Brandon Dulisse, Chivon H. Fitch, Nathan T. Connealy
This study explores two community–university collaborations at the University of Tampa—the Industry Advisory Board (IAB, est. 2021) and the Criminology Institute for Research and Training (CIRT, est. 2023). Grounded in translational criminology, these initiatives bridge researcher–practitioner divides through collaborative, evidence-based policy and practice. The IAB, with 25+ agencies, enhances curriculum, research, and student preparedness, while CIRT disseminates evidence-based practices via trainings, symposia, and grant-funded studies on issues like cryptocurrency fraud. Findings reveal that translational criminology thrives—defined as growth to 25+ agency partners, 20+ annual student internships/jobs, annual training and certification events, and four publications—through inclusive stakeholder engagement, clear agenda-setting, and continuous evaluation. These partnerships evolve despite challenges like agency turnover, offering a replicable model for sustainable academic–practitioner–student collaborations. Future directions include expanding to 50+ agencies and aligning curricula with practitioner needs to drive impactful reform.
Dec 23, 2025·Proceedings of the ... Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences/Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) integrate blockchain-based automation with novel forms of collective governance, yet research on them remains fragmented across technical and organizational silos, hindering a comprehensive understanding of DAOs as socio-technical systems. To bridge these gaps, we first conduct a systematic umbrella review of 12 prior surveys to map research themes and persistent gaps. Based on this analysis, we propose a novel, three-layer framework that explicitly links (i) technical artefacts (the infrastructure, e.g., tokens, smart contracts), (ii) governance logics (the rules, e.g., incentives, consensus mechanisms), and (iii) organizational manifestations (the outcomes, e.g., proposals, votes). By making cross-layer dependencies explicit, the framework enables more holistic theorizing, supports comparative empirical work, and provides a diagnostic tool for practitioners dealing with design trade-offs between decentralization, efficiency, and participation.
Purpose Effective crisis management is essential for all organizations, and both traditional and self-managed organizational structures have their advantages and challenges when dealing with a crisis. Decision-making in self-managed organizations (SMO) can be faster, however, the lack of clear chains of command can hinder strategic direction and coordination of resources. The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential for a hybrid model of the self-managed organization, considering the opportunities and drawbacks of both traditional and self-managed organizational structures in terms of crisis. Design/methodology/approach This paper reviews the literature on crisis in traditional and SMO and considers the potential for a hybrid model of the self-managed organization. Findings SMO offers speed and flexibility through decentralized decision-making, however, they can struggle with coordination during large-scale crises, whereas traditional hierarchical structures provide clear command chains and centralized control but may be slower due to bottlenecks. To address this, the authors propose a hybrid model that combines the strengths of both systems, enabling organizations to operate with the agility of SMO during normal conditions and seamlessly shift to a traditional command structure during crises. Such an approach seeks to optimize responsiveness and coordination based on situational demands, although further research is needed to develop and test such a model. Originality/value This work proposed a hybrid self-managed organizational model that can dynamically switch between decentralized and centralized structures based on the demands of a situation, something existing models such as Holacracy or Teal do not accommodate. Unlike prior approaches that advocate either fully autonomous or hierarchical systems, this paper introduces a flexible operational framework that integrates the strengths of both, aiming to optimize decision-making speed and coordination during crises. This concept challenges the rigidity of current models and opens new avenues for adaptive organizational design.
The Process of Organizational Development Human group coordination naturally progresses from the first stage, chaos (barbarians ravaging the landscape, "Raahr!"), to decentralized organization ("Let's all agree to band together to defend ourselves from the barbarians"), to centralized organization ("Long live the king").Abstractly, the first stage is chaos, completely disorganized individualized power centers, or nodes in the network.We imagine chaos as random uncoordinated actions, the first moments after the Big Bang, the static of your television screen flooded with turbulent Brownian motion.These individualized power centers proceed to decentralized organization when the powers become more correlated, aligned by a common principle, a transcendental goal, an ideal.The individuals may begin to partially imitate each other as they seek to progress toward this common goal.The individual nodes remain autonomous; the network does not have fixed roles for each member.But they are all responding to a higher calling as they unite in purpose.This newfound harmony makes the group more efficient than before, as they find varying ways to collaborate in more complex cooperative behaviors."The values are the organization."The final stage is a centralized hierarchy.The harmony and cooperation of the decentralized organization filters the group into an ever tighter and more complex hierarchical structure, raising some individuals into positions of power over others (see Figure 0.1).If successfully completed, a tree structure emerges, a hierarchy, Figure 0.1: Centralized hierarchy emerges from decentralized structure by prioritizing some connections over others.
In a sandpile world, decentralization is in the air. For many companies it is rapidly becoming a choice between merely hanging on and survival or thriving in the new world of global connectivity and proliferating complexity. In considering Decentralization 2.0, realization of the enablingand-autonomy paradigm presents three major challenges: designing an enabling organization, creating autonomous groups, and establishing a deep structure or genetic code to integrate these into a meaningful whole. Let’s remind ourselves that Decentralization 2.0 is conceived of in the context of a social-systemic perspective of organizing. In this way of looking at organizations, it is recognized that not only does the system have a purpose, but also the parts of the system and the larger whole containing the system, which both have purposes of their own. In other words, when the organization is that of a firm, both its individual members and the society in which it functions are recognized as having purposes of their own. Although they sometimes forget what they are for, companies, whether banks or health care organizations, do have the function to serve the purposes of the society they are a part of. If they fail to do so, in the long run, their survival is jeopardized. Even more so, sometimes companies find it difficult to recognize that their members are purposeful human beings, meaning that they display will, and even have ideals of their own.
This thesis examines tactical lessons learned from recent military operations other than war (MOOTW) for implications on leadership development for junior leaders in the United States Marine Corps. A doctrinal examination of MOOTW provides the context for the study. The research questions focus on unique leadership capabilities and competencies necessary for junior Marine Corps leaders in the MOOTW environment. The research involved analysis of recent tactical experiential lessons. These tactical lessons learned, coupled with the doctrinal examination, result in MOOTW specific junior leader competencies necessary for MOOTW organizational effectiveness. The results synthesize into three key competency areas: (1) ability to adapt leadership roles to diverse environments, (2) independent decision-making skills for decentralized operations, and (3) ability to develop leadership skills in team members. Theoretical leadership development frameworks are reviewed for insight into improving these junior leader competencies in the Marine Corps. Recommendations include focusing MOOTW training on the characteristics of: (1) highly politicized environment at all levels of command, (2) high ambiguity between combatants and non-combatants, (3) decision-making at the lowest tactical levels in a decentralized environment, (4) development of teams to operate autonomously in this decentralized environment, and (5) reinforcement that tactical decisions by junior leaders have operational and even strategic impact.