Search results

The purpose of this paper is to self‐reflexively deconstruct a paper published by the author in 1996 about a Singaporean entrepreneur for whom the author worked. Through the deconstruction a number of important methodological and epistemological issues are raised. Firstly, the way in which the value of qualitative research in management and organization studies is judged more by how it conforms to acceptable ways of data collection, analysis and interpretation (strategic apparatus) than on any “truth” value it may have. Secondly, a consideration of how the “I” of the researcher is influential in how research is undertaken and written up. Thirdly, that this “I” of the researcher is also determined by what is acceptable “scientific” discourse and by other prevailing discourses.

In a paper published in 1996, the author detailed the “dark side” of an entrepreneur for whom he worked. Using a psychoanalytic framework this paper constructed the entrepreneur as an irrational and unethical incompetent. In the present paper, this earlier work is deconstructed using insights from Derrida's in order to highlight “strategic exclusions,” and to offer alternative readings. These alternative readings emphasize the influence of various discourses on the construction of the earlier paper, and also introduce a reading of the earlier paper as a psychoanalytic narrative.

The paper highlights the uses to which “objective tools” of analysis can be put in order to manipulate and construct an explanation and interpretation of personal experiences. This raises important epistemological issues concerning the influence of broader discourses on the representation of experiences and how realities and identities are constructed and performed. The paper concludes by suggesting that whom we are as researchers, and what we observe and write, is more complex and influenced by more discourse(s) than we might think. Even if researchers tell impressionistic and confessional tales simultaneously with their realist ones, it is necessary to consider what discourses may lay behind their telling. It has been argued that a limitation of deconstruction is that it may result in endless iterations and readings of text with no discursive closure. This may be a limitation of the deconstruction offered here.

The paper raises questions about the nature of the “academic” narrative and the importance of deconstruction in establishing author positioning within narrative. It contributes to the discussion about objectivity in organizational and management research and issues of epistemology and ontology more generally.

The purpose of this paper is to propose styles of reasoning for the characterization of sustainable development and sustainability as quasi‐objects of study for management.

This proposition occurs in three primary dimensions: the first deals with ontological postures, the second with epistemological perspectives, and the third with supplementary conceptualizations (dominant paradigms, the meanings of sustainable development and sustainability, and the approaches to classifying sustainability).

After the theoretical‐analytical discussion the authors present a framework that classifies different possibilities for framing sustainable development and sustainability as interesting research themes for management studies.

The paper considers that discussions about sustainable development and sustainability as concerns management studies need a deeper conceptual and theoretical scrutiny. This deficiency is expressed in the difficulty in identifying ontological postures, epistemological perspectives, dominant paradigms, and conceptual approaches that might allow these themes to have a greater coherence so that they may be researched within the scope of management studies.

Sustainable development and sustainability are discussed using various analytical perspectives, a consequence of the fact that these phenomena are understood and discussed by various social collectives, which contributes to an interpretive and conceptual oscillation of these themes for management. The relationship between sustainable development, sustainability, and social factions justifies their characterization as quasi‐objects of study for management. Via this characterization the authors intend to create a space for discussion aimed at presenting statements that are candidates for truth, but not as absolute or unquestionable truths.

This paper aims to explore the role of configurations of relationship quality dimensions for explaining sources of behavioral outcomes in the globalized manufacturing industry.

A joint analysis of behavioral and objective performance data from globalized manufacturing links perceptual customer metrics that relate to dimensions of relationship quality (i.e. attitudinal loyalty, perceived customer orientation, customers’ perceived innovativeness of the supplier and perceived customer influence on supplier innovation) with behavioral outcomes (i.e. share of wallet (SOW) and customer account profitability). Using data from a global business-to-business (B2B) customer survey together with archival performance data from a multinational mechanical engineering firm, a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) is performed.

The fsQCA results suggest that perceptual customer metrics related to innovation can be relevant aspects of relationship quality, in line with Anderson and Mittal’s (2000) satisfaction-repurchase-profitability chain framework and its adaptation to SOW. However, the underlying complexities in the different combinations of attributes in the recipe are such that they are not equifinal in leading to higher SOW or higher profitability. This paper finds indications for non-linearities between perceptual measures investigated and profitability of customer accounts, with particular relevance for the role of perceived customer orientation, perceived product innovativeness of the supplier and attitudinal loyalty.

