Search results1 – 6 of 6
This paper proposes a theory-based process model for the generation, articulation, sharing and application of managerial heuristics, from their origin as unspoken insight…
This paper proposes a theory-based process model for the generation, articulation, sharing and application of managerial heuristics, from their origin as unspoken insight, to proverbialization, to formal or informal sharing, and to their adoption as optional guidelines or policy.
A conceptual paper is built using systematic and non-systematic review of literature. This paper employs a three-step approach to propose a process model for the emergence of managerial heuristics. Step one uses a systematic review of empirical studies on heuristics in order to map extant research on four key criteria and to obtain, by flicking through this sample in a moving-pictures style, the static stages of the process; step two adapts a knowledge management framework to yield the dynamic aspect; step three assembles these findings into a graphical process model and uses insights from literature to enrich its description and to synthesize four propositions.
The paper provides insights into how heuristics originate from experienced managers confronted with negative situations and are firstly expressed as an inequality with a threshold. Further articulation is done by proverbialization, refining and adapting. Sharing is done either in an informal way, through socialization, or in a formal way, through regular meetings. Soft adoption as guidelines is based on expert authority, while hard adoption as policy is based on hierarchical authority or on collective authority.
The findings are theory-based, and the model must be empirically refined.
Practical advice for managers on how to develop and share their portfolio of heuristics makes this paper valuable for practitioners.
This study addresses the less-researched aspect of heuristics creation, transforms static insights from literature into a dynamic process model, and, in a blended-theory approach, considers insights from a distant, but relevant literature – paremiology (the science of proverbs).
The purpose of this paper is to focus on the differences between managing domestic corporate brands (DCBs) and multinational corporate brands (MCBs), and presents a…
The purpose of this paper is to focus on the differences between managing domestic corporate brands (DCBs) and multinational corporate brands (MCBs), and presents a framework highlighting six types of complexity associated with managing both forms of corporate brands in an international business context.
This paper proposes a framework addressing six types of complexity involved in managing DCBs and MCBs drawing on the literature related to corporate branding, corporate brands, and domestic and multinational corporations. The six types of complexity examined include: strategic role, organisational structure, culture, knowledge, positioning and extended responsibility.
The research identifies that DCBs have a lower degree of complexity in regard to strategic role, knowledge and positioning, but have a higher level in regard to organisational structure, cultural and extended responsibility complexity. MCBs face more complexity than DCBs across all dimensions because they operate across business environments and need to coordinate activities while adapting to environmental differences.
The findings highlight the importance of environmental complexity for firms managing brands globally. The issues of complexity identified in this paper need to be understood if firms are to effectively build and manage their corporate brands within and across markets.
The paper highlights the concepts of DCBs and MCBs, and identifies the factors that contribute to the complexity of managing these two types of corporate brands domestically and internationally.