Search results

This paper aims to show how organisation theory can be used to understand the controversy between the shareholder and the stakeholder perspectives. Rationalistic and open system theories may enhance research on corporate governance by offering well-defined concepts and by specifying core relationships.

This paper applies descriptions of the two perspectives in organisation theory as a “method” for illustrating how they are linked to and support the shareholder versus the stakeholder perspectives.

The controversy stems from the fact that the shareholder and the stakeholder perspectives address different relationships. The shareholder perspective captures two relationships that accord with rationalistic organisation theory: shareholders are managing the managers and the organisation, and managers are managing the corporation on behalf of the owners. The stakeholder perspective focuses on three relationships that are not concordant with system theory: managers are managing the shareholders (i.e. the symbolic management of stockholders), managers are managing the corporation (i.e. general management theory) and managers are managing the stakeholders.

Organisation theory provides suggestions for more fruitful definitions of the often-used concepts of direction, control, administration and influence. These terms may be substituted with the well-defined concepts of management, power and control.

Proponents of organisation theory find it theoretically difficult to deal with the topic of corporate governance, if they do at all. When they do, they do it only perfunctorily.

Organisation theory may strengthen research on corporate governance if we insist on both theoretical clarifications of major relationships and on the use of more strictly defined concepts.

As a discipline, health organisation and management is focused on health-specific, collective behaviours and activities, whose empirical and theoretical scholarship remains under-utilised in the field of implementation science. This under-engagement between fields potentially constrains the understanding of mechanisms influencing the implementation of evidence-based innovations in health care. The aim of this viewpoint article is to examine how a selection of theories, models and frameworks (theoretical approaches) have been applied to better understand phenomena at the micro, meso and macro systems levels for the implementation of health care innovations. The purpose of which is to illustrate the potential applicability and complementarity of embedding health organisation and management scholarship within the study of implementation science.

The authors begin by introducing the two fields, before exploring how exemplary theories, models and frameworks have been applied to study the implementation of innovations in the health organisation and management literature. In this viewpoint article, the authors briefly reviewed a targeted collection of articles published in the Journal of Health Organization and Management (as a proxy for the broader literature) and identified the theories, models and frameworks they applied in implementation studies. The authors then present a more detailed exploration of three interdisciplinary theories and how they were applied across three different levels of health systems: normalization process theory (NPT) at the micro individual and interpersonal level; institutional logics at the meso organisational level; and complexity theory at the macro policy level. These examples are used to illustrate practical considerations when implementing change in health care organisations that can and have been used across various levels of the health system beyond these presented examples.

Within the Journal of Health Organization and Management, the authors identified 31 implementation articles, utilising 34 theories, models or frameworks published in the last five years. As an example of how theories, models and frameworks can be applied at the micro individual and interpersonal levels, behavioural theories originating from psychology and sociology (e.g. NPT) were used to guide the selection of appropriate implementation strategies or explain implementation outcomes based on identified barriers and enablers to implementing innovations of interest. Projects aiming to implement change at the meso organisational level can learn from the application of theories such as institutional logics, which help elucidate how relationships at the macro and micro-level have a powerful influence on successful or unsuccessful organisational action. At the macro policy level, complexity theory represented a promising direction for implementation science by considering health care organisations as complex adaptive systems.

This paper illustrates the utility of a range of theories, models and frameworks for implementation science, from a health organisation and management standpoint. The authors’ viewpoint article suggests that increased crossovers could contribute to strengthening both disciplines and our understanding of how to support the implementation of evidence-based innovations in health care.

The Covid-19 pandemic exposed the fragility of global supply chains. Attempts to deepen our understanding of the effects of the pandemic on global supply chains mostly offer anecdotal evidences and lack theory grounded research. The purpose of this paper is to develop a conceptual framework to help explain supply chain disruption management.