The analysis faces a number of limitations, starting with its reliance on cross-sectional survey data, which does not enable us to account for feedback mechanisms, for example, arising from customer perceptions regarding innovation aspects. The lack of a multidimensional conceptionalization of the perceptual customer constructs may have limited the analysis, considering also recent evidence from retail companies in the furniture sector in Spain, suggesting that the multidimensional conceptualization of relationship value explained satisfaction and loyalty levels to a greater extent than the one-dimensional conceptualization (Ruiz-Martínez et al., 2019).

In terms of managerial implication, the results suggest that customers perceive limited value in participating in the focal firm’s innovation value chain funnel, hence customer loyalty cannot be bought using simple incentive strategies. The results with regard to customer account profitability suggest that B2B customers investigated here may distinguish when interacting with their globalized supplier in the innovation funnel: they may see a positive customer value when the innovation is a product, and thus, relation-specific, whereas they may see limited customer value when innovation is considered in more generic terms (customers’ perceived influence on supplier innovation in general).

This paper starts from the premise that perceptual customer metrics can matter for supplier performance, as the customer relationship and customer value management research has shown. However, there is limited empirical evidence from globalized manufacturing sectors incorporating perceptual constructs in behavioral outcomes, and limited evidence assessing customer-perceived value in such sectors through alternate approaches to main-effects focused analyzes. We employ qualitative comparative analysis using fuzzy sets (Russo et al., 2019) to address these gaps, focusing on two key behavioral outcomes, namely, customer account profitability and SOW.

This study analyses configurations of national culture as boundary conditions of countries’ national systems of innovation (NSI). Drawing from the NSI approach, we argue that culture’s role is that of a contingency factor shaping the relationship between investments in innovation and national innovation outputs.

We assessed the moderation effect of national culture through a systematic, two-stage approach using fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA), which allows the analysis of changes induced by the moderator variables. Analyses were conducted with a diverse sample of 61 countries over a period spanning 12 years, from 2011 to 2022.

Findings reveal that investments in innovation, but not individual cultural dimensions, is a necessary condition for high innovation outputs. Furthermore, several configurations of cultural dimensions were identified as moderators of the relationship between investments in innovation and innovation outputs.

This study provides insights into cross-national innovation research by exposing the role of cultural configurations, rather than just individual cultural dimensions, as boundary conditions involved in the achievement of high levels of innovation.

The purpose of this paper is to promote the use of pragmatism within industrial marketing and purchasing (IMP), business-to-business (B2B)/network research with its enhanced emphasis on developing adaptable, workable solutions to practical problems. The usability of findings and the study produced means that implications and impact become a natural part of the research process rather than an afterthought concluding a research project. Although the reader might feel that the approach oscillates between viewing pragmatism in its everyday sense (through the use of terminology such as “a pragmatic approach […].,” the intent is to elevate the discussion to one where pragmatism is viewed as a guiding philosophy.

It blends literature review and conceptual contemplation and challenges convention by “reading against the grain” (Brown and Wijland, 2018).

The authors do this to challenge convention and advocate for pluralism and diversity, theoretical evolution based on empirical evidence and increased sensitivity to the critical role of discourse, semiotics and abduction as a catalyst between theory, method and empirical activities. This conceptual blending portrays “activities” and beliefs as mutually constituted through the symbolic mediation of rhetoric and discourse.

Existing elements of American pragmatism and discourse are identified as already a tacit constituent of the IMP oeuvre. Combining these approaches more explicitly is advocated as a suitable basis for a potential future “IMP 3” research agenda with significant potentials afforded to IMP and B2B marketing research.

This paper contributes to the development and dissemination of alternative and critical perspectives in marketing theory. The implication is that activities must usually be justified by actors within communication as believable and this process always involves mixtures of rational and non-rational appeals. Existing elements of American pragmatism and discourse are identified as already a tacit constituent of the IMP oeuvre. Combining these approaches more explicitly is advocated as a suitable basis for a potential future “IMP 3” research agenda with significant potentials afforded to IMP and B2B marketing research.

Purpose – This chapter examines the potential of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) for strategy research.

Methodology/approach – We introduce the set-theoretic framework of QCA and provide an overview of recent methodological developments.

