Search results

This paper argues for an increased volume of references to Gabriel Tarde and Georg Simmel in the field of organization sociology. The text emphasizes the importance of these two sociologists in understanding the role of imperfection in organizing and the phenomena of fashion and imitation in contemporary organizations. Tarde’s theory challenged the antinomy between continuity and discontinuity, considering finite entities as cases of infinite processes and stable situations as transitory. Simmel’s theory of fashion explores the democratic and democratizing nature of fashion, which satisfies the demand for social adaptation and differentiation. They both saw fashion as a selection mechanism for organizational forms and managerial practices. Furthermore, referring to Tarde and Simmel can help counter the overemphasis on identity construction and the neglect of alterity in social sciences. The construction of identity often overlooks the inevitability of difference and alterity, which are essential aspects of collective projects. Lastly, this paper discusses Simmel’s concept of the stranger and its relevance in analyzing the experiences of foreigners and their potential advantages as “double strangers” in academia and society. The conclusion is that Tarde and Simmel’s contributions offer valuable insights for understanding the dynamics of management, organizing, and social interactions in contemporary organizations.

Organizations are confronted with problems and political risks to which they have to respond, presenting a need to develop tools and frames of understanding requisite to do so. In this article, we argue for the necessity of cultivating “political judgment” with a “sense of reality,” especially in the upper echelons of organizations. This article has two objectives: First to highlight how a number of recent interlinked developments within organizational analysis and practice have contributed to weakening judgment and its accompanying “sense of reality.” Second, to (re)introduce some canonical works that, although less in vogue recently, provide both a source of wisdom and frames of understanding that are key to tackling today’s problems. We begin by mapping the context in which the need for the cultivation of political judgment within organizations has arisen: (i) increasing proliferation of political risks and “wicked problems” to which it is expected that organizations adapt and respond; (ii) a wider historical and contemporary context in which the exercise of judgment has been undermined – a result of a combination of economics-inspired styles of theorizing and an associated obsession with metrics. We also explore the nature of “political judgment” and its accompanying “sense of reality” through the work of authors such as Philip Selznick, Max Weber, Chester Barnard, and Isaiah Berlin. We suggest that these authors have a weighty “sense of reality”; are antithetical to “high,” “abstract,” or “axiomatic” theorizing; and have a profound sense of the burden from exercising political judgment in difficult organizational circumstances.

Organizational sociology and organization studies have a long history together, while also sharing a proclivity to self-diagnose crises. Instead of taking these assessments at face value, this paper treats them as an object of study, asking what conditions have fueled them. In the case of organizational sociology, there are indications of a connection between rising levels of discontent and community building: self-identified organizational sociologists have progressively withdrawn from general debates in the discipline and turned their attention to organization studies, which, they suspect, has seen dramatic levels of growth at their expense. Organization studies, on the other hand, are still haunted by “a Faustian bargain”: leaning heavily on the authority of the social sciences, business school faculty were able to facilitate the emergence of a scholarly field of practice dedicated to the study of organizations, which they control. However, in doing so, they also set organization studies on a path of continued dependence on knowledge produced elsewhere: notably, by university disciplines such as sociology.

Organizations remain a vital sociological topic, but organizational sociology, as a subfield, has evolved significantly since its inception. In this paper, I argue that organization sociology is becoming increasingly disconnected from organizational theory, as currently conceived. The focus of sociological research on organizations has become more empirically grounded in the study of social problems and how organizations contribute to them. Sociologists continue to see organizations as important actors in society that play a role in shaping social order and as contexts in which social processes play out. I propose two main sociological approaches for organizational research, which I describe as “organizations within society” and “society within organizations.” The first approach examines the role of organizations as building blocks of social structure and as social actors in their own right. The second approach treats organizations as platforms and locations of social interactions and the building of community. These approaches are somewhat disconnected from the sort of grand theorizing that characterizes much of organizational theory. I argue that the problem-oriented sociology of these two approaches offers a vital way for organizational scholars to expand and theoretically revitalize the field.

Entrepreneurial action under uncertainty has captured the interest of scholars and practitioners alike. However, this growing body of research has yet to connect entrepreneurial action with actual actions of entrepreneurs. We combine insights from effectuation theory and the psychology of entrepreneurship to investigate drivers of entrepreneurial actions involved in starting and running ventures, particularly optimism, self-efficacy and the use of causal and effectual logics.

The study employs a unique mixed-method approach combining a survey with experience sampling data. After measuring demographics, preference for effectual or causal logics and psychological variables, the 197 US entrepreneurs sampled entrepreneurs logged their daily actions in the form of asks during 60 consecutive days.

Results suggest that self-efficacy and causal logics are key drivers of entrepreneurial actions, while optimism serves as a deterrent. Interestingly, the impact of self-efficacy on actions is moderated by the entrepreneur’s experience level, measured both in years and past asking experience.

The potential of the ask as the basic mechanism for entrepreneurial actions is explored. Based on the findings, the authors offer new and fertile insights by linking psychological traits to entrepreneurial actions, causal and effectual logics and entrepreneurial expertise development.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to a better, empirically grounded and theoretically informed understanding of data analytics (DA) use and nonuse in accounting for decision-making. To that end, it explores the links between accounting logic, commercial logic and DA use in financial due diligence (FDD).

The paper reports the findings of a case study of DA use in the FDD practice of a Big Four accounting firm in Sweden (Pseudonym: DealCo). The primary data comprises semistructured interviews, observations and additional meetings. Institutional logics is mobilized as method theory.

First, accounting logic and commercial logic both drove and hindered DA use in DealCo’s FDD practice in different ways. Second, conflicting prescriptions for DA use existed mostly within commercial logic rather than between accounting logic and commercial logic. Third, accounting logic and commercial logic, as perceptual and conceptual filters, seemed to shape DealCo’s advisors’ understanding of DA and give rise to an efficiency-centric DA logic. This logic, in turn, as a high-level model of how to use DA in the context of FDD, governed DA use broadly.

The paper draws attention to direct and indirect links between accounting logic and commercial logic, on the one hand, and DA conceptions and use, on the other hand. It, thereby, advances prior theorization of DA use in accounting for decision-making.