This manuscript presents findings from a 2023 qualitative Indigenist research project examining disability service providers in Southeast Queensland that tailor services for Indigenous peoples with disabilities. Data were collected through yarning interviews with 14 organisations, including both Indigenous-managed and non-Indigenous-managed entities. The findings highlight distinct differences in approaches to cultural safety, with Indigenous-managed organisations demonstrating an Embedded Cultural Base (CB) model, wherein cultural safety is deeply integrated into service provision, decision-making, and organisational structures. These organisations reported high Indigenous staff representation and strong engagement with Indigenous peoples with disabilities, alongside proactive inclusivity extending to other diversity groups, including LGBTQIA+ communities and refugees. In contrast, non-Indigenous-managed organisations primarily employed Ad Hoc (AH) cultural safety approaches, incorporating cultural initiatives such as reconciliation action plans (RAPs) and cultural competency training, yet lacking the foundational integration seen in CB organisations. The research highlights the potential of Indigenous-led management strategies in fostering holistic, culturally safe, and flexible disability services. Aligning with First Nations scholarship on the custodial ethic and the model of cultural inclusion, this study highlights how Indigenous cultural values serve as both a protective and empowering factor for people with disabilities. The findings suggest that embedding Indigenous management principles within the disability sector could enhance cultural safety, service accessibility, and community-driven care models, prompting further consideration of their role in shaping inclusive and effective management practices.

Drawing on a dataset consisting of 344 personal interviews, participant observations, and internal documents collected in 26 privately owned business organizations in Russia, the study aims at complementing existing research on Russian indigenous management in three ways. First, it examines the managerial styles of key individuals (i.e. owners and/or CEOs) in the case organizations. Hence, it taps into the existing heterogeneity of managerial styles, the so-called groupvergence, found in contemporary Russian organizations, and documents their idiosyncratic features, such as the transformational nature of authoritarian leadership. Second, the study explores the antecedents of the identified styles to establish what factors contribute to their emergence and thus sheds light on how the heterogeneous managerial styles in Russian organizations come into existence. Finally, the study investigates how the identified styles manifest themselves in organizations by influencing organizational goals and strategies, organizational structures, supporting mechanisms, relationships between organizational members, and reward systems. It therefore elaborates on the organizational implications of the styles and highlights the mechanisms of their sustainable diffusion to lower organizational levels in Russian organizations.

I truly enjoyed reading the perspective article entitled ‘Advancing indigenous management theory: Executive rationale as an institutional logic’ by Gordon Redding and Michael Witt (2015), especially its implications for a ‘promising avenue for indigenous management research’ (179). I agree with the authors in general terms that the research on the impact of culture as an informal institution, and also the effect of formal institutions, on business practices must come down from a highly abstract level to a more pragmatic ground, especially their interaction and integration as embodied by various specific mechanisms to guide practices. For that purpose, Redding and Witt introduce an interesting notion of ‘executive rationale’ to guide action. Applying the abstract notion of institutional logic to specific business practices, executive rationale refers to the ‘socially constructed, historical patterns of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce their material subsistence, organize time and space, and provide meaning to their social reality’ (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008: 101) in the specific context of business practices. In other words, executive rationale provides a mental blueprint for practical actions in a business context. In addition, the authors have empirically generated a tentative model with multiple dimensions to compare the dominant executive rationales as institutionally-embedded across five key economies.