Search results

The purpose of this study is to examine the historical continuity of James March’s contributions to management scholarship by tracing the co-citations that appear within the textual contexts of articles in premier management journals that cite both March and Simon’s 1958 book Organizations and other works co-authored by March.

This study uses within-citation context analysis to examine 522 passages from eight premier management journals that contain co-citations to Organizations and any another work co-authored by March. This entails coding the citing passages to identify the specific knowledge claims from March’s works and how citing authors used them, which establishes linkages between the content in different works of March’s works as used by citing authors.

This study finds that 31 other works by March are co-cited within the same citation contexts along with Organizations. The vast majority (71%) of these co-citations of March’s later works are to Cyert and March’s A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. The four other most highly co-cited works are Levitt and March (1988); March (1991); Cohen et al. (1972); and Levinthal and March (1993). Of the eight summary codes used in the analysis corresponding with the contents of Organizations, two summary codes – “Routines and Programs” and “Cognitive Limits” – accounted for the clear majority (60.1%) of all co-citation contexts in this study.

This study only examined the co-citations to Organizations in eight premier journals in organization studies, and a larger selection of journals might have altered the results to some degree. A truly comprehensive analysis might consider every citation context in the published literature where citing authors jointly mention any two or more of March’s works. Given the extraordinarily large number of citations to March’s works, this was impractical and unfeasible.

A time-bound and rigorous review of co-citations in common contexts allows both scholars and practitioners to recognize the genuine threads of theory presented by leading scholars and trace them through subsequent works to see how theories have evolved both in practice – reflected in empirical work – and in conception – reflected in theoretical development.

Prior research into citation methodology has shown the proliferation of references over time. It is not uncommon for contemporary works to list 100 or more references for a single paper. This research encourages and facilitates a greater discipline in understanding and using citations by tracing the roots of citations and the extent of their importance in citing works.

This paper presents an historical perspective of the influence of James March’s body of scholarship by tracking within context co-citations that link a seminal early work of March to his most cited works in premier journals. This study tracks specific knowledge claims that have persisted throughout March’s corpus of scholarship. This historical method is a systematic approach to tracing how subsequent scholarship ties together and uses multiple works to support specific knowledge claims, enabling an objective analysis of the commonalities among a scholar’s works over time. This is the first example of research using this bibliographic method to form an historical perspective of a seminal author or a classic work.

This paper aims to examine how the efficacy of organizational routines varies and the mechanism through which organizational routines improve firm performance.

A theoretical model is proposed and tested using data from 53 interviews with financial services experts and 291 survey responses from financial advisors.

Operational and adaptive routines work through absorptive capacity to positively contribute to firm performance. The positive effects of adaptive routines are magnified under market governance.

The examination of organizational routines is focused on routines at the firm level. Therefore, higher corporate-level routines were not measured. Response rate for the survey is a possible concern, so future research will benefit from increasing the response rate from the focal population.

This study benefits firms facing the dual role of customization and discipline in working with clients toward service delivery. The findings suggest that firms should develop both operational and adaptive routines, particularly when operating under market governance.

This study identified two categories of routines (operational and adaptive) and the circumstances in which the causal link between routines and performance varies. This study examined the potential moderating influence of a governance mode (market vs hierarchy). Absorptive capacity was identified as a mediator between the use of routines and firm performance.

This study explored the influence of Dervin’s sensemaking methodology (SMM).

Citation context analysis was used to identify the most influential SMM concepts in 948 articles citing 34 SMM-related studies by Dervin that were published between 1983 and 2017. Moreover, the bibliometric method and content analysis were incorporated to examine the disciplines and research topics influenced by the SMM-related studies and the role of cited content in SMM-related studies.

The influence of SMM is concentrated in information behavior research in the field of library and information science (LIS). The 1992 book chapter From the mind’s eye of the user was most frequently cited, followed by the first SMM study from 1983; 14 of the 18 content categories were relevant to SMM. “Sensemaking,” at the core of SMM, was the most influential cited concept, primarily cited from the 1983 SMM-related study. Although the SMM was developed as a research method, it has not been primarily applied to design research methods in other studies.

This study explored the interdisciplinary influence of Dervin’s SMM from several aspects and demonstrated the complex information dynamics between SMM-related works and citing articles.

This paper seeks to identify various factors affecting knowledge culture in some of the large organizations and suggest realistic strategies for developing knowledge culture.

In‐depth case studies were conducted at six large distributed organizations to investigate and assess knowledge management (KM) practices and associated organizational culture. The core data collection is based on semi‐structured interviews with senior managers who play a significant role in KM programs at their respective organizations. A range of internal documents of these organizations has also provided some important inputs for the empirical analysis.

The study identified ten major factors affecting knowledge culture in organizations. These include leadership, organizational structure, and evangelization, communities of practice, reward systems, time allocation, business processes, recruitment, infrastructure and physical attributes.

Perhaps, the major limitation of this research study is associated with the sample selection. All of the companies participated in this research project, were large‐scale distributed organizations. Therefore, the findings may not be applicable for small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs). Furthermore, the derived conclusions would be more assertive if they were tested as hypothetical propositions through a consecutive research survey.

This study provides illustrations and rationale for a diverse range of factors influencing the knowledge culture. Some of the findings deviated from established notions in contemporary KM literature, especially in the issues such as organizational structure, leadership and reward systems. The organizational dimensions explored in this study provide some original thoughts for building sustainable knowledge cultures.

The factors described in this paper are based on the existing KM practices at organizations with well‐established KM programs. These can serve as pragmatic guidelines for KM practitioners in developing knowledge culture.

Social marketing theories have habituated to a theoretical and methodological focus that is criticised for being myopic and stigmatising. Following recommendations to redirect focus theoretically, the purpose of this paper is to apply an observational methodology to understanding how project stakeholders interact to examine whether consideration of stakeholders can identify factors facilitating or impeding farming practice change.

More than 48 events involving as many as 150 people including project stakeholder meetings, one-on-one consultations and annual events were observed over more than 100 h by between one and five researchers. Field notes were gathered, and thematic coding focussed on understanding how stakeholders facilitated or impeded practice change.

Observations identified limited provision of information about the project by on ground project stakeholders to targeted individuals (farmers). On the rare occasions where information sharing was observed, communication was delayed making it difficult for individuals to connect actions with outcomes observed. Participating stakeholders did not freely support delivery of activities needed for individual practice change.

This study indicates the value of wider process and outcome assessment encompassing stakeholders to identify factors impeding and facilitating farming practice change.

Approaches that centre attention on individuals fail to acknowledge the inputs, activities and outputs delivered by project stakeholders within a system of change. By redirecting evaluation focus, shared responsibility is gained and stigmatisation of one stakeholder group can be avoided.

This study demonstrates how observations can be used to redirect focus to consider actions and interactions occurring between on ground project stakeholders. A stakeholder evaluation approach extends monitoring and evaluation focus beyond individuals targeted for behaviour change. Implications, limitations and future research directions are outlined.