solution is to publish performance research that attempts to address both sets of demands. Such research is controversial, however, and its viability is open to debate.