Search results

Early paradox research in organization theory contained a remarkable breadth of inspirations from outside disciplines. We wanted to know more about where early scholarship found inspiration to create what has since become paradox theory. To shed light on this, we engaged seminal paradox scholars in conversations: asking about their past experiences drawing from outside disciplines and their views on the future of paradox theory. These conversations surfaced several themes of past and future inspirations: (1) understanding complex phenomena; (2) drawing from related disciplines; (3) combining interdisciplinary insights; and (4) bridging discourses in organization theory. We end the piece with suggestions for future paradox research inspired by these conversations.

Addresses the relationship between organizational culture, identity and image. Argues that contemporary organizations need to define their corporate identity as a bridge between the external position of the organization in its marketplace and other relevant environments, and internal meanings formed within the organizational culture. Offers an analytical framework using the concepts of organizational culture, identity and image and suggests implications, including the need for symbolic management in and of the organization and the need to combine knowledge from the disciplines of marketing and organization studies.

Stanford contributed significantly to the organizational culture movement that occurred in organization studies from 1970–2000. This chapter traces developments at Stanford and puts the contributions of its researchers and scholars in the context of the many influences that shaped the study of organizational culture during this period. In addition to the historical account, there is speculation about why the culture movement at Stanford more or less ended but might yet be revived, either by those studying institutionalization processes or by those who resist them.

This paper describes corporate branding as an organisational tool whose successful application depends on attending to the strategic, organisational and communicational context in which it is used. A model to help managers analyse context in terms of the alignment between strategic vision, organisational culture and corporate image is presented. The model is based on a gap analysis, which enables managers to assess the coherence of their corporate brand. Use of the model is illustrated by examining the stages of development that British Airways passed through in the creation of its corporate brand. The paper concludes that corporate brand management is a dynamic process that involves keeping up with continuous adjustments of vision, culture and image. The model suggests an approach to corporate branding that is organisationally integrated and cross‐functional, hence the thesis that it is important to bring the (whole) corporation into corporate branding.

Corporate branding has broadened its reach to include delivering the brand's promise to the full range of organizational stakeholders both inside and outside the firm. In turn, new approaches to corporate social responsibility (CSR), involving employee, community, and stakeholder engagement, dovetail neatly with this idea of enterprise branding. This chapter will look, first, at the connections between corporate branding and CSR, and then at how design thinking and processes can be applied to join the two. Next it examines, from our firsthand experience, how several global companies linked the two to (1) rebrand their relationship to society or (2) repurpose their CSR efforts. All the firms have taken what seem to be serious brand-driven moves to create sustainable value for their businesses and society. The chapter concludes with a look at how corporate branding and CSR can be applied to organization design, product innovation, and the transformation of an organization.

This article aims to explore the potential of Dewey's theory of aesthetic expression to expand knowledge about aesthetics in branding and better understand how brands work. The paper aims to mine the pragmatic theory of aesthetic expression as involving artistry, intention and imagination to reveal the role beauty plays alongside usefulness in defining and refining brand image and meaning.

Dewey's dialectical method of holistically combining tensions such as beauty and usefulness is applied to brand theory and used to critique current brand management practices.

The application of the theory of aesthetic expression emphasizes: understanding humans holistically in order to explain how beauty and expression create value and enrich lives; redefining brand ownership and use to accommodate the aesthetic ways people handle expression/expressiveness; and managing brands with appreciation of how beauty empowers them to attract users.

Seven dialectical tensions featured in Dewey's theory are identified and developed into holistic propositions for the future study of brands and branding: beauty/usefulness, act/object, inner/outer material, private/public, expression/statement, appreciation/control, symbolic/instrumental.

The primary practical implication derived from application of the theory of aesthetic expression to brands and branding is that the most beautiful brands emerge from acts of co‐creation that respect the artistry, intention and imagination of the brand's stakeholders.

The article offers increased depth to the study of the expressive/emotional/aesthetic aspects of branding and offers an enriched aesthetic foundation for studying and practicing brand co‐creation.

This paper presents three dialogic concepts developed by Russian literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin: answerability, polyphony and heteroglossia. These concepts are interpreted in relation to organizing and management and applied to data from a case study of a large American computer manufacturer. The study permits us to use Bakhtin's ideas to formulate the links between organizational change and language. We will show, using a Bakhtinian analysis of our case, how dialogue reconstructed a group of managers' understandings of their organizational reality and their identity as an organization. The analysis presents a view of organizational change as communicative, symbolic, dynamic and layered.

In 1981, W. Richard (Dick) Scott of Stanford's sociology department described a paradigmatic revolution in organizational sociology that had occurred in the preceding decade. In Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems (Scott, 1981), he depicted the first wave of organizational theory as based in rational models of human action that focused on the internal dynamics of the organization. He described the second wave, found in human relations theory and early institutional theory, as based in natural social system models of human action but still focused on the internal “closed system.” A sea change occurred in organizational theory in the 1970s as several camps began to explore environmental causes of organizational behavior. The open-systems approaches that Scott sketched in 1981 were still seedlings, but all would mature. What they shared was an emphasis on relations between the organization and the world outside of it. The roots of these new paradigms can be traced to innovations of the 1960s. Contingency theorists Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch (1967) had argued that firms add new practices and programs largely in response to external social demands and not simply to internal functional needs. James Thompson (1967) argued that organizations come to reflect the wider environment and particularly the regulatory environment.

The aim of this paper is to focus on methodological development of research into the influence of culture: the use of cross‐cultural, multidisciplinary and multi‐method techniques.

The paper begins with a review of the interdisciplinary debate in business research, general management, IB and cross‐cultural management. It then explores the identities of paradigmatic combatants and possible “strategic peace initiatives”. It finally outlines some tactical and strategic complexities of such a “peace campaign” and identifies examples where multiple‐lens research offers good potentials for “post‐war” new theory development.

Ambitious calls for the advancement of interdisciplinary research in business research have appeared regularly and often feel like déjà vu. Cultural research appears to have been locked into paradigmatic “cold” warfare between methodologically distinct research “tribes”.

The authors' view is that culture can be likened to a holograph. It is not a real entity but a projection, which looks very different from different positions. The concern is that views of culture have been rather “monocled” and limited in relevance.