Search results

Most micro‐oriented research has assumed that leaders operate within a formally designed, pre‐specified and stable structural hierarchy. In the emerging knowledge economy, however, the watchwords have become flexibility and speed. Today's business practices feature temporary task forces, project teams, joint ventures, and alliances. The authors aim to draw from the political science literature, presenting methodology for examining team leadership in context that augments and enhances the analyses that can be obtained with commonly used correlational/regression models.

More specifically, the authors will develop a detailed analysis of the potential applicability of the set‐theoretic approach for elucidating a configural analysis of team leadership, demonstrating that this method provides insight into the data that complements that provided by regression analysis.

The authors examine the findings from more traditional approaches to analysis, and set‐theoretic analysis, and demonstrate that set‐theoretic analysis provides additional insights into the phenomena in question.

The possibilities for future research in the organizational leadership literature using set‐theoretic analysis are endless. The method is appropriate for theory development, theory confirmation, exploration, and more. Our current theoretical models are lacking in complexity, partly due to the limitations of existing methodology, and our advice to organizations would be significantly enriched were we able to establish that there are alternate means to the desired outcome, based on the context. Set‐theoretic methodology promises to enrich and enhance our field, particularly if we use it iteratively with the currently common methodologies, to develop richer and more contextually based theories.

Set‐theoretic methods may well provide an additional set of tools for better understanding leadership in the context in which it occurs.

The notion of configuration – that the whole is best understood from a systemic perspective and should be viewed as a constellation of interconnected elements – is arguably one of the central ideas of organization studies. Yet, this idea also remains one of the field’s least understood aspects. In this volume and its introduction, we outline a new perspective for understanding configuration. Our starting point is the emergence of set theoretic configurational methods, and especially Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), which provides novel ways for analyzing configurations. Our volume goes beyond introducing a new method to the fields of management and organization, as these methods furthermore offer an opportunity to rethink our understanding of the field and to develop different ways of theorizing the rich complexity of relationships that characterize organizational life. In this introduction, we introduce some of the key themes that differentiate the approach taken here from previous work on organizational configurations and provide evidence for the emerging renaissance of the configurational approach in organizational theory and research.

The aim of this chapter is to introduce a methodology that enables researchers to employ a set of systematic comparative tools and techniques in their multiple case study research that allow them to move from drawing loose comparisons towards a more formalised type of analysis, while simultaneously paying attention to within-case complexities. This methodology stands between the qualitative and the quantitative methods and helps researchers to build middle-range theories (Mjoset, 2001) from small to intermediate numbers of cases. This methodology encompasses a number of techniques including crisp and fuzzy set-theoretic qualitative comparative analyses, which have been used in a wide range of social science disciplines. However, these techniques have not received sufficient attention from higher education scholars.

The contrast of multilevel and comparative research may seem counterintuitive at first. After all, one might argue that comparative research on organizations by necessity spans several levels of analysis (Rokkan, 1966). Yet, multilevel and comparative research on organizations present rather distinct traditions in organization studies, each with its own epistemological assumptions and associated methods. Accordingly, an approach that aims to incorporate both multilevel and comparative ideas needs to start with taking inventory of these prior literatures to situate itself. In the following, we thus turn to the literatures on multilevel and comparative research as different traditions with surprisingly little overlap.

The growing literature on complementarities has drawn attention to how the effects of different organizational structures, practices, and institutions are interdependent. Rather than one best way of organizing, complementarities suggest that the effectiveness of one organizational element may be dependent on the presence or absence of another particular element. Consequently, organizational arrangements often display “multiple equilibria” or what is known as equifinality, whereby multiple pathways may lead to the same or similar outcomes. While being a source of theoretical innovation, the configurational nature of complementarities has posed a number of challenges. This chapter reviews the emerging literature on complementarities to identify a series of conceptual challenges related to understanding complementarities as organizational configurations, and examines the methodological challenges in studying how such elements combine to produce joint effects on performance. The chapter argues that new set-theoretic methods using Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) may present a very useful methodological alternative to studying complementarities. The chapter illustrates this potential by re-analyzing past work by Aoki, Jackson, and Miyajima (2007) on relationships between ownership structure, board structure, and employment practices of listed firms in Japan to show evidence of complementarities associated with hybrid configurations that combine market and relational forms of organization.

