Institutional Theory Needs to Rethink its Neglect of Morality

[We’re pleased to welcome authors Geoff Moore of Durham University, UK and Gina Grandy of the University of Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. They recently published an article in the Journal of Management Inquiry entitled “Bringing Morality Back in: Institutional Theory and MacIntyre.” From Moore and Grandy:]

We have had an interest for many years in the work of the moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre and the ways in which, despite his highly critical approach to capitalism and corporate management, his work can be used to explain and explore what a virtue-based understanding of organizations means in both theory and practice. In particular, his distinctions between practices and institutions, and between two types of goods (internal and external) which are pursued by organizationJMI_72ppiRGB_powerpoint.jpgs has led to a series of papers exploring the implications of this approach. In this endeavour, we have been encouraged by a steady stream of articles, both theoretical and practical, which have explored this understanding of practices and organizations in such diverse settings as circuses, jazz, investment advising, banking, health and beauty retailing, and pharmaceuticals.

At the same time, we have noted the potential links with Institutional Theory and in particular its notions of logics and legitimacy and wanted to explore these links in greater depth. We were also concerned that new Institutional Theory lacks a positive account or morality and felt that this could be addressed by integrating it with MacIntyre’s work.

An empirical project involving an ecumenical study of churches in the north east of England led to some findings which we felt could be best explained by just such an integration of Institutional Theory and MacIntyre’s work. In particular, consistent throughout the empirical evidence was practitioners’ concern with the telos (overall purpose) of their organizations and the core practices of their faith, and their concern for the legitimacy of their organizations both to internal and external audiences, and hence of the moral nature of organizational life.

We argue that these findings can be generalized to any practice-based organization and conclude that ignoring or underplaying the moral dimension will give, at best, a diminished account of organizational life. Hence, we argue that Institutional Theory needs to rethink its neglect of morality and we suggest several implications for Institutional Theory as a result. We hope this might lead to further studies which follow up our lead and so to the bringing of morality back in to Institutional Theory. We also hope that a wider recognition of the moral dimension as an essential component in organizational life will impact practitioners and lead to organizations fulfilling their potential for the common good.

Don’t forget to sign up for email alerts through JMI’s homepage.

Using Theory Elaboration to Make Theoretical Advancements

[We’re pleased to welcome author Herman Aguinis of George Washington University. He recently published an article in Organizational Research Methods entitled, “Using Theory Elaboration to Make Theoretical Advancements,”co-authored by Greg Fisher of Indiana University. From Aguinis:]

“Our field is rapidly being pulled apart by centrifugal forces. Like a supernova that once packed a wallop, our energy is now dissipating and we are quickly growing cold”
Donald Hambrick (2004, p. 91)

“Like symphony orchestras that play a repertoire of a dozen baroque and classical composers year in and year out, management research can sometimes appear like a living museum of the 1970s.”
Jerry Davis (2010, p. 691)

As highlighted by the above two quotes, theory development in the management field is fragmented and lacks novelty. What then can we do about this?

We propose that one way to address the opposing forces of fragmentation and lack of novelty is to adopt an approach to theory development that has loosely been referred to as theory ORM_72ppiRGB_powerpoint.jpgelaboration. Lee, Mitchell and Sablynski (1999) suggested that “Theory elaboration occurs when preexisting conceptual ideas or a preliminary model drives [a] study’s design” (p. 164) and they contrasted it with theory generation that “occurs when the inquiry’s design produces formal and testable research propositions” and theory testing that “occurs when formal hypotheses or a formal theory determines the study’s design” (Lee et al., 1999, p. 164). We provide a more comprehensive definition of theory elaboration as the process of conceptualizing and executing empirical research using pre-existing conceptual ideas or a preliminary model as a basis for developing new theoretical insights by contrasting, specifying, or structuring theoretical constructs and relations to account for and explain empirical observations.

To better understand theory elaboration we identified published articles that have implicitly or explicitly adopted such an approach, and although the overall number of articles is small we recognized that many such articles are among the most highly cited and impactful in the management field. We therefore set about to codify such an approach. To do so we used a reverse-engineering process to extract fundamental features of impactful theory elaboration studies.

Our goal is adopting such a reverse engineering process was to explain how to conduct a theory elaboration study, to offer illustrations of how to use particular tactics to achieve specific theory advancement goals, and to point out particular contexts and circumstances where theory elaboration is most fruitful. As such our paper serves as a catalyst for “cloning” the important theoretical advancements that have been achieved by the handful of studies that have adopted a theory elaboration perspective.

