Search results

Threats of extreme events, such as terrorist attacks or infrastructure breakdown, are potentially highly disruptive events for all types of organizations. This paper seeks to take a political perspective to power in strategic decision making and how this influences planning for extreme events.

A sample of 160 informants drawn from 135 organizations, which are part of the critical national infrastructure in the UK, forms the empirical basis of the paper. Most of these organizations had publicly placed business continuity and preparedness as a strategic priority. The paper adopts a qualitative approach, coding data from focus groups.

In nearly all cases there is a pre‐existing dominant coalition which keeps business continuity decisions off the strategic agenda. The only exceptions to this are a handful of organizations which provide continuous production, such as some utilities, where disruption to business as usual can be readily quantified. The data reveal structural and decisional elements of the exercise of power. Structurally, the dominant coalition centralizes control by ensuring that only a few functional interests participate in decision making.

Decisional elements of power emphasize the dominance of calculative rationality where decisions are primarily made on information and arguments which can be quantified. Finally, the paper notes the recursive aspect of power relations whereby agency and structure are mutually constitutive over time. Organizational structures of control are maintained, despite the involvement of managers charged with organizational preparedness and resilience, who remain outside the dominant coalition.

The paper constitutes a first attempt to show how planning for emergencies fits within the strategy‐making process and how politically controlled this process is.

How has upper echelons theory (UET) (Hambrick and Mason, 1984) been evolving over time? Through the historical discussion, this paper aims to provide an updated – and also innovative from some aspects – big picture on this famous approach to strategic management. In fact, after more than 30 years since its original conceptualization, the authors believe that the UE field is mature enough for a critical attempt to provide all those scholars and practitioners interested in strategic leadership with a comprehensive ground for future analyses, a ground which, to the authors’ knowledge, is still missing.

The authors mostly use a historical narrative to offer a critical account of the conceptual and methodological developments occurring under UE lenses over time. The authors believe that the historical approach can be particularly useful because it can help understand and explain why and how these developments have been conjectured and implemented.

Two mainly intertwined insights emerge from our analysis: on the one hand, the developments subsequent to the seminal 1984 UE model have gradually, although constantly, reduced its strongly voluntarist assumptions on strategic leadership toward more moderated co-evolutionary lenses; on the other hand, the emerging psychological and cognitive moderators of UE variables are presently reinforcing the centrality of dominant coalitions, in that they affect their decision-making processes and strategic choices.

From the critical discussion, a possible updated UE model based on co-evolutionary lenses finally emerges. Prospective research avenues in this management field are also provided.

The purpose of this paper is to examine strategic decisions surrounding critical events to show how the decision-making processes evolve and how the dominant logic changes vis-à-vis those decisions. Further, this study explores the processes of managerial decision making focusing on spatial and temporal cognition dimensions.

The methodology adopted in this study is a case study using the retrospective processual analysis approach. Data were collected using both primary and secondary sources. In all, 40 years of secondary data on key critical events and decision making were collected using a range of secondary sources. Those events were further examined using 49 in-depth semi structured interviews.

The findings of this study explain the relationship between operant conditions, strategic actions and outcomes of strategic decisions by highlighting the significance of knowledge strategy, strategic agility and intentionality in shaping and reshaping managers’ dominant logic. Further, the authors show that the dominant coalition, among other factors, plays an important role in building decision-making capacity and in the formation and transformation of an existing dominant logic.

The study identified a number of limitations. First, the issue of generalization as the data were collected from only two case study companies. Second, in some cases respondents were asked to respond to research questions using “memory of the events” which took place a long time ago, hence the issue of credibility. Further, sometimes respondents reported information collected through hearsay. To overcome the limitations of this research, the authors made all efforts to ensure that the data collected were reliable and credible such as by using diverse data sources, confirmation of events at multiple level and personal observations.

The study identifies and explains a number of factors which influence decision making. The authors also present the revised dominant logic model which can act as a tool in managerial decision making.

The paper shows how managerial decision making changes knowledge strategy, which in turn leads to changes in existing dominant logic or the creation of a new dominant logic, hence looking at the issues of decision making using an evolutionary perspective. Second, the paper empirically tests and explains the relationship between intentionality, actions and organizational outcomes using spatial and temporal learning. Finally, the use of the longitudinal retrospective processual analysis and events analysis, is a novel way of understanding a particular phenomenon.

A large number of researchers and marketing textbooks see business marketing dominantly from the relationship marketing perspective. One can even talk about a “matrimony” of these domains; “RM=BM”. The Contemporary Marketing Practices studies, however, provide clear evidence of the coexistence of various marketing practices but offer no supporting theoretical rationale for these findings. The purpose of this paper is to answer the question whether business marketing and relationship marketing, when broadly defined to include all relational‐interactional perspectives, are necessarily wedded to each other.

A metatheoretical analysis was conducted to identify the contributions and limitations of the current research approaches to business marketing and a configurational approach for marketing (CAM) was developed, providing theoretical explanation for the empirical findings versus relationship dominance dilemma.

The metatheoretical analysis showed that research into business marketing relationships is not monolithic; that each tradition is useful for specific purposes, domains and activities; and that none helps understand why there are multiple ways in which firms relate to their markets. A conceptual CAM framework was developed that allows one to identify possible configurational marketing profiles (i.e. identifying different equivalently valid ways of relating to a business environment).

It is contended that the configuration approach for marketing permits other configurations to co‐exist beyond the RM‐BM matrimony. CAM provides a conceptual framework that can host the “puzzling” empirical results of the contemporary marketing practices studies.

