Capitalism, Cronyism, and Management Scholarship: A Call for Clarity

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Klein ◽  
R. Michael Holmes ◽  
Nicolai Foss ◽  
Siri Terjesen ◽  
Justin Pepe
Keyword(s):  
Management Scholarship

The How and the Why: An Argument for a Theory-Oriented Approach to LIS Administration and Management Scholarship and Practice

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah Hicks
Keyword(s):  
Educational Administration ◽  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
Conceptual Frameworks ◽  
Milieu Scolaire ◽  
Oriented Approach ◽  
Scholarly Attention ◽  
Management Scholarship ◽  
Management And Leadership

"Management" and "leadership" are currently two buzz words in the Canadian LIS community. Although these topics receive scholarly attention, epistemological and theoretical basis for that work is limited. LIS needs to expand the conceptual frameworks used to study these topics by looking to the discipline of Educational Administration and Leadership.La gestion et le leadership sont des mots à la mode au sein de la communauté canadienne des sciences de l'information. Malgré toute l'attention que leur accorde la recherche universitaire, les bases épistémologiques et théoriques pour en parler sont limitées. La communauté des sciences de l'information doit élargir le cadre conceptuel d'étude de ces sujets en se basant sur l'administration et le leadership en milieu scolaire.

Resources for What? Understanding Performance in the Resource-Based View and Strategic Human Capital Resource Literatures

2021 ◽  
pp. 014920632110031
Author(s):  
Robert E. Ployhart
Keyword(s):  
Human Capital ◽  
Competitive Advantage ◽  
Research Needs ◽  
Resource Based View ◽  
Strategic Human Capital ◽  
Specific Performance ◽  
Collective Performance ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Performance Behavior ◽  
Management Scholarship

Barney’s presentation of the resource-based view (RBV) profoundly shaped the trajectory of management scholarship. This article considers the RBV’s impact specifically on the field of strategic human capital resources. Although Barney is still highly relevant, I suggest that research has not sufficiently appreciated the role that individual and collective performance behavior and outcomes play in linking human capital resources to competitive advantage. An alternative, what might be called RBV2.0, posits that research needs to recognize that human capital resources are distinct from performance behavior and outcomes. Such an observation raises the question, “Resources for what?” Answering this question leads to several important insights. First, a given type of human capital resource is only important to the extent it is related to performance behavior and outcomes that contribute to competitive advantage. Second, performance behavior is largely strategy-specific and thus firm-specific. Third, firm specificity is not a characteristic of human capital resources but rather a function of the proximity of the resource to firm-specific performance behavior and outcomes. Consequently, “Performance” is the answer to the question, “Resources for what?” This emphasis on understanding human capital resource-performance relationships adds considerable precision into the RBV, helps resolve puzzles in the strategic human capital literature relating to firm specificity and performance mobility, and promotes a deeper understanding hiding latent within Barney’s original view.

Does History Matter in Business?

2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 816-830 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Tiffany
Keyword(s):  
Management Training ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Business ◽  
Hard Drives ◽  
Current State ◽  
Current Events ◽  
History Matter ◽  
State Of Affairs ◽  
Current Reality ◽  
Management Scholarship

In 2008 Professor Eric Godelier published a provocative essay in which he concluded that a positive dialogue between business historians and both management scientists and business management practitioners was possible. While the divide between these camps was not trivial, he nevertheless wrote that current events and scholarship was bringing them together, at least as he could observe these trends in the context of emerging French scholarship. In this current review, my own conclusion is the opposite. Management scholarship, in fact, continues to move away from the “soft” approach of the historian and more towards the “rigorous” and quantitatively biased methodology of the management sciences. My essay reviews the background of this development in terms of American business practice and scholarship, as it seeks to demonstrate how the evolution of management training in the United States brought us to the current state of affairs where “hard” drives out soft in almost every encounter. However, while I conclude that this is indeed the current reality, I do not imply any endorsement of this outcome. Rather, I end with a hope that some forms of rapprochement might be possible-yet with an acknowledgement that we will have no definitive answers to this question anytime soon.

scholarly journals Group Analytic Methods Beyond the Clinical Setting—Working with Researcher–Managers

2017 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Mowles
Keyword(s):  
Group Analysis ◽  
Change Processes ◽  
Analytic Thinking ◽  
Organizational Research ◽  
Organizational Contexts ◽  
Professional Management ◽  
History Of ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Management Scholarship

Group analytic scholars have a long history of thinking about organizations and taking up group analytic concepts in organizational contexts. Many still aspire to being more of a resource to organizations given widespread organizational change processes which provoke great upheaval and feelings of anxiety. This article takes as a case study the experience of running a professional management research doctorate originally set up with group analytic input to consider some of the adaptations to thinking and methods which are required outside the clinical context. The article explores what group analysis can bring to management, but also what critical management scholarship can bring to group analysis. It considers some of the organizational difficulties which the students on the doctoral programme have written about, and discusses the differences and limitations of taking up group analytic thinking and practice in an organizational research setting.

Where design competitions matter: Architectural artefacts and discursive events

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Gottschling
Keyword(s):  
Design Competition ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Management Scholarship

Recent ethnographies among professional architects have given us a novel version of the argument against architectural autonomy: architects work in a condition of entanglement not only with clients and markets, but also with the very objects through which architectural conception takes place. There is a tension between this view and one that surfaces within management scholarship on design competitions. In these studies, the design competition is a moment of architectural work in which architectural autonomy is uniquely pronounced, where the artistic statements of architects achieve a special efficacy. The author investigates the possibility that the design competition enacts a different sort of architectural entanglement than what we see in recent anthropologies. He considers two situations of architects working on design competitions, one in an architectural school in the UK and one at the Office for Metropolitan Architecture. He concludes that, in design competitions, discourse itself becomes subject to adjustment and iteration.

scholarly journals Making a difference: Thoughts on management scholarship from the editorial team

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 245-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Minas Kastanakis ◽  
Sarah Robinson ◽  
Yannis Tsalavoutas ◽  
Mario Fernando ◽  
Claudia Jonczyk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Editorial Team ◽  
Making A Difference ◽  
Management Scholarship
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document