Findings – We utilize a variety of examples relevant to strategy research to illustrate the action steps and key concepts involved in conducting a QCA study.

Originality/value of paper – We develop examples from core research areas in strategic management to illustrate QCA's potential for examining issues of causality and diversity in strategy research, and in settings involving medium-N samples. We conclude by emphasizing that QCA offers an alternative mode of inquiry to open and redirect important lines of strategy research.

Scanning both the academic and popular business literature of the last 40 years puzzles the alert reader. The variety of prescriptions of how to be successful (effective, performing, etc.) 1 Organizational performance, organizational success and organizational effectiveness will be used interchangeably throughout this paper.1 in business is hardly comprehensible: “Being close to the customer,” Total Quality Management, corporate social responsibility, shareholder value maximization, efficient consumer response, management reward systems or employee involvement programs are but a few of the slogans introduced as means to increase organizational effectiveness. Management scholars have made little effort to integrate the various performance-enhancing strategies or to assess them in an orderly manner.

This study classifies organizational strategies by the importance each strategy attaches to different constituencies in the firm’s environment. A number of researchers divide an organization’s environment into various constituency groups and argue that these groups constitute – as providers and recipients of resources – the basis for organizational survival and well-being. Some theoretical schools argue for the foremost importance of responsiveness to certain constituencies while stakeholder theory calls for a – situation-contingent – balance in these responsiveness levels. Given that maximum responsiveness levels to different groups may be limited by an organization’s resource endowment or even counterbalanced, the need exists for a concurrent assessment of these competing claims by jointly evaluating the effect of the respective behaviors towards constituencies on performance. Thus, this study investigates the competing merits of implementing alternative business philosophies (e.g. balanced versus focused responsiveness to constituencies). Such a concurrent assessment provides a “critical test” of multiple, opposing theories rather than testing the merits of one theory (Carlsmith, Ellsworth & Aronson, 1976).

In the high tolerance level applied for this study (be among the top 80% of the industry) only a handful of organizations managed to sustain such a balanced strategy over the whole observation period. Continuously monitoring stakeholder demands and crafting suitable responsiveness strategies must therefore be a focus of successful business strategies. While such behavior may not be a sufficient explanation for organizational success, it certainly is a necessary one.

The purpose of this paper is to revisit the conceptualization and measurement of human capital in entrepreneurship research.

By contrasting reflective and formative conceptions, it shows that human capital is more appropriately seen as defined and formed by its indicators (education, work experience, entrepreneurial experience, industry experience, and managerial experience). It, then, explores the configurations of these indicators in a qualitative comparative analysis framework based on Boolean algebra and fuzzy-set methodology. It derives an empirical typology of the human capital of nascent entrepreneurs, based on two primary combinations of indicators.

The paper shows that the relationship between human capital and venture emergence is best represented as multiple, conjectural causation, i.e. human capital matters through certain combinations of its indicators.

The discussion and results offer novel and valuable insights into entrepreneurship researchers for the conceptualization and use of human capital constructs.

Because family businesses are highly complex enterprises, researchers need appropriate theoretical and methodological tools to study them. The neoconfigurational perspective and its accompanying method, qualitative comparative analysis, are particularly well suited to phenomena characterized by complex causality, but their uptake in family business research has been slow and fragmented. To remedy this, the authors highlight their unique ability to address research questions for which other approaches are not well suited and discuss how they might be applied to family business phenomena.

The authors introduce the core tenets of the neoconfigurational perspective and how its set-theoretic epistemology differs from traditional approaches to theorizing and analysis. The authors then use a dataset of family firms to present a primer on conducting qualitative comparative analysis and interpreting the results.

The authors find that family firm resources can be combined in multiple ways to affect business survival, suggesting that resources are substitutable and complementary. The authors discuss how the unique features of the neoconfigurational approach, namely equifinality, conjunctural causation and causal asymmetry, can be fruitfully applied to break new ground in scholarly understanding of family businesses.

This article allows family business researchers to apply the neoconfigurational approach without first having to consult multiple and disparate sources often written for other disciplines. This article explicates how to leverage the theoretical and empirical advantages of the neoconfigurational approach in the context of family businesses, supporting a more widespread adoption of the neoconfigurational perspective in family business research.