Search results

In this study, the concept of organizational stupidity (OS) and different aspects of the OS is analyzed, and a conceptual model for the OS is proposed.

The data for the OS study were collected by interviewing the employees of the Iran Revenue Agency (IRA), Isfahan Province Branch. The snowball method was used for sampling and data collection. The data collected from interviews are analyzed using MAXQDA (a software for qualitative data analysis).

After analyzing the data, a conceptual model for the OS is proposed using the grounded theory (GT). The proposed model contains all factors influencing the OS and the relationship among them. The accuracy of the proposed OS model is confirmed using structural validity, external validity, descriptive validity and interpretive validity. The reliability of the proposed OS model is approved using the Holstie, Miles and Huberman reliability equation. The proposed model shows the casual conditions, interfering factors, contextual factors and main phenomena leading to OS and predicts the strategies and consequences of the OS.

This model can be used to plan strategies for managing and reducing OS in organizations.

This editorial aims to introduce the theme of the special issue: “Lean vs agile from an organizational sustainability, complexity and learning perspective”.

The methodology of the editorial is that of a survey. In the first part it presents the relevance of the theme and in the second part it presents the papers included in the special issue, including their themes, findings and novel contributions.

The individual findings by the papers present significant new contributions in a deeper insight of the “lean” and “agile” philosophies, or approaches in, and to, organizations. It could be noticed that the controversies of the issue “lean vs. agile” still remain. However, it could be said that an eventual further investigation in the phenomenology of “lean” and “agile” will be more informed after consideration of the results presented in this special issue.

Further investigation should be undertaken on a more abstract “level” of the theories of “lean” and “agile” and their mutual relationship, such as theories about the internal processes of “lean”/“agile” users, general “lean”/“agile” theories, epistemology of “lean”/“agile”, and ontology of “lean”/“agile”, and relationship with learning organization and chaordic organization.

Readers, both theoreticians and practitioners, will find in this editorial a “guide” to the issues of their interest concerning the valuable explanations, ideas and tools, presented in the special issue, for both concrete applications in enterprises and organizations, and for further research and development of learning, complex and sustainable organizations, and towards new ideas and insights generation.

This editorial presents an analysis of the special issue on “lean vs agile”, contributing to the higher levels of the theories of “lean” and “agile” and their mutual relationship, namely to the theories about the internal processes of “lean”/“agile” users, general “lean”/“agile” theories, and epistemology of “lean”/“agile”.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a paradigmatic model for shared value innovation management in the supply chain. This research seeks to identify the causal conditions, strategies, contextual factors, intervening factors and the consequences of shared value innovation in the supply chain.

The approach of this research is qualitative and has been carried out in the framework of the grounded theory. Required data for the research was collected through semi-structured interviews. Coding was done in two steps and the reliability of the results of the research was confirmed by calculating the similarity index of codes by two methods.

The proposed framework is presented in the form of a paradigmatic model and demonstrates how to achieve shared value innovation through increasing adoption with customer considerations, improving communication between supply chain members, improving collaboration among supply chain members, enhancing trust among supply chain members, enhancing the commitment of the supply chain members, enhancing supply chain members’ interdependence while maintaining their independence and simultaneously reducing costs. The results of the analysis showed that the shared value innovation leads to positive consequences such as increasing competitive abilities, human development, synergy, inclusive growth and development and also the sustainability of the business situation.

Although some studies have shown the importance of value innovation in different parts of the organization and to some extent the introduction of shared value innovation, no research has been done to provide a framework or model for managing shared value innovation.

This essay takes issue with the incommensurability thesis, which assumes that meaningful research work across different paradigms cannot occur. Could it be that the thesis understates the case for meaningful relationships to develop across paradigms? Is it possible that researchers can authentically and rewardingly collaborate across paradigms and create joint studies published in established journals?

Based on the observation that interparadigmatic research exists, the authors investigate two questions. How is interparadigmatic research expressed in the accounting research literature? How can we comprehend the process that underlies the development and publication of interparadigmatic research, focusing on cohabitation involving the positivist and interpretive paradigms of research?

To deal with the first question, the authors focus on two interparadigmatic articles: Greenwood et al. (2002) and Paugam et al. (2021). The authors find each article showcases a dominant paradigm – whereas the role of the other paradigm is represented as secondary; that is, complementing and enriching the dominant paradigm. To address the second question, the authors rely especially on their involvement as coauthors of three interparadigmatic studies, published between 2019 and 2022 in FT50 journals. The authors’ analysis brings to the fore a range of facilitators that fit their experiences, such as the development of cross-paradigmatic agreement within the authorship to cope with the complexity surrounding the object of study, the crafting of methodological compromises (e.g. regarding the number of documents to analyze) and the strategizing that the authorship enacted in dealing with journal gatekeepers.

From the authors’ experiences, they develop a model, which provides a tentative template to make sense of the process by which interparadigmatic research takes place. The model highlights the role of what the authors call “epistemic mediation” in producing interparadigmatic studies.

To understand the football industry in its entirety, a supply chain management (SCM) approach is necessary. This includes the study of suppliers, consumers and their collaborations. The purpose of this study was to present a business management model based on supply chain management.

Data were collected through in-depth interviews with 12 academic and executive football experts. After three steps of open, axial and selective coding based on grounded theory with a paradigmatic approach, the data were analysed, and a football supply chain management (FSCM) was developed. The proposed model includes three managerial components: upstream suppliers, the manufacturing firm, and downstream customers.

The football industry sector has three parts: upstream suppliers, manufacturing firm/football clubs and downstream customers. We proposed seven parts for the managerial processes of football supply chain management: event/match management, club management, resource and infrastructure management, customer relationship management, supplier relationship management, cash flow management and knowledge and information flow management. This model can be used for configuration, coordination and redesign of business operations as well as the development of models for evaluation of the football supply chain's performance.

The proposed model of a football supply chain management, with the existing literature and theoretical review, created a synergistic outcome. This synergy is presented in the linkage of the players in this chain and interactions between them. This view can improve the management of industry productivity and improve the products quality.

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.

After briefly discussing the two major approaches to the study of tourism (theoretical “why” and practical “how”), and two of their respective protagonists (Tribe and Aramberri), the focus of this chapter turns to the use of paradigms by the former group. First, the meaning of paradigm is explored and examples are provided of paradigms and paradigm shifts in tourism research. However, Aramberri challenges this theoretical position by asserting that such ideological frameworks are not paradigms at all, and are, at best, postmodern mantras. He further argues that such muddled thinking can be overcome once tourism becomes a scientific discipline, a stance firmly rejected by the theoreticians. Thereafter, the use of the word “paradigm” is examined in relation to conferences, research, and shifts, as well as such major tourism perspectives as authenticity, strangerhood, play, and conflict.

A model is developed which allows an organization to assess its environmental perception and how that perception may impact its response to stakeholders. The model differentiates an organization’s socioecological responsibility across four dimensions for placement on Colby’s five‐paradigm continuum, which ranges between the frontier economic paradigm and new ecological paradigm. This article provides a useful means of assessing the ecological paradigm utilized by firms and offers criteria that may assist the organization in developing a competitively valuable environmental stance.

I. Introduction to the Study of the Economic Role of Government: Alternative Approaches to Law and Economics