This is a conceptual paper and uses a theory building approach. It develops a conceptual framework adapted from coping theory in psychology to explain supply chain disruption management. To refine the framework, the authors independently reviewed extant supply chain disruption management literature. The authors then studied the frameworks on stress theory in psychology. Following the review of both streams of literatures, the authors developed an initial draft of the conceptual model. This draft was then iteratively refined through extensive discussions among the authors.

Coping theory can help revise supply chain disruption management with an alternative lens that has not been applied before in this domain. The proposed conceptual framework is generic and can be applied to disruption management strategies for any organization in any industry.

The conceptual framework proposed in this paper offers a new theoretical lens to supply chain disruption management discourse. It contributes to the operational understanding of supply chain disruption management.

This article is devoted to conditions and examples of how theories may be applied as methods in the fields of management research and organization studies.

An introduction to minimum requirements for a successful refunctionalization of theory as method as well as to nine contributions to a special issue of the Journal of Organizational Change Management on “Theory as method” is provided.

The review of these nine cases suggests that the use of theories as methods is not necessarily harmful for the former, and particularly not for the more robust among them.

This article sheds new light on the value of theoretical monism or loyalty and calls for a reassessment of the relative value of expertise in a specific research field, method and or theory.

This conceptual paper seeks to bridge two existing theories in a bid to broaden our analytical scope when studying the process of onboarding, retention and exclusion of organizational members. The purpose of this paper is to address this issue.

The authors draw on the social systems theory to advance the fit theory demonstrating the pertinence of macro social factors for the determination of person–organization (P–O) fit.

The result of this conceptual groundwork is a framework for the creation of highly individual personal profiles that refrains from analyses of potentially discriminatory factors like age, race or gender.

The authors present an individualized, multidimensional and flexible framework for the analysis of dynamically changing constellations of P–O fit.

There is an ongoing debate over the transference of managerial and organizational skills, techniques, values and culture from developed countries to developing countries. We argue there is a false underlying assumption among academics in developed countries that the theoretical template of managerial and organizational attributes in developing countries is similar to what one finds in developed countries. Two key analytical insights are offered. First, we explicitly differentiate organizational, environmental and cultural characteristics of developed and developing countries. Second, we apply Scott’s (1992) natural/ecological level of analysis to create a framework to better carry out organizational analysis in developing countries.

This paper responds to ongoing calls to develop alternative management theory to guide management practice. In particular, the purpose of the paper is to demonstrate the merit of developing sustainable management theory and organizational practices that parallel conventional management theory and practices. Sustainable theory is based on a variation of virtue theory that seeks to achieve multiple forms of well-being for multiple stakeholders in the immediate as well as distant future. To illustrate the approach, the authors develop a sustainable variation of goal setting theory.

The paper includes three parts. First, the authors establish the need for developing sustainable management theory (based on virtue theory) that parallels conventional management theory. Second, the authors identify and briefly review the main tenets of goal setting theory and then describe a Sustainable variation of this theory. Finally, the authors discuss the implications of the paper for management and organization theory and practice.

The conceptual arguments for a sustainable version of goal setting theory based in virtue are supported by research and practitioner examples.

Although there is growing concern regarding the shortcomings of management theory and practice based on a materialist-individualist moral-point-of-view, few alternatives have been discussed in detail. This paper presents an alternative based in virtue theory and illustrates how it relates to goal setting theory and practice.

The paper discusses possible implications of Heinz von Foerster's notion of second‐order cybernetics for management thinking. The purpose of this paper is to outline challenges of as well as prospective further developments for management theory that emanate from second‐order cybernetics.

As a conceptual paper, the paper tries to develop its findings through theoretically applying von Foerster's insights to management thinking's conventional assumptions. When looking for applications of von Foerster's approach within the social sciences, at least in german‐speaking countries one sooner or later comes across Niklas Luhmann's system sociology. Hence, Luhmann's version of the theory of the observer is introduced and its take on organization and management is briefly outlined. Drawing upon von Foerster's and Luhmann's reflections, possible implications for management thinking are presented – ideas that might be disagreeable for “classical” management science but might set out a path for further developments of management thinking.

