Search results

In this chapter, I propose an integrative framework for theorizing and empiricizing about talent management, based on the notion of “talent philosophies.” I believe that current debates about whether talent management should be inclusive or exclusive create the risk that our field will become fragmented, thereby undermining its social-scientific legitimacy. Nonetheless, this debate is absolutely correct in identifying the tensions between inclusive and exclusive approaches to talent management as a phenomenon. This, however, creates issues for talent management as a construct for scientific inquiry, as we need clear definitions and measures to create a cumulative body of research as a community. I propose that the solution lies in an expansion of our vocabulary as talent management researchers and identify four constructs that can help us structure and categorize our collective work: giftedness, talent, potential, and strength. Each of these constructs map logically onto different talent philosophies and talent management practices. In establishing “unity in diversity,” I believe talent management could finally make the transition into a more mature field of academic inquiry – although clearly phenomenon driven – characterized in equal parts by construct clarity, rigor, and relevance.

Most research issues in strategic management are essentially problem focused. To one extent or another, these problems often span levels of analysis, may align with different performance metrics, and likely hold different implications from various theoretical perspectives. Despite these variations, research has generally approached questions by taking a single perspective or by contrasting one perspective with a single alternative rather than exploring integrative implications. As such, very few efforts have sought to consider the performance implications of using combined, integrated, or multi-level perspectives. Given this reality, what actually constitutes “good” performance, how performance is effectively measured, and how performance measures align with different perspectives remain thorny problems in strategic management research. This paper discusses potential extensions by which strategic management research and theory might begin to address these conflicts. We first consider the multi-level nature of strategic management phenomena, focusing in particular on competitive advantage and value creation as core concepts. We next present three approaches in which strategic management theories tend to link levels of analysis (transaction, management, and atmosphere). We then examine the implications arising from these multi-level approaches and conclude with suggestions for future research.

This chapter reflects on the understanding of the phenomenon known as Smart Industry, Industry 4.0, fourth industrial revolution, and many other labels. It does so by reflecting on the issue of terminology, as well as the existing diversity regarding the description of the phenomenon. The issue of meaning is addressed by assessing the results from Culot, Nassimbeni, Orzes, and Sartor (2020) and Habraken and Bondarouk (2019) which are, subsequently, used to develop a workable description. Findings from the two assessed studies raise the question of whether a workable construction of the phenomenon is to be understood as the key technologies or the distinctive developments? A question without a definitive answer, but I will present my view by taking inspiration from the manner in which the prior industrial revolutions are commonly understood. This leads to a, still multifaceted though, more focused understanding of the phenomenon. The insights, formulated proposition and developed model stemming from the reflection of terminology and meaning of the phenomenon helps move the current technology-related phenomenon forward. They assist with the establishment of well-documented papers. A critical aspect if we aim to understand how management will look like in the era of this phenomenon.

This chapter discusses the benefits, limitations, and challenges in developing research projects that integrate a combination of archival, behavioral, and qualitative research methods. By demonstrating the inherent strengths and weaknesses of using a single method in isolation, this chapter aims to broaden our understanding of why and how research that examines various issues from the different perspectives is richer than employing any single method and enhances our understanding of a given accounting phenomenon. This chapter also discusses how investigating an issue through multiple research methods can help researchers improve the generalizability of findings and present a panoramic view of a particular phenomenon.

My purpose is to describe for strategic management scholars in Africa, particularly graduate students and new faculty members, dynamic analysis and its significance in the African context so as to assist in the study of dynamic phenomena.

I discuss various types and methods of dynamic analysis. Dynamic analysis has been used extensively in such fields as cognitive psychology, social psychology, and management in Western countries.

I illustrate the various dynamics by reviewing four illustrative studies. I also provide procedures for studying dynamics in the African context.

I discuss the strengths and limitations of dynamic analysis and suggest ways of maximizing its potential.

The technique is a source particularly for graduate students of strategy in Africa. They can use it to supplement other approaches in studying strategic management phenomena.

This chapter discusses a typology of dynamic analysis consistent with empirical or variable modeling approaches. The lack of such a typology in the context of Africa makes it a valuable contribution. Thus, it fills a contextual gap in the research methodology literature.

Common literature review methods such as systematic review and narrative review are poorly suited to the investigation of complex management phenomena. Systematic reviews are highly driven by protocol and procedure, and are oft-criticized as reductive and poorly equipped to examine the interaction between phenomena and context, nonlinear processes, and empirical outcomes that are less predictable. Narrative reviews, on the other hand, are pluralistic and iterative and thus better suited to descriptions of the complex and unpredictable; however, they tend to lack methodological transparency, trustworthiness, and pragmatism in application. The “realist synthesis” approach to literature review can be seen as the middle-ground between these two common methods, offering both methodological rigor alongside flexibility and nuance. Realist synthesis takes an explanatory frame, with a focus on unearthing the theorized causal mechanisms at play beneath a phenomenon of interest.

On many occasions, organizational science research has been referred to as fragmented and disjointed, resulting in a literature that is, in the opinion of many, difficult to navigate and comprehend. One potential explanation is that scholars have failed to comprehend that organizations are complex and intricate systems. In order to move us past this morass, we recommend that researchers extend beyond traditional rational, mechanistic, and variable-centered approaches to research and integrate a more advantageous pattern-oriented approach within their research program. Pattern-oriented methods approximate real-life phenomena by adopting a holistic, integrative approach to research wherein individual- and organizational-systems are viewed as non-decomposable organized wholes. We argue that the pattern-oriented approach has the potential to overcome a number of breakdowns faced by alternate approaches, while offering a novel and more representative lens from which to view organizational- and HRM-related issues. The proposed incorporation of the pattern-oriented approach is framed within a review and evaluation of current approaches to organizational research and is supplemented with a discussion of methodological and theoretical implications as well as potential applications of the pattern-oriented approach.