From this reverse engineering process we describe seven specific tactics for conducting a theory elaboration study:

  • Horizontal contrasting – contrasting observations across different contexts
  • Vertical contrasting – contrasting observations across different levels of analysis
  • New construct specification – identifying and defining new constructs
  • Construct splitting – identifying a need or oppo
    rtunity to break a broad construct into specific constructs
  • Structuring specific relations – defining/redefining a specific relation between two constructs
  • Structuring sequence relations – providing an explanation of a sequence of events or relations
  • Structuring recursive relations – Accounting for a recursive relation between two or more entities over repeated interactions

We link each of these tactics with different types of theory advancements and we provide a sequential decision-making process for deciding whether to adopt a theory elaboration approach. Finally, we identify research domains and specific topics in OBHR, strategic management, and entrepreneurship for which theory elaboration is likely to be highly effective as a means to make theoretical advancements. We believe that theory elaboration holds a great promise as a perspective to empower scholars to overcome some of the current challenges associated with theory advancement in the management field.

Don’t forget to sign up for email alerts through the ORM homepage!

How to Promote More Inclusive and Equitable Ways of Managing

mlq.gif

[We’re pleased to welcome Stephen Allen of the University of Hull, UK. Stephen recently published an article in Management Learning entitled “Learning from Friends: Developing appreciations for unknowing in reflexive practice.”  From Stephen:]

  • What inspired you to be interested in this topic?

The concept of ‘reflexivity’ (involving appreciating and exploring how our knowing about being in a world is situated historically, socially, culturally and materially) has been a key interest in my research over the past six years or so.  This article was developed around my interest in understanding more about what being reflexive can mean for our day-to-day practice.  From attending a Quaker meeting over the past four or so years I began to wonder how Quaker processes could be seen to offer images of what it means to practice reflexivity in how we conduct ourselves.  The potential to consider how the Quaker ‘Business Method’ can help us to embrace our inevitably limited view of the world, our unknowing, is fascinating.

  • Were there findings that were surprising to you?

This is a conceptual paper so there are not really ‘findings’ as such.  However, through writing the paper I became increasingly surprised and impressed by the intellectual quality of Quaker ideas and processes for helping us to explore how we can better come together in the pursuit of equitable and democratic ways of working and living.  Understanding how we can interac
t with others in light of an awareness of our inevitably limited view of the world I see as a crucial challenge in how we go about organising ourselves.  The article hopefully offers some insight in this area.

  • How do you see this study influencing future research and/or practice?

As mentioned the article is all about exploring reflexivity in practice.  It offers images of possible ways that we can hopefully make wise decisions together.  There are a lot of opportunities for future research in relation to Quaker processes – I mention some in the article – and so my hope is that these 350 year old ways of organising which have seen limited academic attention become more interesting to researchers.

 

Don’t forget to sign up for email alerts so you can stay up to date with the latest research.

 

How Does Organization Culture Act As A Driver Of Competitive Advantage?

[We’re pleased to welcome back Pankaj M. Madhani of ICFAI Business School (IBS). Pankaj cbrpublished an article in Compensation & Benefits Review entitled “Sales Organization Culture, Compensation Strategy and Firm Valuation.” Notes from Madhani:]

The culture of sales organization is comprised of fundamental principles and beliefs that are shared by its members and hence determines the norms that dictate how sales employees should think and behave. In addition to this, compensation systems promote behaviour of sales employees that ultimately becomes dominant behaviour in the sales organization. Thus, many sales organizations today are focusing on their culture as a strategic tool, deciding what it should be, aligning with strategic goals, business strategy and sales compensation design. Sales organization culture is defined both in terms of its causes and effects such as process-oriented culture and outcome-oriented culture, respectively.

A process-oriented culture focuses on behavior controls and emphasizes sales behaviors, whereas an outcome-oriented culture focuses on outcome controls and emphasizes sales outcomes. This research provides various frameworks and models for establishing relationship between organization culture and compensation structure and deriving its impact on sales performance. Study also provides numerous illustrations to calculate optimal compensation structure and corresponding organization culture to achieve maximum valuation of sales organization. An effective sales performance supported by an appropriate compensation strategy and culture of sales organization plays a significant role in determining financial performance, enhancing valuation of the sales organizations and increasing competitive advantage in the market place.

 

Don’t forget to sign up for email alerts for new articles from Compensation and Benefits Review here. 

