Bad Management Theories Are Destroying Good Management Practices
01 Mar 2005-Academy of Management Learning and Education (Academy of Management)-Vol. 4, Iss: 1, pp 75-91
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that academic research related to the conduct of business and management has had some very significant and negative influences on the practice of management, and that these influences have had a negative impact on the management practice.
Abstract: This article argues that academic research related to the conduct of business and management has had some very significant and negative influences on the practice of management. These influences ha...
Citations
More filters
Book•
01 Apr 2010TL;DR: In this paper, the major uses and adaptations of stakeholder theory across a broad array of disciplines such as business ethics, corporate strategy, finance, accounting, management, and marketing are reviewed.
Abstract: For the last 30 years a growing number of scholars and practitioners have been experimenting with concepts and models that facilitate our understanding of the complexities of today’s business challenges. Among these, “stakeholder theory” or “stakeholder thinking” has emerged as a new narrative to understand and remedy three interconnected business problems—the problem of understanding how value is created and traded, the problem of connecting ethics and capitalism, and the problem of helping managers think about management such that the first two problems are addressed. In this article, we review the major uses and adaptations of stakeholder theory across a broad array of disciplines such as business ethics, corporate strategy, finance, accounting, management, and marketing. We also evaluate and suggest future directions in which research on stakeholder theory can continue to provide useful insights into the practice of sustainable and ethical value creation.
2,778 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a definition of dynamic capabilities, separating them from substantive capabilities as well as from their antecedents and consequences, is proposed, and a set of propositions that outline how substantive capabilities and dynamic capabilities are related to one another, how this relationship is moderated by organizational knowledge and skills, and how organizational age affects the speed of utilization of dynamic capability and the learning mode used in organizational change.
Abstract: The emergent literature on dynamic capabilities and their role in value creation is riddled with inconsistencies, overlapping definitions, and outright contradictions. Yet, the theoretical and practical importance of developing and applying dynamic capabilities to sustain a firm's competitive advantage in complex and volatile external environments has catapulted this issue to the forefront of the research agendas of many scholars. In this paper, we offer a definition of dynamic capabilities, separating them from substantive capabilities as well as from their antecedents and consequences. We also present a set of propositions that outline (1) how substantive capabilities and dynamic capabilities are related to one another, (2) how this relationship is moderated by organizational knowledge and skills, (3) how organizational age affects the speed of utilization of dynamic capabilities and the learning mode used in organizational change, and (4) how organizational knowledge and market dynamism affect the likely value of dynamic capabilities. Our discussion and model help to delineate key differences in the dynamic capabilities that new ventures and established companies have, revealing a key source of strategic heterogeneity between these firms.
2,546 citations
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 Article•
TL;DR: The Social Psychology of Groups as discussed by the authors is a seminal work in the field of family studies, where the authors introduced, defined, and illustrated basic concepts in an effort to explain the simplest of social phenomena, the two-person relationship.
Abstract: The Social Psychology of Groups. J. W Thibaut & H. H. Kelley. New York: alley, 1959. The team of Thibaut and Kelley goes back to 1946 when, after serving in different units of the armed services psychology program, the authors joined the Research Center for Group Dynamics, first at M.LT and then at the University of Michigan. Their continued association eventuated in appointments as fellows at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, 19561957. It is during these years that their collaboration resulted in the publication of The Social Psychology of Groups. The book was designed to "bring order and coherence to present-day research in interpersonal relations and group functioning." To accomplish this aim, the authors introduced, defined, and illustrated basic concepts in an effort to explain the simplest of social phenomena, the two-person relationship. These basic principles and concepts were then employed to illuminate larger problems and more complex social relationships and to examine the significance of such concepts as roles, norm, power, group cohesiveness, and status. The lasting legacy of this book is derived from the fact that the concepts and principles discussed therein serve as a foundation for one of the dominant conceptual frameworks in the field of family studies today-the social exchange framework. Specifically, much of our contemporary thinking about the process of interpersonal attraction and about how individuals evaluate their close relationships has been influenced by the theory and concepts introduced in The Social Psychology of Groups. Today, as a result of Thibaut and Kelley, we think of interpersonal attraction as resulting from the unique valence of driving and restraining forces, rewards and costs, subjectively thought to be available from a specific relationship and its competing alternatives. We understand, as well, that relationships are evaluated through complex and subjectively based comparative processes. As a result, when we think about assessing the degree to which individuals are satisfied with their relationships, we take into consideration the fact that individuals differ in terms of the importance they attribute to different aspects of a relationship (e.g., financial security, sexual fulfillment, companionship). We also take into consideration the fact that individuals differ in terms of the levels of rewards and costs that they believe are realistically obtainable and deserved from a relationship. In addition, as a result of Thibaut and Kelley's theoretical focus on the concept of dependence and the interrelationship between attraction and dependence, there has evolved within the field of family studies a deeper appreciation for the complexities and variability found within relationships. Individuals are dependent on their relationships, according to Thibaut and Kelley, when the outcomes derived from the existing relationship exceed those perceived to be available in competing alternatives. Individuals who are highly dependent on their relationships are less likely to act to end their relationships. This dependence and the stability it engenders may or may not be voluntary, depending on the degree to which individuals are attracted to and satisfied with their relationships. When individuals are both attracted to and dependent on their relationships, they can be thought of as voluntarily participating in their relationship. That is, they are likely to commit themselves to the partner and relationship and actively work for its continuance. Thibaut and Kelley termed those relationships characterized by low levels of satisfaction and high levels of dependence "nonvoluntary relationships. …
1,894 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, an overview of what the authors believe to be every empirical research article into the linkages between HRM and performance published in pre-eminent international refereed journals between 1994 and 2003 is presented.