The CAM frame suggests that managers should carefully examine the internal logic of their marketing‐related configuration. Performance should be enhanced if the three elements – managerial frame of reference, organization/environment relationship, marketing mode – are coherent.

The configurational approach for marketing helps one to understand why firms relate to the business marketing environment with a multiplicity of marketing modes, showing that the BM‐RM matrimony is but one possible configuration.

This paper reports research results from a replication of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) ‘Excellence’ study of 30 Slovenian organisations. It has been theorised that the Excellence principles are generic throughout the world but that these principles must be applied differently in different cultures, political and economic systems, stages of development, media systems and levels of activism. Results of this quantitative study showed that the principles of Excellence clustered into an identical index for Slovenia and for the Anglo countries. Differences among the four countries emerged, however, which had implications for specific application of the principles in Slovenia. Slovenian organisations had somewhat lower overall Excellence scores. Public relations departments in Slovenia had less support from the dominant coalition and were involved less in strategic management than in the English‐speaking countries. Slovenian public relations departments reported less knowledge of practising four models of public relations and two roles. However, Slovenian CEOs were somewhat more supportive of symmetrical public relations than their English‐speaking counterparts. Slovenian organisations reported equal levels of activism to the Anglo organisations. However, Slovenian organisations reported a less conducive internal context for Excellence — more authoritarian organisational cultures, more asymmetrical internal communication, and lower levels of individual job satisfaction and satisfaction with the organisation.

This chapter presents a personal research journey starting from my interest in firms’ decision-making within the tradition of the behavioral theory of the firm to discovering mergers and acquisitions (M&A) as an ideal decision context to advance the theory. Using my two articles published in the Academy of Management Journal as examples, I showcase how to leverage the specific attributes of M&A together with the institutional context in which they occur to develop and test new theories. Each paper addresses a distinctive research question and provides a unique angle of theoretical insights to the theory of decision-making. In particular, I was able to dig deeper into the mechanisms of institutional logic, power, and coalition building for explaining how firms make strategic decisions, all owing to the significance and versatility of M&A.

Describes three approaches to incorporating sustainable development into the agri‐food system. Presents the argument that long‐term sustainable development demands trans‐formational change, whereas stop‐gap sustainable development measures can be introduced on an add‐on piecemeal basis. Rooted in strategic choice theory and the punctuated equilibrium paradigm, focuses on how ideology influences organizational design, and compares the current agri‐food system with Community Shared Agriculture (CSA) and the Seikatsu Club. The current agri‐food system protects the environment by regulating the use of environmentally‐unfriendly agricultural practices and chemicals. The Seikatsu Club provides economic incentives for farmers to emphasize sound ecology. CSA values ecological and economic concerns equally, with an additional emphasis on social justice. Discusses implications for future study of changes that incorporate sustainable development.

Reviews theory on coalition formation and what it might mean to a manager in an organization. Defines coalition, for the purpose of the discussion, as a means‐oriented alliance among groups or individuals who differ in goals. Proposes that a theoretic understanding of coalitions, coupled with communications network analysis, would be a useful tool for discerning particular types of organizational coalitions and a guide to who might coalesce with whom for a detrimental result.

This study aims to analyze the use of discourse to solve issues related to coordination between advocacy coalitions in processes of gradual and transformative institutional change related to public policies.

Theoretical background is based on the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), new discursive institutionalism and critical discourse analysis theories. The research examines shorthand notes of public hearings held in the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies and the Federal Senate between 1999 and 2012, carrying out a case study on Belo Monte hydroelectric power plant. The speech extracts were categorized according to the modes of operation of ideology and typical strategies of symbolic construction proposed by Thompson (1995).

The results suggest that the discourse can be an instrument of internal coordination and between coalitions that share beliefs about a policy, as in the case of Belo Monte. Potentially existing coalitions define their identities and set positions on controversial issues, aligning interests and expectations. In the case studied, the modes of operation of ideology verified as instruments of the coalitions were dissimulation, reification, fragmentation, unification and legitimation.

The paper represents a unique analysis of the modes of operation of ideology (Thompson, 1999) in the case of Belo Monte. In addition, the paper aims to contribute to the New Discursive Institutionalism and to the ACF when it uses the critical discourse analysis to articulate a method to analyze the use of the Discourse by the coalitions. In fact, such an approach integrating the ACF, the New Discursive Institutionalism and the critical discourse analysis is something original. Finally, it also addresses a gap in ACF: issues related to advocacy coalition coordination.

Attentive readers linked to organizations working on infrastructure and environmental policies can benefit from the results by envisaging the deliberate manipulation of typical symbolic construction strategies and general modes of operation of ideology.

The study sheds light on the daily and behind-the-scenes disputes among stakeholders who are interested in a certain public policy. It may draw attention to the access and professional use of the shorthand notes of the hearings held at the National Congress.

This paper aims to fill a gap pointed out by Jenkins-Smith et al. (2014) regarding problems of coordination of advocacy coalitions. In addition, it innovates by using critical discourse analysis as a methodological reference in ACF empirical studies. In addition, this work continues a trajectory of two other previously published studies dealing with the same phenomenon: a theoretical essay and a case study.

In order to advance the micro-foundations of institutional theory, we explore how individuals within organizations experience and respond to competing institutional logics. Starting with the premises that these responses are driven by the individuals’ degree of adherence to each competing logic (whether novice, familiar, or identified), and that individuals may resort to five types of responses (ignorance, compliance, resistance, combination or, compartmentalization), we develop a comprehensive model that predicts which response organizational members are likely to activate as they face two competing logics. Our model contributes to an emergent political theory of institutional change by predicting what role organizational members are likely to play in the organizational battles for logics dominance or in organizational attempts at crafting hybrid configurations.