scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Ryan Raffaelli

Other affiliations: Boston College
Bio: Ryan Raffaelli is an academic researcher from Harvard University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Organizational identity & Organizational architecture. The author has an hindex of 9, co-authored 27 publications receiving 396 citations. Previous affiliations of Ryan Raffaelli include Boston College.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that inertial forces generally constrict how TMTs perceive innovations, but that frame flexibility can overcome these constraints, increasing the likelihood of adoption and broadening the organization's innovation practices.
Abstract: Research Summary Why do incumbent firms frequently reject nonincremental innovations? Beyond technical, structural, or economic factors, we propose an additional factor: the degree of the top management team's (TMT) frame flexibility, i.e., their capability to cognitively expand an innovation's categorical boundaries and to cast the innovation as emotionally resonant with the organization's identity, competencies, and competitive boundaries. We argue that inertial forces generally constrict how TMTs perceive innovations, but that frame flexibility can overcome these constraints, increasing the likelihood of adoption and broadening the organization's innovation practices. We advance a theoretical model that relaxes the assumption that cognitive frames are static, showing how they become flexible via categorical positioning, and introduce a role for emotional frames that appeal to organizational members' sentiments and aspirations in innovation adoption. Managerial Summary Confronting a technological change is one of the most difficult challenges facing any incumbent firm. Technological transitions create pressure for leaders to reframe their mental models while continuing to develop existing capabilities and product category variants. Yet at key junctures in a product class and during technological change, a concrete definition of the firm's innovation boundaries and identity hold a firm hostage to its past. We show how a flexible cognitive frame—coupled with emotional framing—helps leaders and organization members become emotionally engaged in transformation efforts and, in turn, learn about executing nonincremental innovation over time. At technological transitions, perhaps there is no more important role for leaders than to expand their cognitive frames and to infuse these expanded frames with emotion.

117 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper examined the field of leadership over the last 50 years focusing on: scholarly consensus on theory and methods; models and variables; and examinations of the state of the field, finding a general lack of commensuration or standards by which theories can be compared or synthesized; an emphasis on leaders’ effects on performance rather than meaning making or value infusion; and sparse instances of taking stock of the overall field.
Abstract: A long‐standing debate in organization studies has centered on the tension between paradigmatic consensus and theoretical pluralism in an academic field, but little attention has been paid to the underlying processes of field development that account for this. Using a mechanisms‐based approach, we examined the field of leadership over the last 50 years (1957–2007) focusing on: scholarly consensus on theory and methods; models and variables; and examinations of the state of the field. In spite of considerable advances in research, we find a general lack of commensuration or standards by which theories can be compared or synthesized; an emphasis on leaders’ effects on performance rather than meaning‐making or value infusion; and sparse instances of taking stock of the overall field. We conclude by proposing three research strategies for the future—theoretical compartmentalization, theoretical integration, and theoretical novelty—and advocating greater methodological variety.

85 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine how organizational adoption of new practices is influenced by relational pluralism, i.e., an organization's multiple ties to actors inside and outside its industry.
Abstract: We examine how the organizational adoption of new practices is influenced by relational pluralism, i.e., an organization's multiple ties to actors inside and outside its industry. We theorize that ...

80 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors used a study of the Swiss mechanical watch industry to build theory about how a legacy technology, instead of being supplanted by a new dominant design as current theory would predict, could be replaced by a newer design.
Abstract: This article uses a study of the Swiss mechanical watch industry to build theory about how a legacy technology, instead of being supplanted by a new dominant design as current theory would predict,...

66 citations

01 May 2015
TL;DR: Theoretically, institutional innovation is defined as novel, useful and legitimate change that disrupts, to varying degrees, the cognitive, normative, or regulative mainstays of an organizational field as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: This chapter advances the theoretical construct of institutional innovation, which we define as novel, useful and legitimate change that disrupts, to varying degrees, the cognitive, normative, or regulative mainstays of an organizational field. Institutional innovation, like all innovation, is both novel and useful, but differs in that it is also legitimate, credible and appropriate. Legitimacy is hinged to four characteristics such that institutional innovation is theorized to be: 1) normative or value-laden; 2) progressing in bursts of change over time; 3) socially constructed and culturally embedded; and 4) associated with logics that shape practices. We develop a framework, outlining the definition, composition, and processual nature of institutional innovation, as well as its generative potency. Finally, implications for theory, practice, and future research are offered.