Abstract: This is an overview of what the authors believe to be every empirical research article into the linkages between HRM and performance published in pre-eminent international refereed journals between 1994 and 2003. The analysis covers the design of the study, including the primary level of analysis and the identity of the respondents; the dominant theoretical framework(s) informing the article; how HRM is conceived and operationalised; how performance is conceived and operationalised; and which control and/or contingency variables are incorporated. Finally, the article examines how each study depicts the so-called 'black box' stage between HRM and performance. It reports wide disparities in the treatment of these components, but also some welcome commonalities and indicative trends that point towards a gradual convergence on how future research into this complex relationship might usefully be conducted. The findings are compared with previous reviews of the literature. The analysis should illuminate the ongoing debate about the linkages between HRM and performance, and prove valuable for future research designs.
1,475 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, 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.
32,981 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a model that incorporates this overall argument in the form of a series of hypothesized relationships between different dimensions of social capital and the main mechanisms and proces.
Abstract: Scholars of the theory of the firm have begun to emphasize the sources and conditions of what has been described as “the organizational advantage,” rather than focus on the causes and consequences of market failure. Typically, researchers see such organizational advantage as accruing from the particular capabilities organizations have for creating and sharing knowledge. In this article we seek to contribute to this body of work by developing the following arguments: (1) social capital facilitates the creation of new intellectual capital; (2) organizations, as institutional settings, are conducive to the development of high levels of social capital; and (3) it is because of their more dense social capital that firms, within certain limits, have an advantage over markets in creating and sharing intellectual capital. We present a model that incorporates this overall argument in the form of a series of hypothesized relationships between different dimensions of social capital and the main mechanisms and proces...
15,365 citations
"Bad Management Theories Are Destroy..." refers background in this paper
...…entirely inappropriate to dismiss my concerns as an irrelevant rant because I present no such alternative (although, together with colleagues, I have tried to present some modest proposals elsewhere—see, e.g., Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Moran & Ghoshal, 1999; and Ghoshal, Bartlett, & Moran, 1999)....
[...]
Book•
01 Jan 1983
13,643 citations
"Bad Management Theories Are Destroy..." refers background in this paper
...…firm (e.g., Cyert & March, 1963); in the focus on value appropriation rather than value creation in most theories of strategy (e.g., Porter, 1980); and in the assumptions about shirking, opportunism, and inertia in economic analysis of companies (e.g., Alchian & Demsetz, 1972; Williamson, 1975)....
[...]
...Oliver Williamson (1975), the most ardent champion of this theory, started from the Friedman position: Some people are opportunistic—not just self-interested, but worse....
[...]
...In courses on organization design, grounded in transaction cost economics, we have preached the need for tight monitoring and control of people to prevent “opportunistic behavior” (Williamson, 1975)....
[...]
..., Porter, 1980); and in the assumptions about shirking, opportunism, and inertia in economic analysis of companies (e.g., Alchian & Demsetz, 1972; Williamson, 1975)....
[...]
8,910 citations
"Bad Management Theories Are Destroy..." refers background in this paper
...…firm (e.g., Cyert & March, 1963); in the focus on value appropriation rather than value creation in most theories of strategy (e.g., Porter, 1980); and in the assumptions about shirking, opportunism, and inertia in economic analysis of companies (e.g., Alchian & Demsetz, 1972; Williamson, 1975)....
[...]
Book•
01 Jan 1989
6,659 citations
"Bad Management Theories Are Destroy..." refers background in this paper
...Scholarship of common sense is the epistemology of disciplined imagination, as advocated by Karl Weick (1989), and not the epistemology of formalized falsification that was the doctrine of Karl Popper (1968)....
[...]