New Podcast: Kincy Madison on Agency and Stewardship Theory

Podcast MicrophoneIn the latest podcast from Family Business Review, assistant editor Karen Vinton speaks with Kincy Madison of Mississippi State University about the article “Viewing Family Firm Behavior and Governance Through the Lens of Agency and Stewardship Theories,” co-authored with Daniel Holt, Franz Kellermanns, and Annette Ranft.

You can find the podcast on the Family Business Review website here, or click here to download the podcast. You can also read the full article here.

The abstract:

Agency and stewardship theories are prominent perspectives to examine myriad FBR_C1_revised authors color.inddissues within family firms. Although considered opposing theories, both address the same phenomena: the individual-level behaviors and firm-level governance mechanisms that predict organizational outcomes. Accordingly, we review and synthesize these theories concurrently, using the concepts of behavior and governance as our organizing framework. Our review encompasses 107 family firm articles grounded in agency and/or stewardship theory, published between 2000 and 2014 in 24 journals across several disciplines. Additionally, we identify future research areas that provide scholars opportunities to push theoretical boundaries and offer further insights into the family firm.

Want to hear more? Click here to browse more podcasts from Family Business Review and here to subscribe to the SAGE Management and Business podcast channel on iTunes. You can also sign up for e-alerts and get notifications of all the latest research from Family Business Review sent directly to your inbox!


 

 Kincy  Madison, Ph.D.Kristen (“Kincy”) Madison is an Assistant Professor of Management in the College of Business at Mississippi State University. She received her PhD in Organizations and Strategy from the University of Tennessee. She has a BS in Management and a MS in Human Resources, both from Auburn University. Kincy’s research interest is family business, with a focus on topics that intersect strategic management and human resources, such as governance, leadership, and competitive advantage.

https://managementink.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/karen_vinton1.jpg?w=450

Karen L. Vinton, Ph.D., is assistant editor of FBR and a 1999 Barbara Hollander Award winner and Professor Emeritus of Business at the College of Business at Montana State University, where she founded the University’s Family Business Program. An FFI Fellow, she has served on its Board of Directors and chaired the Body of Knowledge committee.

The January 2016 Issue of Journal of Management Inquiry is Now Online!

JMI_72ppiRGB_powerpoint

The January 2016 issue of Journal of Management Inquiry is now available and free to read for the next 30 days. This issue offers a range of interesting topics, including articles that delve into corruption, the future of organizational learning research, and writing practices of academics.

Also included in the January issue is an article by Royston Greenwood, entitled “OMT, Then and Now,” which delves into the evolution of organization and management theory (OMT) practices from the 1970s to current practices. The article highlights the positive growth OMT has seen over the past 40 years, as well as the increasingly formulaic presentation of OMT research. The abstract:

This paper provides an overview comparison of how organization and management theory was practised 40 years ago with how it is done today. We are a much larger and more international community and our work has advanced in many excellent ways. However, an important difference is the nature of expectations placed upon scholars – which has led to narrow lines of research and overly formulaic ways of presenting results.

Click here to access the Table of Contents of the January 2016 issue of Journal of Management Inquiry. Want to know about all the latest from Journal of Management Inquiry? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!

An Interview With Gareth Morgan on Metaphors in Organization Theory

Well-known for his work in organization theory, Gareth Morgan explored the use of metaphors to help examine organization problems in his 1986 book “Images of Organization.” Cliff Oswick of City University London and Davis Grant of UNSW Business School in Australia recently interviewed Dr. Morgan about his perspective on metaphors in Journal of Management Inquiry.

The abstract:

In this article, we review the metaphors presented by Morgan in Images of Organization and highlight how they JMI_72ppiRGB_powerpointsimultaneously act as “relatively static reflections” (i.e., they provide a history of organization theory) and “relatively dynamic projections” (i.e., stimulating the formulation of further organizational images). We also discuss the potential for new organizational metaphors and consider two specific metaphors (i.e., the “global brain” and “organization as media”). We also challenge the established punctuated metaphorical process (i.e., a transfer from a metaphorical source domain to an organizational target domain), propose a dynamic perspective of interchange (i.e., source domain to target domain to source domain and so on), and develop the notion of multidirectionality (i.e., two-way projections between target and source domains).

You can read “Re-Imagining Images of Organization: A Conversation With Gareth Morgan” from Journal of Management Inquiry for free by clicking here. Want to know about all the latest news, research, and interviews like this from Journal of Management Inquiry? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!