Although QCA was originally developed specifically for small-N settings, recent studies have shown its potential for large-N organization studies. In this chapter, we provide guidance to prospective researchers with the goal of opening up QCA’s potential for widespread use in organization studies involving large-N settings, both as an alternative and as a complement to conventional regression analyses. We compare small-N and large-N QCA with respect to theoretical assumptions and objectives, processes and decisions involved in building the causal model, selecting the sample, as well as analyzing the data and interpreting the results. Finally, we discuss the prospects for large-N configurational analysis in organization studies and related fields going forward.

This chapter explores how a configurational approach and set-theoretic methods can contribute to a deeper and more nuanced understanding of organizational networks and network relations. This is especially true for the study of “whole networks” of organizations where data collection difficulties often limit the sample size (Provan, Fish, & Sydow, 2007). We present two empirical examples of current research on whole networks, demonstrating how qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) can be used to analyze organizational networks. We then discuss the methodological and theoretical implications of the configurational approach for future organizational network research.

Research in entrepreneurship is increasingly exploring how archetypes, taxonomies, typologies, and configurations can help scholars understand complex entrepreneurial phenomena. We illustrate the potential for set-theoretic methods to inform this literature by offering best practices regarding how qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) can be used to explore research questions of interest to entrepreneurship scholars. Specifically, we introduce QCA, document how this approach has been used in management research, and provide step-by-step guidance to empower scholars to use this family of methods. We put a particular emphasis on the analytical procedures and offer solutions to dealing with potential pitfalls when using QCA-based methods and highlight opportunities for future entrepreneurship research.

The aim of this chapter is to review and illustrate a step-by-step guideline in conducting fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) in tourism and hospitality studies. As an emerging method, fsQCA is simultaneously quantitative and qualitative in nature which makes it an appropriate method for social science disciplines including tourism and hospitality area because of complex nature of relationships between multiple variables where theories and models are underdeveloped. Unlike conventional statistical techniques, fsQCA is an asymmetrical analysis technique that provides a holistic view and interrelationships among several conditions using Boolean algebra. The fsQCA analyses produce comprehensive assessment by revealing causal combinations of antecedents to predict an outcome; and identify sufficient configurations (i.e., causal combinations and recipes) and necessary condition/s. By utilizing this method, researchers would be able to produce complex, comprehensive, and robust results.

The study here responds to the view that the crucial problem in strategic management (research) is firm heterogeneity – why firms adopt different strategies and structures, why heterogeneity persists, and why competitors perform differently. The present study applies complexity theory tenets and a “neo-configurational perspective” of Misangyi et al. (2016) in proposing complex antecedent conditions affecting complex outcome conditions. Rather than examining variable directional relationships using null hypotheses statistical tests, the study examines case-based conditions using somewhat precise outcome tests (SPOT). The complex outcome conditions include firms with high financial performances in declining markets and firms with low financial performances in growing markets – the study focuses on seemingly paradoxical outcomes. The study here examines firm strategies and outcomes for separate samples of cross-sectional data of manufacturing firms with headquarters in one of two nations: Finland (n = 820) and Hungary (n = 300). The study includes examining the predictive validities of the models. The study contributes conceptual advances of complex firm orientation configurations and complex firm performance capabilities configurations as mediating conditions between firmographics, firm resources, and the two final complex outcome conditions (high performance in declining markets and low performance in growing markets). The study contributes by showing how fuzzy-logic computing with words (Zadeh, 1966) advances strategic management research toward achieving requisite variety to overcome the theory-analytic mismatch pervasive currently in the discipline (Fiss, 2007, 2011) – thus, this study is a useful step toward solving the crucial problem of how to explain firm heterogeneity.