What difference might second‐order cybernetics (and autopoietic systems sociology) make for management thinking? As a conclusion, deliberately poignant statements are formulated, calling for a higher degree of self‐reflection, for critical readings of conventional texts, for more complex descriptions of organizations and for a more modest, low‐key take on management theory's endeavours.

Whereas first‐order cybernetics has been fairly well‐received in management theory, second‐order cybernetics, which poses troubling questions to conventional epistemologies, remained relatively unpopular. Acts of “observing observers” reclaim these questions, possibly leading to valuable insights for researchers and reflected practitioners alike.

The purpose of this paper is to characterize sustainable development and sustainability as study objects for comparative management theory.

The primary objective of this paper is to characterize sustainable development and sustainability as study objects for comparative management theory.

Analytical dimensions were related to establishing three proposals, which represent possible theoretical routes for characterizing sustainable development and sustainability as study objects for comparative management theory. A framework which illustrates the theoretical route taken to develop these proposals is presented at the end of the theoretical-analytical discussions.

This paper considers that discussion about sustainable development, sustainability and comparative management theory, as interesting themes for organizational studies, lack epistemological clarity and theoretical depth. Such shortcomings are identified based upon the difficulty in identifying ontological postures, epistemological perspectives, dominant paradigms and conceptual approaches that enable greater coherence to analysis of these themes, and also support the undertaking of research that can contribute to enriching proposals related to comparative management theory.

This is an innovative paper as it relates comparative management theory approaches with structural concepts from sustainable development and sustainability developed using contributions from organizational theories, sociological reflections, and political science. The proposed characterization is intended to blaze new and alternative epistemological paths for adding greater rigor to empirical research focussed on the relationship investigated here in a theoretical context.

The purpose of this paper is to answer the question of where the course of the collective efforts in historical research on business and organizations has taken this discipline. By raising two key contributions that have sought to reshape the contours of management and organizational history, the authors trace the work of their field since their inception and, in doing so, critique the utility of these typologies as representative of diverse historical knowledge in management and organization studies (MOS).

Drawing on elements of an integrative review that seeks to critically appraise the foundation of knowledge built in a scholarly field, the authors interrogate the historical knowledge that has been (and is being) produced in three leading management and organizational history journals by synthesizing the posture history takes as an object and subject of study in MOS. Over 400 articles were closely examined and categorized using Rowlinson et al.’s (2014) research strategies in organizational history and Maclean et al.’s (2016) four conceptions of history. Then, this research was used to examine the integrity of these two typologies and their practice by management historians.

The bulk of the work our field has produced mirrors an analytically structured history feel – where “doing history” straddles careful divide between data analysis and narrative construction. Narrating as a conception of history used in organization studies research remains the most subscribed representation of the past. It was found that while some work may fit within these typologies, others especially those considered peripheral of mainstream history are difficult to confine to any one strategy or conception. The authors’ examination also found some potential for a creative synthesis between the two typologies.

Because only three management history journals are used in this analysis, bracketed by the choice of the periodization (between 2016 and 2019 inclusive), this study must not be viewed as being wholly representative of all historical research on business and organizations writ-large.

This research attempts to demonstrate the recent direction management and organizational historians have taken in crafting history. The authors embrace the opportunity to allow for this paper to act as a tool to familiarize a much broader audience to understand what has been constituted as historical research in MOS to-date and is especially useful to those who are already contributing to the field (e.g. doctoral students and junior scholars who have demonstrable interest in taking up historically inspired dissertations, articles, chapters and conference activities).

The research conducted in this article contributes to the debates that have sought to define the scholastic character of management and organizational history. The authors build on recent calls to take part in creating dialogue between and among each other, building on the collective efforts that advance history in both theory and practice.