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 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 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.

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 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 authors illustrate accounting information's effects in terms of necessity and sufficiency, using a set-theoretic approach, and highlight how the approach complements conventional correlational analyses.

The authors examine the relationship between accounting numbers (accounting information) and stock prices (effect) under both correlational and set-theoretic perspectives using a value relevance methodology.

The claim that accounting information is significantly correlated to an outcome does not inform the accounting information's necessity or sufficiency. In addition, findings suggest that not all control variables that are significantly correlated to a supposed accounting effect are necessary to explain that effect. Moreover, variables reflecting accounting information are not individually sufficient to explain the effect under investigation.

The study contributes to set-theoretic approach to accounting research and echoes the call for a diversity of research approaches in accounting.

The study may have practical implications for various accounting information users, including investors, financial analysts and financial market and accounting disclosure regulators as well. Indeed, accounting information users should consider the importance of the combined effect of multiple pieces of accounting information in the users' positions on firms' stocks. Understanding what might be the relevant combinations of accounting information associated with a given organizational context is a key in making compelling accounting-informed decisions. Such knowledge can inform reflections of accounting disclosures and regulations on the combined effects of several accounting information.

First, the study adds to the newly introduced set-theoretic approach to empirical accounting. The study also resonates with the call for a diversity of research approaches in accounting. The authors empirically demonstrate that significant correlation between accounting information and its effects does not connote “necessity” or “sufficiency,” which is rather revealed by qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). Such complementarity can help accounting researchers to carry out (1) new investigations of accounting's earlier hypotheses or propositions and (2) investigations of new accounting hypotheses/propositions deriving from existing accounting theories and (3) to explore new relationships between accounting phenomena. Second, the study incidentally contributes to value relevance literature in terms of contextualization of the relevance of accounting information. Specific to the African capital markets, the study complements the few recent studies on the Bourse Régionale des Valeurs Mobilières d’Abidjan (BRVM).

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.

Most previous studies have indicated promotional attributes separately (e.g. time pressure, giveaways, price discounts, exclusivity) and found controversial effects. This paper aims to explore how different attributes can be aligned with each other and integrated with different levels of brand strength to influence sales or purchase intention according to the fit logic.

Both field data and controlled experiments are used to understand the effectiveness of promotion configurations. This paper first conducts an exploratory study using qualitative comparative analysis, based on 625 online promotion campaigns. This paper identifies several effective configurations of promotion attributes, leading to the development of two hypotheses. Three experiments are then designed to test the validity of these two hypotheses.

The results show that strong brands should adopt nonmonetary promotion, whereas weak brands should adopt monetary promotion; exclusivity and time limitation should be used separately.

This paper provides empirical insights on how promotion elicits sales in terms of the configuration of promotional attributes and brand strength. This paper examines the integrative effect of types of giveaways, promotion duration and promotion target as well as brand strength on promotion effectiveness. Future research can explore other promotional attributes. This study is a first attempt to introduce and apply the set-theoretic approach to address strategic research issues and inform strategic decisions and managerial actions.

The findings can facilitate marketers’ understanding and predictions of deal recipients’ responses to promotions.

This paper adopts a holistic view to investigate how different promotion attributes interact with one another to stimulate sales. It explores the integrative effect from field data and finds converging evidence through a set-theoretic approach and controlled experiments.

This chapter explores the integrative effects of individual psychology and social context in explaining why managers would behave in socially responsible ways. To identify how factors at different levels of analysis combine to shape attitudes toward social responsibility, I apply fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to survey and archival data from 335 managers of overseas subsidiaries of three Dutch corporations. Attention to the simultaneous effects of individual psychological factors, the organizational context, and the broader social context offers a configurational perspective on the micro and macrofoundations of social responsibility.