32 citations


Cited by
More filters
01 Jan 2008
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them, and describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative.
Abstract: What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

2,134 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The field of collective action has been studied extensively in the last few decades as discussed by the authors, with a focus on the construction of collective actions and the process of collective identity, as well as their meaning and meaning.
Abstract: Introduction Part I. Theory of Collective Action: 1. The construction of collective action 2. Conflict and change 3. Action and meaning 4. The process of collective identity Part II. Contemporary Collective Action: 5. conflicts of culture 6. Invention of the present 7. The time of difference 8. Roots for today and for tomorrow 9. A search for ethics 10. Information, power, domination Part III. The Field of Collective Action: 11. A society without a centre 12. The political system 13. The state and the distribution of social resources 14. Modernization, crisis, and conflict: the case of Italy Part IV. Acting Collectively: 15. Mobilization and political participation 16. The organization of movements 17. Leadership in social movements 18. Collective action and discourse 19. Forms of action 20. Research on collective action.

1,731 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present the results of a content analysis of 91 publications that focus on authentic leadership, examining the publication type (theoretical, empirical, and practitioner), contributors (e.g., discipline, nationality, and institutional affiliation), theoretical foundations, research strategies, sample location/type, data collection methods, analytical procedures, and nomological network of authentic leadership.
Abstract: The past decade has seen a dramatic increase in scholarly interest in the topic of authentic leadership. We review this literature with the goal of clarifying the state of knowledge in the field. We begin with a historical overview of the construct's definition and evolution. Next, we present the results of a content analysis of 91 publications that focus on authentic leadership. Specifically, we examined the publication type (theoretical, empirical, and practitioner), contributors (e.g., discipline, nationality, and institutional affiliation), theoretical foundations, research strategies, sample location/type, data collection methods, analytical procedures, and nomological network of authentic leadership. We conclude by presenting an agenda for future research.

903 citations

01 Jan 1998
TL;DR: Tushman and O'Reilly as discussed by the authors define ambidextrous organizations as those having internally consistent structures and an internal operating culture that provides for excelling today, while also planning for the future.
Abstract: Winning Through Innovation: A Practical Guide to Leading Organizational Change and Renewal Tushman, Michael L. and O'Reilly, Charles A., 256 pp., Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1997. Reviewed by Subodh P. Kulkarni, Assistant Professor in School of Business at Howard University, Washington, D.C. Professors Tushman and O'Reilly are well known for their research on innovation and organizational culture. In this book, the authors address a fundamental and interesting issue underlying organizational change and innovation: that of how firms can achieve a balance between stability and change. Businesses are not likely to prosper or survive in the long run without this balance. One of the book's key premises is that short-term success may constrain a firm's ability to change. Short term successes often occur in larger, older, more structured organizations, the source of structural and cultural inertia, which yields success in stable environments and failure when environments change. Therefore, a company's culture holds the key to success (or failure) in the long run. To create and sustain a competitive edge in the long run, companies must learn how to manage incremental and revolutionary change. The key, according to the authors, is to develop an "ambidextrous organization." Tushman and O'Reilly define ambidextrous organizations as those having internally consistent structures and an internal operating culture that provides for excelling today, while also planning for the future. The ambidextrous organizations are, thus, engaged in a balancing act between the management of incremental and revolutionary technologies. Further, these organizations have very different cultures within a company (or even a business unit, for that matter). Vision is vital to ambidextrous organizations, often displaying one vision that hosts multiple cultures in the unit. Of course, a firm can have multiple cultures under one roof by spinning off different business units and managing them independently. This is unacceptable to the authors. It is important to manage them as a whole, or as a system. The thing that holds the system components together is the overarching vision for the technology firm. That is why the book emphasizes strategic intent or competitive vision; because without a common, overarching purpose and set of values, the ambidextrous company just does not hold together. So it is not only different cultures, but different structures, systems, rewards, and competencies that need to be managed together. Drawing on their extensive research, consulting practice, as well as the experiences of managers from several "ambidextrous companies," the authors develop a model that can be used by executives to understand the dynamics of change necessary for long-term success. Toward this end, the book provides several tools for identifying and diagnosing the causes of performance gaps and for developing action plans to attain, and maintain, industry leadership. The book is divided into nine chapters. Chapter 1 is introductory, and it outlines the concepts underlying the authors' model. Chapter 2 highlights the significance of the concepts introduced earlier in the context of global change and innovation. Chapters 3 through 6 focus on the building of capabilities, competencies, and cultures that can generate a sustainable competitive advantage. Chapter 4 develops a model that highlights the congruence among an organization's strategies and four distinct factors: critical tasks, culture, structure, and people. A lack of congruence often results in performance gaps. Chapter 5 outlines how organizational culture-the selecting, socializing, and rewarding of workers consistent with the company's goals-promotes this congruence. It also illustrates how to assesses an organization's culture. Chapters 7 and 8 stand out in particular because in these chapters the authors introduce techniques for building an ambidextrous organization. …

886 citations