Search results

This chapter presents an affirmative and emancipatory postmodernism characterized by epistemological and methodological pluralism. Many narratives are to be preferred to just one, many styles of research are available and useful, and local, limited and fragmented research initiatives have contributions to make to our common enterprise. The chapter outlines postmodern ideas such as fluidity, deconstruction and pluralism; debunks misconceptions concerning postmodernism’s relationship to science, modernity and theorizing; and offers a four-step guide to those interested in postmodernizing a research area. The chapter ends with a call for transparency in theory and method, pursuit of nonobvious research ideas and pragmatic engagement with the world of practice.

Purpose – In this chapter we highlight the potential of critical and poststructural paradigms and associated qualitative research approaches for future research in strategy. In addition, we aim to contribute to the proliferation of applications of qualitative methodologies as well as to facilitate the diversity of qualitative inquiry approaches in the strategy field.

Methodology/Approach – Building on insights from standpoint theory, we discuss the importance and necessity of cultivating critical and poststructural paradigms in strategy. Furthermore, we review three related qualitative inquiry approaches (i.e., discourse analysis, deconstruction, and genealogy) and develop suggestions for their utilization in future strategy research on emerging market economies.

Findings – We highlight key concepts of critical and poststructural paradigms as well as of the selected approaches and provide a variety of examples relevant to strategy research to illustrate potential applications and analytic considerations.

Originality/Value of chapter – Critical and poststructural paradigms and related research methodologies are underutilized in strategy research; however, they are important contributions to paradigmatic and methodological diversity in the field generally and necessary approaches for developing our understanding of strategy phenomena in the context of emerging market economies specifically.

The need to make a “theoretical contribution” is a presumed mandate that permeates any researcher’s career in the Social Sciences, yet all too often this remains a source of confusion and frustration. The purpose of this paper is to reflect on, and further develops, the principal themes discussed in the “OM Theory” workshop in Dublin in 2011 and the special sessions at the 2011 and the 2013 EurOMA Conferences in Cambridge and Dublin.

This paper presents six short essays that explore the role and use of theory in management research, and specifically ask what is a good or meaningful contribution to theory. The authors comment on the current state of theory in Operations Management (OM) (Harry Boer), the type of theories the authors have in OM (Chris Voss), the role of theory in increasing the general understanding of OM problems (Roger Schmenner), whether the authors can borrow theories from other fields or actually have theory “of our own” (Matthias Holweg), the different ways in which a contribution to theory can be made (Martin Kilduff), and how to construct a theoretical argument (Mark Pagell).

The authors argue that theory is fundamental to OM research, but that it is not the inevitable starting point; discovery and observation are equally important and often neglected avenues to contributing to theory. Also, there is no one right way to making a contribution, yet consistency between ontology, epistemology, and claimed contribution is what matters. The authors further argue that the choice of theory is critical, as a common mistake is trying to contribute to high-level theories borrowed from other fields. Finally, the authors recommend using theory parsimoniously, yet with confidence.

The paper presents a collection of viewpoints of senior scholars on the need for, and use of, theory in OM research.

Bipartite networks (e.g., software developers linked to open-source projects) are common in settings studied by organization scholars. But the structure underlying bipartite networks tends to be overlooked. Commonly, two modes are reduced to one mode for analysis, causing loss of information. We review techniques for projecting 2-modes onto 1-mode and discuss 2-mode measures of clustering. We also address the potential for 2-mode theory development concerning (a) how change in one mode influences change in the other, (b) the question of two types of agency, and (c) how diversity in one mode is a substitute for diversity in the other mode.

Social networks are not just patterns of interaction and sentiment in the real world; they are also cognitive (re)constructions of social relations, some real, some imagined. Focusing on networks as mental entities, our essay describes a new method that relies on stylized network images to gather quantitative data on how people “see” specific aspects of their social worlds. We discuss the logic of our approach, present several examples of “visual network scales,” discuss some preliminary findings, and identify some of the problems and prospects in this nascent line of work on the phenomenology of social networks.

The purpose of this paper is to look at how the nature and contribution of leadership is evolving in step with developments in the environment and our organizations.

The authors argue that a collective or network leadership strategy is most suitable for the information age. This is based upon research and executive education and consultancy engagements with a range of organizations around the world and draws upon published research by the authors. They share further a case study of a public sector organization in the UK working to implement a network leadership strategy to transform a complex, bureaucratic structure into a lean, agile and knowledge rich one.

Organizations need to let go of previously held notions of leadership in order to embrace a new leadership concept and strategy more suited to today's environment. Future organizations will necessarily rely upon knowledge‐intensive networks of highly connected and autonomous talent, empowered to rapidly converge on singular intersections of common interest without guidance from above. Such co‐ordination will not be achieved through centralized command and control, but through network leadership – in effect, self‐direction in the interests of a common purpose and guided by shared values.

Enabling coalitions, coexistence and collaboration within and across networks will be the characteristic qualities of the new leadership.

This article is of value to organizations seeking to transform their capabilities and structures to embrace the contribution of the many and not simply the few. It addresses issues resonant with all organizations, irrespective of sector or geography, and argues that leadership in the information age requires us to challenge many closely held truths such as the inimitability of natural leadership qualities and traditional methods of work organization in favour of network‐based approaches.

Postmodernism has had a widespread influence on intellectuals throughout the world. It all started, as the chapter on Ghate will show, with the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, who was the first philosopher to sever reason (consciousness) from reality. We have been paying the price ever since. Postmodernism has now spread from philosophy into many other fields, including literature, history, sociology, psychology and business.