For all its richness and potential for discovery, qualitative research has been critiqued as too often lacking in scholarly rigor. The authors summarize a systematic approach to new concept development and grounded theory articulation that is designed to bring “qualitative rigor” to the conduct and presentation of inductive research.

Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology

In this innovative approach to the practice of social science, Charles Ragin explores the use of fuzzy sets to bridge the divide between quantitative and qualitative methods. Paradoxically, the fuzzy set is a powerful tool because it replaces an unwieldy, "fuzzy" instrument—the variable, which establishes only the positions of cases relative to each other, with a precise one—degree of membership in a well-defined set. Ragin argues that fuzzy sets allow a far richer dialogue between ideas and evidence in social research than previously possible. They let quantitative researchers abandon "homogenizing assumptions" about cases and causes, they extend diversity-oriented research strategies, and they provide a powerful connection between theory and data analysis. Most important, fuzzy sets can be carefully tailored to fit evolving theoretical concepts, sharpening quantitative tools with in-depth knowledge gained through qualitative, case-oriented inquiry. This book will revolutionize research methods not only in sociology, political science, and anthropology but in any field of inquiry dealing with complex patterns of causation.

Fuzzy-Set Social Science

According to Hitt (1998), “we are on the precipice of an epoch,” in the midst of a new economic age, in which twenty-first century organizations are facing a complex competitive landscape driven largely by globalization and the technological revolution. This new age is about an economy where knowledge is a core commodity and the rapid production of knowledge and innovation is critical to organizational survival (Bettis and Hitt, 1995; Boisot, 1998). Consistent with these changes, much discussion is taking place in the management literature regarding challenges facing organizations in a transitioning world (Barkema et al., 2002; Bettis and Hitt, 1995; Child and McGrath, 2001).

/pdf/complexity-leadership-theory-shifting-leadership-from-the-42jn77ok4q.pdf

Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era !

Scholarly research on the topic of leadership has witnessed a dramatic increase over the last decade, resulting in the development of diverse leadership theories. To take stock of established and developing theories since the beginning of the new millennium, we conducted an extensive qualitative review of leadership theory across 10 top-tier academic publishing outlets that included The Leadership Quarterly, Administrative Science Quarterly, American Psychologist, Journal of Management, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Organizational Science, and Personnel Psychology. We then combined two existing frameworks (Gardner, Lowe, Moss, Mahoney, & Cogliser, 2010; Lord & Dinh, 2012) to provide a process-oriented framework that emphasizes both forms of emergence and levels of analysis as a means to integrate diverse leadership theories. We then describe the implications of the findings for future leadership research and theory.

/pdf/leadership-theory-and-research-in-the-new-millennium-current-4m2gnl4txo.pdf

Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives

Hybrid organizations combine institutional logics in their efforts to generate innovative solutions to complex problems. They face unintended consequences of that institutional complexity, however, which may impede their efforts. Past scholars have emphasized conflicting external demands, and competing internal claims on organizational identity. Data from an in-depth field study of the public-private Cambridge Energy Alliance suggest another consequence: paradoxes of performing (Smith & Lewis, 2011) that generate ambiguity about whether certain organizational outcomes represent success or failure. This article develops a process model of navigating such paradoxes: in sensemaking about paradoxical outcomes, actors grapple with definition of success and can transform the organizational logic. The result can be oscillation among logics, or novel synthesis between them when outside perspectives enable a clearer view of the paradox. Hybrid organizations' capacity for innovation depends in part on the results of this change process.

/pdf/navigating-paradox-as-a-mechanism-of-change-and-innovation-20lze3hzdm.pdf

Navigating Paradox as a Mechanism of Change and Innovation in Hybrid Organizations

A decision to offer breakfast to homeless people led to radical change in a church and its environment. Existing theories of change do not fully explain observations from our qualitative study; however, complexity theory constructs suggest how and why such change emerged. We offer four key findings. First, the radical change was unintended, emergent, and slow. Second, destabilizing conditions helped small changes to emerge and become radical. Third, subsequent actions amplified an initial small change and, though not intended to do so, promoted radical change. Finally, the dynamic interaction of amplifying actions, contextual conditions, and small changes led to continuous radical change.

/pdf/radical-change-accidentally-the-emergence-and-amplification-2lottn8hch.pdf

Radical change accidentally: the emergence and amplification of small change

As complex systems, organizations exist far from equilibrium where the ongoing interaction of system components leads to emergent and self-organizing behavior. What, then, is the role of leadership in systems where change often emerges in unexpected ways? In this paper, we build on the work of Marion and Uhl-Bien who suggest that in complex systems leaders enable rather than control the future. While traditional views of leadership focus on the leader's responsibility for determining and directing the future through heavy reliance on control mechanisms, we offer empirical support for a different view of leadership based on a complexity perspective of organizations. Our findings show that as enablers, leaders disrupt existing patterns of behavior, encourage novelty, and make sense of emerging events for others. The results of our qualitative study include a set of research propositions as well as a discussion of the implications for managers and researchers.

/pdf/the-role-of-leadership-in-emergent-self-organization-5e6oyo94m2.pdf

The role of leadership in emergent, self-organization

Organizations face the reality of needing to work with other organizations to share resources and responsibilities in pursuit of common goals. However, there is limited research regarding the complex nature of meta-organizations. Our purpose is to identify how a meta-organization team operates. We define a meta-organization team and rely on complexity theory to explain the dynamics within the meta-organization team we observed. Based on our analysis, this team was exposed to competing tensions that forced the team into a far-from-equilibrium state and allowed the team to be effective. We propose two types of tensions on complex systems: destabilizing and stabilizing. These tensions keep a system between the boundaries of equilibrium and chaos. As a result of this study, we provide details of key findings and implications of these tensions.

Deandra Villarreal Travis

Papers

Radical change accidentally: the emergence and amplification of small change

The role of leadership in emergent, self-organization

A complexity perspective of a meta-organization team: The role of destabilizing and stabilizing tensions

Radical Change Accidentally