Search results

The purpose of this study is to revisit the conventional wisdom about a key contribution [i.e. strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT) analysis] in the field of strategic management. The societal context and the role of academics, consultants and executives is taken into account in the emergence of SWOT analysis during the 1960–1980 period as a pivotal development within the broader context of the satisfactory, opportunities, faults, threats (SOFT) approach. The authors report on both the content and the approach, so that other scholars seeking to invigorate indigenous theories and/or underreported strategy practices will thrive.

Applying a historiographic approach, the authors introduce an evidence-based methodology for interpreting historical sources. This methodology incorporates source criticism, triangulation and hermeneutical interpretation, drawing upon insights from robust evidence through three iterative stages.

The underreporting of the SOFT approach/SWOT analysis can be attributed to several factors, including strategy tools being integrated into planning frameworks rather than being published as standalone materials; restricted circulation of crucial long-range planning service/theory and practice of planning reports due to copyright limitations; restricted access to the Stanford Research Institute Planning Library in California; and the enduring popularity of SOFT and SWOT variations, driven in part by their memorable acronyms.

In the spirit of a renaissance in strategic planning research, the authors unveil novel theoretical and social connections in the emergence of SWOT analysis by combining evidence from both theory and practice and delving into previously unexplored areas.

Caution is advised for scholars who examine the discrete time frame of 1960–1980 through mere bibliometric techniques. This study underscores the risks associated with gathering incomplete and/or inaccurate data, emphasizing the importance of triangulating evidence beyond scholarly databases. The paradigm shift of strategic management research due to the advent of large language models poses new challenges and the risk of conserving and perpetuating academic urban legends, myths and lies if training data is not adequately curated.

With issues like increasing student dropout rates, low productivity and compromised quality, research in higher education is faced with a number of paralyzing challenges in India. This study aims to locate the role of toxic academic supervision in relation to decreased quality of research.

Following a sequential mixed method design, the research begins with a quantitative analysis, which is then followed by an in-depth qualitative exploration.

The results of mediation analysis in this study reveal that students who experience toxic research supervision have a weak sense of identification and are also poor at self-disclosure, which results in increased distress and reduced engagement and productivity. Moreover, identification and self-disclosure have also been found to partially mediate the relationship between toxic supervision and distress. Furthermore, a thematic analysis of this study provides a detailed behavioral profile of toxic academic supervisors and highlights the consequences of such supervision with regard to students' well-being and productivity.

In terms of theoretical contributions, the study provides evidence that the concept of toxic leadership has applicability outside of the organizational context; in the educational sphere as well and that the toxic leadership scale can be successfully used to assess the severity of toxic supervision within the academic domain, and corrective actions can be taken to mitigate the effect of such supervisory style on students.

The study not only highlights the repercussions of toxicity in academia and higher education but also provides a detailed and in-depth description of the personality traits and behavioral idiosyncrasies of toxic supervisors, which can help in the early identification of toxic tendencies and can enable us to mitigate and prevent toxicity from the academic space and to ensure a conducive environment for students in higher education. Overall, the present research has important implications for researchers, academicians as well as policymakers.

The study is the first of its kind in terms of both, objective and methodology.

Taking a communication perspective, the paper explores management's rhetoric in profit warnings, whose sole purpose is to disclose unexpected bad news.

Adopting a close-reading approach to text analysis, the authors analyse three profit warnings of the now-collapsed Carillion, contrasting the rhetoric with contemporaneous investor conference calls to discuss the profit warnings and board minutes recording boardroom discussions of the case company's precarious financial circumstances. The analysis applies an Aristotelian framework, focussing on logos (appealing to logic and reason), ethos (appealing to authority) and pathos (appealing to emotion) to examine how Carillion's board and management used language to persuade shareholders concerning the company's adverse circumstances.

As non-routine communications, the language in profit warnings displays and mimics characteristics of routine communications by appealing primarily to logos (logic and reason). The rhetorical profiles of investor conference calls and board meeting minutes differ from profit warnings, suggesting a different version of the story behind the scenes. The authors frame the three profit warnings as representing three stages of communication as follows: denial, defiance and desperation and, for our case company, ultimately, culminating in defeat.

The research is limited to the study of profit warnings in one case company.

The paper views profit warnings as a communication artefact and examines the rhetoric in these corporate documents to elucidate their key features. The paper provides novel insights into the role of profit warnings as a corporate communication vehicle/genre delivering bad news.